This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. The result of the debate was
Images for use in the main body of an article may not be deliberately recolored.
The subject of an image can be isolated and placed on a neutral background.
Comic speech bubbles may be blanked or completely removed. This remains optional.
Fan-created logos may be used provided they are drawn from a canonical source.
As per Aayla Secura, just how far should the policy of "No fanon" in images extend? I propose several policies. Obviously, this will not contradict the previous consensus of infobox images are to be selected by whatever looks best and the simple policies of resizing, cropping, brightening/darkening remain in place. Also, as per Boba Fett, the image has to from an official source. This vote is for how far do we allow those official images to be modified so they don't look awkward in the article. This is all assumes that the changes made are done well and look like whatever elements have been changed, don't look like it's been changed from something else.
If image is determined to have a distracting background, only then can it be placed on neutral colored backgroundEdit
Images can be cut from stylized geometric backgrounds (as are often used in magazines), but not canonical backgroundsEdit
Support. I hope you don't mind me adding this option. I don't mind people cutting out funky lines that were only in a magazine for aesthetic purposes, but they shouldn't be removing canon backgrounds. jSarek 23:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Cull Tremayne 23:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC) If the bubbles can't be removed. This is the best. However, only if the whole text is inside. If half of it is cut off, then might as well blank it. Seriously, it's a different decision for each situation. There doesn't need to be a policy on this! This is ridiculous. Cull Tremayne 23:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Fan-Created provided it's from an accurate sourceEdit
I think if there are any major problems, they'd be dealt with on a case-by-case basis anyway. A lot of times there is pretty much only one interpretation of the description of a symbol but no officially sanctioned image. For instance squadron logos. Wildyoda 23:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering Wildyoda 23:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The blanking out comic bubbles has been voted on multiple times before. That part of this vote is pointless, because it has been decided unless the text is relevent and necessary for the image to work, it should be removed. For others, yes, remove the background if it is distracting...but don't you dare change any colors or make any actual alterations besides adjustments to blur (when scanning comics), etc. If you do, then it would be fanon. —Xwing328(Talk) 23:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I don't find any of the bubble options listed completely satisfactory. As Xwing said, we came to somewhat of a consensus on this recently. If the text relevant, keep it. If it's partially cropped or useless out of context, remove it. -- Ozzel 03:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
My stance is that we shouldn't be using fan-modified images at all. Now, I hope it's clear among everyone that these are fan-edited images; anything added to or removed from an image by someone other than an official source is fan-editing. Now, to be honest, I'm fairly ambivilent towards using cleaned-up images in and of themselves, but, if we make it a general rule to "create" the best possible image, we'll only be propogating the use of fanon images, and the 'net is already full of unsourced, modified images from Force-knows-where. If we start using edited images and pass them off as canon, we'll be doing a disservice to the fan community, IMO. Bottom line: we shouldn't be spreading images that are not canon - \\Captain Kwenn//— Ahoy! 11:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to clarify something. Removing a busy and distracting background from an image and giving it a simple solid colored backdrop while leaving the main subject unaltered does not make the image fanon. If you remove the background and replace it with another different background, that would be fanon. Otherwise, I agree with you. - JMAS 14:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
What about instances like the Krynda Draay main image? The subject itself has been clearly modified, although Redemption doesn't see it that way - \\Captain Kwenn//— Ahoy! 15:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Technically, I did not add anything into the image. Simply flipped her right side to her left so it was symmetrical...and the fact that it went unnoticed since October and it took me to actually say it was modified in someway, says alot about the illusion. --RedemptionTalk 18:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
And that's exactly my point. Fanon being passed off as canon. We shouldn't be letting it continue - \\Captain Kwenn//— Ahoy! 18:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Considering the current standings and the fact that you've made that point before, it is moot. --RedemptionTalk 18:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not moot, because it's a valid opinion. Why exactly are we passing fanon off as canon? We don't do it with text, so why images? - \\Captain Kwenn//— Ahoy! 19:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
