| abstract
| - 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? 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). 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. 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. 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 :/ 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. 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? 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). 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. 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? 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 01:56, June 12, 2014 (UTC)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)