Proposed changes

I would like to propose a few changes—or additions—to the image policy. As I've mentioned elsewhere, this is not my home wiki, and there are a few policies over there that I feel could benefit this wiki. Baker Street Wiki aims to be the best encyclopaedia of anything Sherlock Holmes related, and there are a few changes that I think could help facilitate that.

To begin, I would like to propose an addition to the policy image that means images must be used on articles, not just on the wiki. This means that images cannot be uploaded for use on userpages or in sandboxes—they must be on articles. I'm not sure of the fanon/fanfiction policy of this wiki, but this restriction would not affect those pages—fanon pages are still content pages. But, that's only if they exist on this wiki ^^"

I also think that the sourcing/licensing of images should be a little more specific. If they are a screenshot, it should say that they are a screenshot. If it is a promotional image (as is the one on the Mrs. Hudson (Stubbs) page, it should say so.

What is the purpose of galleries? As there is a badge for adding images, I feel as though removing galleries would help prevent potential badge-editing of other users; people who edit only to get badges. Galleries really are quiet messy when you think about it; it would be better if the image can fit on the page, as opposed to tacking it on to the end.

One final thing is the image formatting; .png images are higher quality due to the lossless nature of the data when they are compressed to a correct size. On canon articles, I think this should be standard.

Thoughts, comments, questions, queries? Fruipit (talkcontribseditcount) 10:23, April 28, 2014 (UTC)

I think a policy about restricting images to those used in content pages would be good, although provisions should be made for userboxes. The galleries can provide a nice way to view multiple different images of a character or actor, and although not strictly necessary, I see no good reason to remove the ones we have. They may be abused by badge-farmers, but then it is best to ask the editor to stop making unproductive edits. ~Obi (Talk) 15:48, May 1, 2014 (UTC)

