Forum:Adding potentially non-canon images to articles

Two users on The Sims Wiki have engaged in an edit war regarding the addition of certain images to canon articles on the wiki. This thread is intended to settle the underlying issue in the disagreement between these two users. No "punishments" will be issued to either user for actions that have already taken place; this discussion should be as open and non-hostile as possible.

Mate1234 uploaded several images to the wiki and added them to Darleen Dreamer, Skip Broke and Michael Bachelor. Random Ranaun removed the images on the ground that they appeared to be fanon images, not canon. Mate and RR went back and forth afterwards, adding and removing the images.

This thread is intended to hear both users opinions, and to reach a mutually-acceptable solution, or else to build a community consensus towards a solution to this issue.

I encourage Mate1234 and Random Ranaun to weigh in with their sides of this issue. -  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 22:02, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
Generally, I don't support non-canon images being added to the articles for deceased Sims. However, if it's an image of the Sim after actually being resurrected and not just remade by the player then I think it's okay. For this case specifically, I don't know how I feel. In 2 out of 3 of the photos the Sims aren't facing the camera so it's difficult to tell who they are anyway. -- Bleeh (talk) (blog) 23:20, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

Initially I hadn't followed this issue extensively and in fact I abstained from any involvement when RR bought it up to me on IRC on the basis of this being a personal issue that really wasn't worth the time or effort to deal with. Having now looked over all of this I have to say that I'm quite disappointed that something like this has come far enough to warrant this thread when it could have been dealt with easily via other means.

As for the images in question, it's hard to judge whether they're legitimate or not, per what Bleeh said above. I could personally go for less Gaussian blur as that obstructs the image anyway (and a possible violation of the Image and file policy/Manual of Style but that's debatable). The images are licensed as fanon images though I'll give Mate1234 the benefit of the doubt in thinking that they were meant to be licensed as canon screenshots.

The images themselves aren't on a "life or death" level of necessity but keeping them around doesn't hurt either, so on the condition all the blur and colour saturation is removed I'm okay with them staying. I'll again give Mate1234 the benefit of the doubt that his initial edits to add the images to the wiki were only made with good intentions and that this was somewhat of a misunderstanding on RR's part. I'm interested in the viewpoints of both of the involved parties in this issue so we can try to reach an agreement. 00:15, July 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * I had no problem with the images. They reminded me of the files added by TheXmas. TheXmas added several "non-canon" images but these files have managed to stay on the wiki for well over three years now. Some of his images were even featured media. In all honesty, I don't see the difference between the two users and the images they added. I told Mate he could add them because I did really like them. However, I'm not going to vehemently argue for the images to stay simply because it's not worth arguing about. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 00:33, July 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't disagree with that, Auror. I like them too. However, there's a real difference between TheXmas' and Mate's images. Mate couldn't follow TheXmas' style of making such image. He did it poorly, which is why I don't like his images. Examples of TheXmas' images are here: 1, 2, 3. Most of his images are random, bad-angled, and poorly blurred. Mate is kind of a person who persists his own edit and will keep his edits if it's changed, so I'd say a discussion like this is vital.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  02:53, July 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed the images for a number of reasons. One of them, as LiR said before, was that the images appeared to be very fanon-like. There was no consistency, the angles were all over the place instead of being head-on, and the Sims were shown doing something completely unremarkable and unrelated to their character, unlike TheXmas' images. Secondly, the quality of the images wasn't great. I agree with what Nikel stated above. The images look like half-finished Photoshop experiments, to be quite honest, not to mention the awkward angles and positioning of the Sims. I also found the images to be very unnecessary. Each of the Sims featured in the images Mate uploaded already have headshots and various storytelling images if we want to show their full appearances, uploading anything more when the desired effect can be easily achieved with current images feels like overkill. I'll accept whatever the community decides on this matter, but my opinion is that the images in question aren't really worth keeping. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me! ) 04:14, July 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * Random Ranaun says that they are unneeded and that they are fanon. However, I have licensed them as Sim from TS2 because they are supposed to be that. However, TheXmas licensed them as fanon and posted them on canon article, and they were never removed. Then  Nikel  said that I did it poorly. For some images, that´s true because I have no idea which tool TheXmas used for his images.
 * Only thing I wanted to do is improve the articles the best I can, and all users are supposed to do so. And only Maxis made Sims are on those images, so I will say that they are not full fanon. Mate1234 (talk) 06:44, July 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm, to be honest I don't like Mate1234's pictures for reasons said above me. However, fan made canon images are apparently accepted. So in that case I would suggest this: tell Mate1234 the guidelines he needs to follow to create and add fan canon images (e.g. set TheXmas ones as example). And Mate1234 (and others) simple needs to follow these.  Tiezel     (talk)     curious?   12:54, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * I will have to take a moderate position: Fanon images of canon sims shouldn't be prohibited from canon articles, although I shall take a bit of RR's argument that quality should matter. I don't know what quality Mate's image was, but I generally will favor most of the non-canon images, although I may find the photoshop elements a bit doubtful. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES  (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 18:13, July 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES  is right. They shouldn't be prohibited. And SOME  of those images are very bad because they're first I made. I'd like to create images of better quality, at least those of deceased Sims. Mate1234 (talk) 18:47, July 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * Fanon images may not have to be prohibited, but that doesn't mean they're really needed. As I said before, for the Sims in the images Mate uploaded, we already have headshots, storytelling photos, and other canon images that already show their in-game appearances. We should always use canon images over non-canon when given the chance, in my opinion. Also, Mate, you keep defending the images, but you're not backing up your arguments with any real facts. Why do you think your images are necessary? —Random Ranaun (Talk to me! ) 19:41, July 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * Because I´m trying to improve the articles the best I can. Mate1234 (talk) 19:47, July 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * Why do you think your images are essential to improving the articles when we already have canon images that can serve the same purpose? —Random Ranaun (Talk to me! ) 19:55, July 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * And TheXmas posted images with same purpose as I did, but you didn´t delete them. They survived for 4 years, never removed, nobody never said that they should be deleted! Mate1234 (talk) 20:01, July 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * You didn't answer my question. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me! ) 20:10, July 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * Because all users are supposed to improve the articles the best they can. Now you answer mine: How did TheXmas´ images survived for 4 years? Mate1234 (talk) 20:13, July 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * That's the same argument you've given throughout this whole thread with no facts to back it up. I'll ask you again, why do you think your images are essential to improving the articles when we already have canon images that can serve the same purpose? —Random Ranaun (Talk to me! ) 20:22, July 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * More images will give the better look to the article. Nobody likes only text with no images, including me and, probably you. Now you answer my question, please: How did TheXmas´ images survived for 4 years? Mate1234 (talk) 20:25, July 12, 2013 (UTC)