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. Lost Labyrinth .svg){kind=small}
• (c) • (b) 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)