Personally I don't see any harm in letting people upload two or three images just for use on their profile page, but maybe there's something I'm missing? Is there any reason we'd only want images to be uploaded if they're used on content pages? When it comes to fanon/fanfiction we don't include that in our content pages but I've nothing against people making blogs or forum posts about it and including fanart in those posts. If the majority disagree with me then I don't mind this being changed of course.
I think galleries can have their place - I think we just need to keep an eye on them so they're not misused.
I've nothing against us being more specific about sourcing/licensing in theory but given that we already have a small user base (although it does seem to be growing) I'd worry that us being any stricter with things like this might put off users from editing here.
As to using png format as standard I think that perhaps it's something that we could suggest people do, but again I'd worry about us being too strict with rules and putting off editors. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 20:39, May 1, 2014 (UTC)
To me, the point of limiting the number of images is to ensure that more text is added. While images are good, I feel as though text is really what we're aiming for—wikia is a personalised encyclopaedia, imo. The images in userboxes, I think, should already be in use on the wiki. Is it necessary to have a userbox stating that someone hails from a particular country, for instance?
I'll address galleries again in a moment, but basically my argument rests with the fact that, unless we have the information to back up and justify the images, they aren't really needed.
I don't see how it would put off editors, honestly. There are already parameters they have to add, and I don't think that a few more will make much of a difference. The new parameters would be something along the lines of 'description', 'series', 'season', 'episode' and whether it falls under fair use (which is standard). I can try to create a template for it to make it easier, if you want? That way, we can also categorise them based on the characters in the shot, the show/film they are from, and the episode. That makes galleries more or less redundant, as a user can just go into the [[Category:John Watson (Freeman) images]] and look at all the images we have.
It is not that difficult to go through and change them. I suppose an extension of that proposal is to, with the TV adaptations at least, have a standard size format (444x250px, or something to that extent). Fruipit (talkcontribseditcount) 23:34, May 1, 2014 (UTC)
As another note (I just thought of it while perusing the gallery on the Sherlock portal page), but I think that we need to have a rule that states that images with a logo are not to be uploaded. It's kind of obvious why. Fruipit (talkcontribseditcount) 06:08, May 14, 2014 (UTC)
And another one. I wish people would actually respond to this. Anyway, according to Wikia's ToU, everythingneeds to have the proper attribution. This means that images need to have, not just licenses, but sources too. Fruipit (talkcontribseditcount) 12:54, May 22, 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how it would put off editors, honestly.
Wikis with lots of rules put me off from editing, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. In fact, wikias advice when it comes to growth of a wiki and policies is to not have too many.
When it comes to giving more info in order to comply with fair use I think it's everyone's individual responsibility to conform to that as they think is best. We require people to choose an option from the drop down box when uploading, and to choose a category - which helps us with organisation of images. But it's not our job to police the ToU and ensure that people stick to it - that's wikia staff's job. It wouldn't be the admins of this wiki or this wiki as a whole that suffered in the case of a violation of fair use - it would be the person who uploaded the image/wikia. I've had this happen on another wiki I'm a part of and all we had to do was remove the images in dispute (paparazzi images of a type unlikely to be uploaded here).
When it comes to image quality, I don't want us to restrict people's choice of what type of images to upload. Personally I don't notice the difference in quality.
As to images being used on non-content pages, again, I can't see the harm. But perhaps we could institute a rule for no fanart anywhere and restrict images on profiles to 2/3? --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 22:30, May 22, 2014 (UTC)
Well, I've sort of changed my stance on that. It does need a source, and that's not very hard to get. It's a URL. If a user forgets to add it, we just ask them for it. As with that Carl Powers image I brought up to you, there's no way to verify that it is indeed Carl Powers. I've no idea where that image came from. Same with the recent Peter Werner page. The image linked is of the completely wrong person, and yet it was uploaded. Adding a source is no difficulty. Plus, I'm planning on going through and sorting through the images in order to facilitate navigation..
It takes no time at all for the image to be downloaded and re-uploaded as a higher-quality png. The images that are too large would be resized, and in jpg format they lose a lot of date (it would) be noticable. And the images are only resized in order to maintain consistency across the board (HD screenshots, for instance, resize to 444x250px quite nicely) and save space.
Well, if we are allowing people to upload images just for their userpage, they might want to use a picture they've drawn. To me, having one and not the other is inconsistent. Why do they need a picture on their userpage? They can hotlink from an outside source, and we have a number of images already on the wiki that they can choose from. To me, it just looks messy :/ Fruipit (talkcontribseditcount) 22:39, May 22, 2014 (UTC)
I don't really have a problem with images used for things other than articles, just so long as it doesn't get out of hand. I picture here and there used for a userpage or signature isn't really hurting anything, IMO.
I agree with what Obi and AO say about all the rest of the propositions.
BTW, sorry I didn't reply to this earlier - somehow I missed it in WikiActivity. —Nxtstep101 (talk) 14:18, May 23, 2014 (UTC)
I would like to limit it, but I guess that, as long as it has the source, it isn't a huge deal. I'm pretty uh... adamant about implementing a 'source' section. Also the png formatting for new images (as I said about, no one has been uploading them anyway, and it's not hard to convert). It's just that with the lossless data rate of pngs, if they are resized to fit the wiki, they don't lose any quality. Fruipit (talkcontribseditcount) 14:39, May 23, 2014 (UTC)
Well, since atm you're the only one who is adamant about those things, you'll need more support if the policy is to be changed to include them. You can do things that way if you want. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 14:56, May 23, 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, just to clarify. You can upload png's if you want, and add a source section for images but everyone else isn't compelled to do so. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 14:59, May 23, 2014 (UTC)
And I will be. Also, if I come across an image with a logo, that will be reuploaded too, as it's a form of copyright infringement, I believe. Also, it looks bad :/ We need sources. We can't have an image up and not be able to prove that we didn't steal someone else's work. Without having a source, it's taking someone else's work and by omission, claiming it as our own. The other side to that is that if we can't prove where the image came, we can't prove that the image is in fact who or what we're actually talking about. Take the Carl Powers image. How do we know that is Carl Powers I don't recognise the image at all. Where did it come from? Is it from a canon Carl Powers that I don't know about? Fruipit (talkcontribseditcount) 02:32, May 24, 2014 (UTC)
Regarding that Carl Powers image, if memory serves me right, it was shown in The Great Game. Try rewatching it and see for yourself. --Sherrinford (talk) 03:01, May 24, 2014 (UTC)
Aye, that's fairly likely. I made that point just to show why we need sources. We need source in articles to show where we got some information from; why should images be any different? Even if the uploader just says 'The Great Game', it gives enough information for whoever notices to fix it up (which only requires the {{Cite Sherlock2010}} template). Fruipit (talkcontribseditcount) 03:42, May 24, 2014 (UTC)

