Narutopedia talk:Image policy

Anime/Manga Colored
I don't see anything in here about keeping colored manga scans over anime screenshots... I think that it might be a good idea to add that. - S im A nt 17:18, April 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that the standard was, we use colored manga images until the anime catches up to it, then we use the anime image. If that is to change then I'd think it'd be a nice discussion.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 20:15, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * I just feel that both being colored, and both being still frames, the better choice is the original source if they are both in color, if its unavailable in color then anime is appropriate unless their are serious artistic mistakes (such as with File:Founding Uchiha.png). - S im A nt 20:48, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with SimAnt. --ShounenSuki (talk 20:58, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Amendment: Anime/Manga Colored
Because I expect and edit war in the wake of Konan's page, I feel it's high time we sit down and talk about this. Now I don't want to begin unneedingly wordy, but the current policy states that if an image is colored in the manga, it be used over the anime. That's fine and dandy, but also unnecessary if the image doesn't have a real noticeable difference. Using the Konan as an example, the only difference is the color of their eyes, that's not a real importance difference, as her eyes have never been a plot point or anything major like that.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 15:40, September 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with ShounenSuki to an extent, but eye color discrepancy isn't something I notice unless pointed out to me. Therefore, it's not one of my top priorities. ~SnapperTo 16:27, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say we need to discuss this heavily, mainly because Konan's page is the third time there have been disputes about choosing coloured manga instead of anime. To be honest i believe that we should make it so that anime images are always used when possible, seeing how it would keep a curtain level of consistency. Could we perhaps get an idea about the community's opinion by using some sort of vote? --Gojita (talk) 16:50, September 29, 2010 (UTC)Gojita


 * Isn't that the point of "If an anime image poorly represents a scene"? Edit: Never-mind that, read wrong part of policy... But what is wrong with going with accuracy over consistency? S im A nt 19:08, September 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly what SimAnt said. To be honest the colored manga images are a perfect depiction of the mangaka's own work and not the interpretation that the animators decide on. So why not use their own art work when possible? --Cerez365 (talk) 19:14, September 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all: It is a rarity to get good quality coloured images from Kishimoto. Second of all, when we edit many of theese images to remove unnesecary parts of it, they tend to ruin the flow(An amendment) of the pages. Seeing the size and form of the Shikamaru Part II image added by ShounenSuki, it sorta tilts the entire page when you look at it compared to the many other smaller images that also fits better with the written text and headlines withouth us having to use  . We have had this discussion before when ShounenSuki added the coloured manga image of Jiraiya in the infobox and it was mainly decided to use an anime image, mainly due to the size, but i also think it have something do with the how it was coloured compared to the anime. And yes i know that Kishimoto might not have much to say when they do the anime, but nontheless seeing how most users on this wikia is quick to change the manga images to anime images as soon as possible, i don't see the reason why a coloured manga image is used by default! --Gojita (talk) 19:34, September 29, 2010 (UTC)Gojita


 * Kishimoto's version is accurate. For some reason (correct me if I'm wrong) I thought the goal of an encyclopedia was to accurately document a subject. Just because something is not in a standard television/computer ratio, doesn't make it bad or inaccurate. The only reason that I am aware of that the manga images were not kept in the infobox, is that the infobox was designed for quick access to statistics/information about a subject, and a wide image works better for how the information is displayed. S im A nt 19:55, September 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * You do realize that you reasoning might as well mean the change of every single anime image on this wikia back to a manga image. The way things have been done for years on this wikia as i see it, is that most users prefer the anime images instead of any coloured manga image. The only reason why this have changed as of late is because of ShounenSuki's almoust (sorry for elaborating it like this, but still) fanatic obsession of using the coloured manga images when possible that has somehow been shared by a few other users, while the majority of this wikia still adds anime images when they finally appear. I can image this problem will arise with the five kages and their aids that we currently have coloured manga images of, but i believe that many users will try to upload the anime versions instead, no matter what four of five users might think. My reasoning here is that the majority of the users disagree with the purpose of accurately when it comes to theese images. Also i would like to add the reasoning of some of our major contributors during the discussion of the Jiraiya Image:
 * (TheUltimate3)"I see a sudden (and to me unnecessary) massive change of everyone's infobox turning into manga images at the end of this discussion. That being said, I see absolutely nothing wrong with the image we already have"
 * (AlienGAmer)"the anime IS done by permission from the author. I doubt MK will authorize something he disapproves. And Manga imapges have a very limited colour depth, where as in the Anime, u'r not held back by those limitations"
 * Althought i think that TheUltimate3 have turned neutral since then, his point is still valid. --Gojita (talk) 20:14, September 29, 2010 (UTC)Gojita