And that sir is why you will never understand. --RedemptionTalk 19:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Assume I'm not taking offense to your patronizing tone, and please explain it to me, then. I've offered my POV, whereas you've just blankly rejected it without giving any good reason why it's fine to distribute edited images - \\Captain Kwenn//— Ahoy! 21:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I assume nothing. It's fine since the subject is not being edited. Krynda Draays dress is not the subject. And it's not like it's being edited so it has a weird pattern or some "creative flair" to it. Not once have I uploaded an image where the subject was altered to look different. It's always been simply color alterations (Jolees lightsaber), removal of backgrounds (Brianna) or bubble removal (Krynda, Arvan). We're staying within canon. The fact that it was a fan and not an official of Lucasfilms, Arts or DarkHorse did is the only thing that would place it outside continutiy - in which every single freakin edit to an image that is possible (no matter how small) would be a fan edit and thus fanon. --RedemptionTalk 21:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Which is why I've voted against such a thing - \\Captain Kwenn//— Ahoy! 22:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Which means your voting aganist high quality images. The way we fix the images would be considered fan edits. If we went by your standards, we'd have some ugly ass articles. --RedemptionTalk 22:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that the Krynda Draay picture has been "modified" past the point of any canonicity. Take this picture for starting - . How do you know her dress is symmetrical and nothing is hidden under the text bubble, such as a rank insignia or a wine stain or anything else for that matter? Who knows...but now we have this because of that - . Sure, if the background is solid green (or blue, etc.) remove the bubble, like the upper left bubble was removed. Otherwise, just blank out the text since we KNOW it should be a white (in most cases) speech bubble. However, adding a viewer's interpretation of the art beneath the bubble should not be considered acceptable. Either way though, whether a bubble is blanked or removed altogether and replaced with a fan's interpretation of the proper subject matter, it should be noted as such. —Xwing328(Talk) 22:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
"Which means your voting aganist high quality images. The way we fix the images would be considered fan edits. If we went by your standards, we'd have some ugly ass articles". Then "ugly ass" articles we should have. Need I point out they're not even our images to edit in the first place; they're only really allowed to be shown here to demonstrate an element of the text. We should take what is given, not try and "perfect" images just because there's something about them we don't like - \\Captain Kwenn//— Ahoy! 22:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
And that is why we are in this mess. Because you clearly have very low standards while I have higher standards. If you want to go on a little crusade and butcher the images, go on right ahead and see how far you get before realizing that the work done is only helping. --RedemptionTalk 22:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
So, all images found in any official product are low quality, then? We take the images as they are presented in official sources. How can that possibly be misconstrued butchering? - \\Captain Kwenn//— Ahoy! 22:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Not all...but a good majority of images are in poor quality. The ones that aren't found on the official site however, are in poor quality and we have to fix them up. Your the kind of person who never takes his car to be washed to put it lightly. The point of fixing up images and removing bubbles is not to establish our own form of continuity. It's simply to remove any distracting elements of an image. --RedemptionTalk 22:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, I think it's a bit much to state every image not found on the Official Site is poor quality. So, panels from Dark Times, KotOR, Legacy, Rebellion etc are all far too low quality to be used here, then? That sounds a little...well, arrogant, actually. And why should we be removing "distracting" elements? As long as the subject is prominent enough in the image, it should be used as is. If not, then it's not worth adding - \\Captain Kwenn//— Ahoy! 22:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Why should we do ANYTHING then? Why should we waste our time contributing to this damn wiki. Why should we bother spend so much time and effort into it? Why? Because we can. If we can make an image better without distracting elements then we should. "Worth" is a factor for time. You may see it as a waste of time while I have plenty of time to put into images. It's always worth getting an image to near perfection. --RedemptionTalk 23:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's a little example of what I think. Note that the only thing I'm complaining about is adding to a picture, not taking away content. What I really think we need is just a compromise between the two. —Xwing328(Talk) 23:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, there are strong opinions on this matter, but it's not worth the time of exchanging insults and belittlement. I think we can discuss our ideas and differences without being rude. If you're going to just argue the same points over and over, please take it to each other's talk pages. Let's keep civility and have no persona l attacks in mind. Atarumaster88(Audience Chamber) 23:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The advantage of the compromise shown above is that almost any user can do it. It takes very little time at all. The more talented users could go so far as to remove the top bubble too. But I feel we should take the middle ground and draw the line there, not going for one extreme or the other. —Xwing328(Talk)
Out of those examples, I'd prefer option 1, but option 4 is the best compromise, so I'd rather have that than something like 2 or 3. They alter the image a little too much - \\Captain Kwenn//— Ahoy! 10:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)