[Reset indent] One other thing I want to note—can we restrict the use of galleries? I would rather focus on the content of an article than the pictures. Almost all of the Elementary episode pages have galleries, but most don't even have a plot. If we limit image uploads to only reflect the amount of content we have on a page, we might get things written up. Fruipit (talkcontribseditcount) 00:54, June 12, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a majority of the Elementary articles are in need of a complete plot, and I would gladly help write them, but I don't watch Elementary. I do not think we should limit the number of images based on the amount of content on a page - it seems rather redundant. IIRC both you and Sherrinford watch Elementary, so why don't you guys start writing up the plots of the episodes? --Nxtstep101 (talk) 01:22, June 12, 2014 (UTC)
I've only seen it once, and I have no intention of watching season two or, unless I have to, rewatching season one. I just don't like it, and would rather spend my efforts in writing and fixing up the Sherlock articles. I just don't think that, if a page as a section stub that should actually contain a significant amount of content, we should be spending our time adding images that we can't actually explain because there's no context, because there's no information. As it seems like users only add certain images to get the badge, this might just encourage them to add other content, too. Why do we need an image of blue screens? What does that even show? Fruipit (talkcontribseditcount) 01:28, June 12, 2014 (UTC)
Actually, now that you put it that way, it makes a whole lot more sense. I think we should definitely encourage users to expand upon the information before adding a large amount of new images. As for the blue screens, I'm really not sure what they are depicting since that scene is from Elementary, which I already said I haven't watched. :P --Nxtstep101 (talk) 01:55, June 12, 2014 (UTC)
I think that episode is in season 2, and I haven't watched that either—but that's my point. There's no context to go with it. I really want more content on pages, and if people want to add images, then by all means, they can add them—they just have to add written content, too :P Fruipit (talkcontribseditcount) 01:56, June 12, 2014 (UTC)


Following on from Fruipit and Nxtstep101's discussion above I though starting a new section for this proposal might be a good idea.

I like the idea of limiting the number of images in an article based on how long the article is. At the moment in the policy is a line that reads:

*Try not to add multiples of the same or very similar images - images should complement articles, not overwhelm them.

I suggest that we change this to:

*Try not to add multiples of the same or very similar images.
*Images should complement and be used to illustrate articles, not overwhelm them. On very short articles there is no need for more than one image. Short articles should have their text expanded upon before extra images are added.

What does everyone think? Good idea? --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 20:47, June 12, 2014 (UTC)