Color depth doesn't mean anything if it's not the original source, also this isn't about what MK authorizes, this is about using the original source when the secondary source screws up. S im A nt 20:25, September 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Which they rarely do, and even so we seem to be able to work our way around(Naruto's six and eight tailed forms in the anime). Also my main point(i will try to shorten my reasoning) was that most contributors on this wikia will always choose anime images over anyting else. And it also done alike on many other wikias. --Gojita (talk) 20:30, September 29, 2010 (UTC)Gojita


 * isn't this a manga/artbook picture of luffy? S im A nt 20:48, September 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * actually no, that is from a gameart. And that is one wikia. Let me try and list the majors. Bleach, Dragonball, most of One Piece, FMA, Hellsing, Yu Gi Oh and seriously i am not in the mood of going on! Refering simply to our own, choosing Anime images over coloured manga images have always been done seemingly, until ShounenSuki got the idea to use Colourd Manga images and suddenly a few of the major contributors jumped on the waggon withouth even considering what the majority of the contributors on this wikia constantly decide on.


 * To set an example with the Konan page. If i remember correctly the coloured manga image that was recently added came out before her appearance in the anime and so it was used. But when she appeared in the anime, that image was used instead and have been for quite some time now. Now to refere to the quote by TheUltimate3 and his/hers point, suddenly ShounenSuki had this urge to change all other images to coloured manga images in some of the Infoboxes even though most contributors clearly seems to prefere the anime images.


 * I mean look at the upload log each time a new episode airs and finally shows techniques characters and a like, many people upload the images relevant such as images for the infobox, scenes and techniques. And i believe that since a majority feels and acts that way, the Amendment should be changed so that no type of image is used by default, but rather which image the majority of the community prefers, which in this case actually is the anime version(when a good quality version excists)


 * So please stop this obsession about beeing accurate, using Kishimoto's original drawings, when the majority of contributors seems to prefere the anime versions. BTW sorry for pointing fingers, but i thought it would be interesting to point out were all of this began--Gojita (talk) 21:17, September 29, 2010 (UTC)Gojita

First I would like to say that I'min the middle of studying so I am in the library typing on a iPod touch so this will be short. My issue is not an issue of accuracy, it's about page flow. Randomly jumping from manga to anime just because kKishimoto decided he was going to color a page this week screws with the flow. also there is no need for anyone to get so hostile with each other or point fingers let's keep this orderly.--131.118.85.55 (talk) 22:39, September 29, 2010 (UTC) TheUltimate3
 * Thank you for clearing that and as said before, sorry for pointing fingers. --Gojita (talk) 22:51, September 29, 2010 (UTC)Gojita
 * Having images from various different media in no way disrupts the flow of a page. In fact, encyclopædia and related works have done exactly that for as long as they've included images, without any complaints.
 * There is also no way you can use your common sense and still say it's not detrimental to a page to have not even a single image drawn by the original author of the series.
 * Let me explain my view about this in detail:
 * First of all, I identify several different images with different needs.
 * The main profile image.
 * This image should, above all, allow instant recognition of what the page represents. To do so, it should be accurate and clear. As it is the most representative image of the page, it should preferably be in the same style as the rest of the main profile images, but this is an æsthetic wish that falls below accuracy. Only the smallest of errors should be allowed in this image, if absolutely necessary. Having a major feature like eyes be in the colour is simply against what an encyclopædia should stand for.
 * The appearance images.
 * These images show how a character is supposed to look like. Therefore, they should be near-flawless and show as much of the character as possible. They should also, if possible, be drawn by the original author, as his art is the original source and not a second-hand interpretation of it. Only if no good coloured image is available should an image from another source be allowed and only if that images has no identifiable errors.
 * Flavour images.
 * These images add flavour to the page by depicting scenes, events, or subjects described in the text. Any image depicts what it is supposed to represent in a clear and easily recognisable way is fine. Perfect accuracy is not as important here, so using anime images is perfectly fine. However, as always, no blatant errors should be visible. Small errors can be overlooked, though.
 * This is the way I think we should decide what images to use where. I'm not against anime images and even think they are vital to a good representation of the series and its contents. However, I think the same about manga images and I do hold them in higher regard, given how they're drawn by the original author.
 * As for how other wikis works, well, that doesn't matter, now does it? We have no affiliation with those wikis, nor is there any reason we should emulate them. I am an editor on this wiki and I want this wiki to have the highest possible quality and the best and most accurate information. Images are a part of this.
 * I hope I made myself clear now. —ShounenSuki (talk 00:12, September 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * The crux of your argument, would be, what is considered "minor". For example, the two of us differ on how important the color of ones eyes are. To you, it's a critical, make or break thing. For me, unless it's a dojutsu or something important enough to elaborated in the story, eye color is just eye color, nothing special, nothing important.
 * That part being said, if one art is near identical to another, in my opinion, either one would be fine. This was mainly in response to the "Appearance" section you mention ShounenSuki.
 * And finally, I want to point out, I normally wouldn't have manga images. My problem is that the policy is very make or break. For all extensive purposes, it renders things uneditable, because it is very hard biased into one thing. That is my issue with it.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 02:58, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Eyes are one of the most defining features of a manga character. They are highly distinctive and can be extremely symbolic. For instance, Yahiko's eyes are blue to show innocence, his good heart, and his similarity to Naruto. Them being brown in the anime destroys this. Besides, even in real life eyes are highly important. What is the first thing you would normally say when describing your appearance? Hair and eye colour.
 * Let me ask you something, you wouldn't want a single manga image on this wiki? Despite all the bad art in the anime? Despite all the errors? Despite the manga actually being the original source? Wou would actually argue that you'd want an encyclopædia without showing any art from the original author? —ShounenSuki (talk 12:46, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that is interesting, because I always give broad features when describing myself or others (Skin color, height, weight, ect) hair and eyes always blended together. Then again it could be because, hair and eye color are pretty much the same amongst black and asian folk I hang out with. Go figure.
 * That's not what I said. Like I said, I have no problem with either, my problem is the policy is to make or break. A good anime image can portray something just as well as a good manga image, but the policy forces the use of the manga image regardless of anything. Like I said, it makes things uneditable, and that is my primary concern.