It looks good to me! --Nxtstep101 (talk) 21:29, June 12, 2014 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. --Sherrinford (talk) 00:52, June 20, 2014 (UTC)
Yep, I'm in agreement. I like the open-wording, too—there is a bit of discretion that can be used, and.... yeah heh. I support. But I want to know—how does this affect the use of galleries on articles? Is it just going to be 'short articles have no need to contain galleries'. Fruipit (talkcontribseditcount) 23:59, June 12, 2014 (UTC)
As there has been no opposition to AO's proposed wording-change, I'm going to add it to the policy. My question regarding galleries still stands, however, and I would also like to propose a change to the pages where we remove the silhouette images and 'picture needed' category. That occurs on many of the canon pages in particular, and I don't think we really need a fake image and a category just to say we don't have an image, you know? Fruipit (talkcontribseditcount) 23:59, June 19, 2014 (UTC)
I think AO should be the one to add the proposed policies. Canon images can be found. I have already uploaded some, I just can't do it atm but I'll finish someday. I think it's fine to leave it now as it is. --Sherrinford (talk) 00:13, June 20, 2014 (UTC)
Why should AO be the only one who can add the policies that have not been opposed? Yes, they can be found, however I think it adds pointless edits and working towards badges that frankly isn't needed. How constructive is adding those? Not very, in the grand scheme of everything else that could be done—like adding content. Fruipit (talkcontribseditcount) 00:16, June 20, 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't that how it works? When a policy has been agreed upon by the community, it is up to an admin to add it. I know even Wikia Staffs avoid doing it themselves. The "Picture Needed" category serves as a reminder for active contributors that an image is needed while the silhouette can serve as a guide for casual contributors that they may provide an image for the article. --Sherrinford (talk) 00:52, June 20, 2014 (UTC)

[Indent] Wikia Staff don't do anything on the individual wikias unless something requires their attention. It's up to the community to decide how it works, and I see no issue in doing something that hasn't yet been done when there's no opposition to it. We have only 800 pages on this wiki. Having a category isn't really needed. The image definitely isn't needed. All it does is lets people work towards a badge without actually contributing anything, something that this wiki seems to detest a lot. Fruipit (talkcontribseditcount) 00:57, June 20, 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to particularly mention galleries in the policy - it's implied that they aren't needed on short articles as that would be adding more than one image.
I'm in favour of removing the "image needed" category if the majority agrees, it was carried over when we merged with the Sherlock Holmes Wiki ages ago and I never gave much thought to whether or not we should carry on using it. As to the silhouettes I think it looks so much better to have them on an article that has no other image available - they're there simply from an aesthetic point of view - or at least that's why I first introduced them. I think an infobox without an image looks really empty. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 14:09, June 20, 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and I've nothing against normal users adding to policy pages - as long as the change and specific wording has been approved by the community and plenty of time has been given for people to leave their opinions. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 14:10, June 20, 2014 (UTC)
Do we remove the ones already added, then, or just leave them? And does this mean that, in the future, if someone uploads a gallery on a page desperately needing other information, we can remove it based on this policy? I just like knowing where I stand ^^"
I think we should remove it, for reasons stated above. And I... I think we should remove the silhouettes for three reasons. The first is aesthetics on my part—I think that a black silhouette on a white background is ugly, especially when considering the theme of this wiki. I would rather no image at all. The second is that is doesn't improve the wiki at all, and yet goes towards a badge—one reason I was asked to stop using the AWB. The third is that without any image at all, it encourages people to upload a proper one because, well, I bet a few other people don't like an infobox without an image in it, too ^^"
And oh good. Well, a week is long enough, yes? Fruipit (talkcontribseditcount) 14:16, June 20, 2014 (UTC)
I disagree in removing the "Picture needed" category. As I've stated above, it makes it easier to find the articles that are wanting image. Is the category detrimental to the wiki? No, it's not, at least, in my humble opinion. --Sherrinford (talk) 01:35, June 21, 2014 (UTC)
Well, if we keep the image, we could just have the bot go through and change them all to the same file, and use the 'what links here' special function. Either way, if we keep the image, I think it should be the same across all the pages just for ease. I don't think we need the category; it's useless when the are other ways that mean someone can't edit for badges. I'm only brining that up because this community seems intent on having badge-earning be fair. No, it's not necessarily detriments, however that also doesn't make it useful. It's about as useful as the 'deceased' category, imo. Fruipit (talkcontribseditcount) 02:25, June 21, 2014 (UTC)
The "Picture needed" category is for site maintenance. To remind us to improve the wiki. The "Deceased" category, well I don't know the reasoning why that was even implemented that's why it's deleted now. --Sherrinford (talk) 07:11, June 21, 2014 (UTC)
The "Picture needed" category should only be used on pages where it is actually possible to get an image. If the character is only mentioned and never shown, then putting the "Picture needed" category would be extremely redundant.
As for the placeholder file, I'm fine with it remaining, but if we are going to change it over to just one image I do agree that the bot should be the one to change it. --Nxtstep101 (talk) 16:21, June 21, 2014 (UTC)
Okay, how about this; there is one image to add to pages that could have images added to it. Things like this cannot have images added to it, and thus shouldn't use the category or the silhouette. We get the bot to change it all to the one silhouette, and if there's any way to include the category with the file, I think we should do that, too, so it's automatically added along with the image. Fruipit (talkcontribseditcount) 02:26, June 22, 2014 (UTC)
I have a better suggestion. Every person articles without an image should have a silhouette. Let's just vote what silhouette to use. I agree with Nxt that the bot should be the one to make all the silhouette uniform across the wiki. The "Picture needed" category must remain, however, because it is for site maintenance as I've previously stated. --Sherrinford (talk) 04:09, June 22, 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how that is better; in the case of that 'Karen' edit you made, there is no way to get a picture, and thus there shouldn't be a silhouette or a category. Ofc the bot should make it, as I said above. We learnt that lesson when fixing the infobox templates. And there's no 'must'; it's about what the community deems best. At the moment, it's in that favour, but there still is no inherent need or right to anything. As said above, why do something that leads to badges with little to no other help on the wiki? We have the 'what links here' page to check for those images. As another note, not all pages have images on them because they can't (see 'Karen' issue) or aren't people-pages. How are we to add the silhouette for those? It's inconsistent to have images and categories on some of the pages, but not all, and it, again, encourages actual information to be added—Sherrinford, you've already stated that you can upload canon images, but instead, by adding the 'Picture needed' cat and silhouette, you're cheating the system to go towards category/image badges, and then you can upload canon images. That's not fair to other people—the argument used to stop me from using the AWB. Fruipit (talkcontribseditcount) 04:16, June 22, 2014 (UTC)
Karen deserves to have a silhouette image since silhouette usually portrays someone unseen. What she does not need to have is a "Picture needed" category because an image cannot be possibly provided. I said I can find it but not now. You have to remind yourself, as I've been reminded by AO, this is just a hobby and not a job. When I find time in my schedule, I will put the canon images up. Also, I' not using a PC, just a tablet so it's difficult to put images up. --Sherrinford (talk) 04:28, June 22, 2014 (UTC)

[Indent] But in this case, it's portraying someone whom we will give an actual picture at some point. That's not the case for her image. The file and category go hand-in-hand. You've found the time to add galleries to pages, but not actual, needed photos? This system is too easy to take advantage of, for little to no return for the actual wiki. Again, we should be focussing more on content than pictures, but that hasn't happened. Fruipit (talkcontribseditcount) 04:33, June 22, 2014 (UTC)

Silhouette image and "image needed" category

Given that the discussion above has got very long and it was originally started to discuss something else I'm restarting this discussion under a new heading to make things easier to follow.

After giving it some thought I'd like to suggest that we get rid of the "image needed" category. It's not vital to the running of the wiki and is too easy to abuse for badges.

I'd also like to suggest that the silhouette image is only used on pages where we are certain that no other image is ever going to be available - i.e. for characters who are mentioned but never appear. That way it will encourage people to add images to infoboxes that have none, but we can have an image in an infobox where no image is ever going to be - because I still think that the silhouette image looks much better than an empty infobox.

Personally I think a different image for men and women looks better but if everyone would rather have one that's okay with me. Perhaps we could get rid of the different silhouettes for canon and adaptations and simply use the old fashioned looking silhouettes for both men and women? We could also change the silhouette a little so that it is a black figure on a transparent background so that it will fit in better with the look of the wiki. --Amateur Obsessive (talk) 15:08, July 8, 2014 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.