 * To give an example, lets say someone changes the infobox picture of Naruto, into something different, the new picture of Naruto is just as good as the old one, so it can stay, and the world keeps on spinnin'. Now that new picture of Naruto is replaced by a manga image of Naruto. Now both the new image and the new manga image are both good, it passes so to speak and the world keeps on spinnin' once more. Now later, someone uploads another picture of Naruto, this time from the anime and it's again a good image that serves it's purpose. Now all of a sudden, it cannot be used because it's an anime picture, despite it being in no way worse than the manga image.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 13:33, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean that when changing an anime image to a manga, its done without fuss, but to do the opposite, long debates on the Talk page have to be held?..AlienGamer (Userpage ⁝ Talk) 13:45, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Basically.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 13:52, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's logical, isn't it? First of all, why would a perfectly good image need to be changed? Second of all, manga images have preference because they come from the original source.
 * However, as I explained above, I actually prefer anime images in the infobox. They should show as much consistency with the rest of the wiki as possible and most of the time, we will have anime images there. Only when no flawless anime images can be found, should a manga image be used.
 * The infobox should get and anime image. If no flawless anime image is available, a coloured manga image should be used. If no coloured manga image is available, an anime image should be used with as little errors as possible. If the errors are too great and obvious (as with Hanzō's image), a black-and-white manga image should be used.
 * I.e. flawless anime image → coloured manga image → insignificantly flawed anime image → black-and-white manga image.
 * The appearance image should get a coloured, full-body manga image. If none is available, a flawless, full-body anime image should be used. If one doesn't exist, a coloured manga image that shows as much as possible should be used. If that doesn't exist, we go back to a flawless anime image. If that doesn't exist, an anime image with as little flaws as possible should be used and any flaws in the image should be clearly noted. If the only anime images available are those with major flaws, we should use a black-and-white manga image and a flawed anime image, to clearly show the differences.
 * I.e. coloured, full-body manga image → flawless, full-body anime image → coloured manga image → flawless anime image → insignificantly flawed anime image with notation → significantly flawed anime image and black-and-white manga image.
 * All other images should be from the anime, unless they somehow do not represent the scene they are supposed to represent well. If this is the case, unless the scene is extremely important, the image should be replaced with an anime image of another scene. If the scene is too important, a coloured manga image should be used. If none is available and the scene is absolutely vital, a black-and-white manga image should be used. I doubt this will ever happen, though, unless the anime suddenly decides to completely screw over a certain scene.
 * Really, I prefer to see anime images in almost every place, except for the appearance sections. I am only against anime images in other places if they are obviously flawed, as we have to keep accuracy our number one goal. With a well-written image policies, long debates can be prevented. We just have to decide, for one and for all, what kind of images we want where. –ShounenSuki (talk 13:59, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * What about images like this? Technically, the only thing wrong with the anime pic counter part, is an eye missing on one of the Uchiha's forehead, but if you take into account that the manga image is covered in White Holes, covering most of the Founders, then the anime pic isn't that bad to warrrent it not being used, if you get what I mean...AlienGamer (Userpage ⁝ Talk) 14:26, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * And about the eye colour thing, I have to agree with TheUltimate3, not because I like Anime Images, but because, the change was so small, that in both Yahiko and Konan's pics, it took months to notice, thats how small the change was...AlienGamer (Userpage ⁝ Talk) 14:38, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * for that specific image, I would say the anime version would do fine. It's not about that Uchiha specifically, it really is just flavouring the page. A small error like that is not that important and we could always just make a small note under the image or in the trivia section.
 * As for the eye colour thing, not noticing the change doesn't mean it isn't important. We've had very little coloured images of them in the manga and only a rare few people would have seen both images side to side. The changes not being noticed for a long time is not a good indication of their importance. As I've said before, in both characterisation, identification, and symbolism, the eyes are extremely important. Important enough to want to depict them properly. —ShounenSuki (talk 14:58, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

The accuracy, however important it is to an encyclopedia, seems to loose it's importance, when the majority of the contributors would rather focus on the usage of an anime image instead. THAT IS THE PREFERENCE OF THE MAJORITY OF OUR CONTRIBUTORS, JUST LOOK AT THE FREAKING UPLOAD LOG! now that i have said it like that i think i will withdraw from this discussion for some time to cool down and enjoy the headache i have gotten from writting the same argument over and over again. --Gojita (talk) 16:09, September 30, 2010 (UTC)Gojita


 * Accuracy vs Majority, Accuracy wins...but Consistancy also has to be taken into account, so....AlienGamer (Userpage ⁝ Talk) 16:12, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * MY pint exactly. The consistancy on this wikia is that we use anime images as a majority and therefor i believe that we can subside coloured manga images that is used for more accuracy, especially when most people seem to favor something else. --Gojita (talk) 16:31, September 30, 2010 (UTC)Gojita
 * I would like to point out, that this discussion is still going, so rampant image swapping is a no no.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 18:26, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Btw Gojita, dont get me wrong, ShounenSuki's accuracy point is still very good, and his image preference (which he's given on top) does make sense, but if a full body image that takes up 4-5 sections, its a tad too big dont you think ShouenSuki, it limits the pics you can put to the other sections, and when you have to scroll down to see the full pic, well....AlienGamer (Userpage ⁝ Talk) 19:04, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

As far as infobox images go, technically there is a way to please both parties, though in my opinion it would require too much effort: slides. Put a manga image and an anime image, and let it change. It might be distracting but it also saves space. The potentially hard part is adapting the slide code to the infobox. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 20:36, September 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * If we are to have accuracy, we will never have true consistency. There are simply too many mistakes and changes in the anime that will never be fixed and there are and will be things in the manga that will never be shown in the anime and vice versa. Take other media into account and things get even further from consistency.


 * The size issue, I don't really see. The images aren't that big and important enough to warrant the extra attention. Making them smaller would actually be detrimental to their function, even if they were taken from the anime. Making them smaller would either mean they cannot be full body shots or they are too small to be easily viewable. We shouldn't make our readers have to click on the image to make them useful.
 * I'll admit that this might take up space that would otherwise be used for other images, but those images are simply not as important as an appearance image. Showing Shikamaru talking to Shiho or Ino crying over Shizune's body isn't as important as showing what these characters look like. —ShounenSuki (talk 21:23, September 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * poke* Anyone? —ShounenSuki (talk 19:37, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I Agree so much with you, that i forgot to respond. S im A nt 21:02, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Bleh sorry. Yesterday's Wikia sent me into crisis mode. Let me catch up on reading....--TheUltimate3~The User King~ 21:28, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * (Kinda-Sorta-Caught-Up) Size is really a big factor. A smaller image with the same detail is just as good as a large image, except it's less of a eye sore if you will. Having one image cut through 2 or more sub-sections is distracting to people reading. That can be remedied by just opening image editing software and resizing the image though so that really has no effect on this whole anime/manga issue.
 * Now that being said, personally, I would prefer anime images in the infoboxes. THey are easier to get for most members, RAWs tend to be grainy, and both RAW and volume images are hard to come by. This does not mean, manga pictures shouldn't get used, not by a long shot, there is a reason why sections like Appearance exist in the first place. But like I said, my real issue is how black and white the current policy is. It makes it so new editors are unable to edit.--TheUltimate3~The User King~ 21:36, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Have anyone considered that size of the images may become even more important now seeing how the new look on wikia seems to compress the articles. just take a look at this image Dantman uploaded some time ago. --Gojita (talk) 15:38, October 3, 2010 (UTC)Gojita
 * On a side note, about infobox images, would be great if they would all look nice in something like this, if we ever wanted to go down that path... S im A nt 02:11, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Simant, I trust in your black wiki magic to develop a mockup of a infobox that incorporates that mechanic. Go go go.--TheUltimate3~The User King~ 15:58, October 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh, i just stole that from software.wikia.com, you mean an infobox that can use slideshow? S im A nt 16:01, October 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * So~ what's the status on this discussion? —ShounenSuki (talk 12:03, October 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Currently on hiatus as the whole Wikia Crisis is a far more pressing matter. >.>--TheUltimate3~The User King~ 12:27, October 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Some notes about the infobox slideshow:


 * A. Users without javascript wouldn't be able to see it. If there was a way to detect whether the user had javascript, and use that in an #if statement, that would solve that.
 * B. I can't find anyway to count newlines (or any escaped character) without resorting to a new string extension or (new variable extension (any ways to do it with the current extensions would be nice...), and without that I wouldn't know how to differentiate between the number of images, so I couldn't use the normal layout for a single image and the slideshow for multiple images. S im A nt 21:25, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

There are  lines in this example. For noscript you "might" be able to add a .noscript class and use js to add " " to all pages. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Oct 28, 2010 @ 22:28 (UTC) 22:28, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * That first part will work and #arraymap accepts \n as a delimiter. Just gotta get it to display normal images then when javascript fails. S im A nt 22:49, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Current gallery slideshow will require shrinking the image a bit more since the side arrows take up about 5px or so each. http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SmoothGallery#Arguments has a fallback argument for javascript failing or being disabled. Also it allows for more customization, such as disabling the arrows, customizable height and manually setting a timer for how long each image displays. It is already on Wikia. I don't know how stable it is. As for the current mockup. S im A nt 20:14, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

The Discussion Revitalised
Screw the new Wikia look issue, we can have two discussions at once. I think I made my opinion on what kind of images should be used where quite clear above. I haven't said anything about multiple images in the infobox, though. I don't think that will work. I sincerely dislike slide shows and the like. However, I have seen infoboxes on other wikias that allowed one to chose which form to view through small tabs at the top. I believe the Kingdom Hearts wiki makes use of this system, amongst others. I believe that might be a better solution. —ShounenSuki (talk 15:35, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * The Wikia Crisis seems to be over for now, so this can once again become a discussion to have. That being said, I have absolutely nothing new to offer except for my bastardized compromise ment to drag people back here. I asked Simant for something, depending on his response could lead to a resolution.--TheUltimate3 ~The User King ~ 15:38, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all thank you for making a new headline, makes it easier to edit and view. Would also like to point out the problem i have using the slideshow function curently used for double images in the jutsu infobox, althoug this is apparantly only due to the skin i am using, still i doubt i am the only one using the old skins, so should we not consider thoose other people as well? I have seen the option mentioned on the Kingdom Hearts wikia also beeing used by the One Piece Wikia and i also see that as a better option instead of that slideshow --Gojita (talk) 15:40, November 18, 2010 (UTC)Gojita
 * Yeah that tab thing could better than what I was thinking. As far as I can tell it all depends on if Simant can or will make something like that. (Because as far as I can tell, Simant is the only one where with real good knowledge on how Wikia code works. Sorry Simant...)--TheUltimate3 ~The User King ~ 15:41, November 18, 2010 (UTC)

Story: Gallery sucks badly, I want smoothgallery extension which was designed for monobook (and should work with all other skins since they are derived from it). Also it has MANY more customizations including a custom timer removing arrows, detecting lack of javascript, etc. Here is an example of smooth gallery in operation (http://smoothgallery.jondesign.net/showcase/manual-slideshow/ Warning: WeIrD images.) S im A nt 19:12, November 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ugh... Mootools... Ahhh, those horrid days dealing with v1 of Kommonwealth... *shudder* Mootools times 3 (three different versions of Mootools that is, all incompatible) @_@ a ugly hack letting them coexist by shoving parts of the system in iframes... Man, I can't think of the guy I was hired to replace as anything other than a really old script kiddie.
 * Personally... if I had the desire, I'd just write something custom. Give the div multiple images are in a class, look at the frame markup MediaWiki outputs, extract the images and captions, replace them by js with slideshow friendly markup, and add on the functionality. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Nov 18, 2010 @ 19:32 (UTC) 19:32, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ddoes that mean both versions of gallery slideshows suck? And that smoothgallery won't work with all of the wikia skins? S im A nt 19:46, November 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Smoothgallery uses Mootools... Wikia has jQuery... (Actually as of 1.16 MediaWiki in general has jQuery). Adding smoothgallery would require loading an entire extra fully-featured web library... That's as bad as it was when Wikia was transitioning from YUI to jQuery... @_@ And considering residual stuff, would almost be like having jQuery, YUI, and Mootools all here on Wikia... ugh. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Nov 18, 2010 @ 19:50 (UTC)