9,367 Pages

Forum: The Situation Room > Character image categories

I didn't think this really needed saying, but it seems we need to establish a precedent for the categories in Category:Images (characters). I propose we only put images into this category that show a clear view of the character's face. Putting these categories onto pictures of shots where only a couple of fingers, and ankle or half an ear of the character is not helpful - the categories are supposed to be a collection that brings together pictures of that character, and if someone is looking for pics of Jack Bauer they don't want to have to sift through out of focus shots of the back of his head, or unidentifiable pictures of hands. The weapons and phone images that were uploaded specially to put the focus on an object (eg this or this) and have been cropped specially to remove the characters from the images should not have image categories on them. The pictures of cars or buildings, where the character are not visible, are especially ridiculous to put the categories on. Do people agree so we can stop this nonsense?--Acer4666 (talk) 23:42, May 17, 2015 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree. Heck, I don't even think we need image categories for every single character, but hey, that's just me. Thief12 (talk) 01:48, May 18, 2015 (UTC)
As one of the earlier driving forces behind the use of these categories, I can confirm that the intent of these was always to organize clear depictions of relatively significant characters. In practice this primarily means non-blurry images of faces that could be easily recognized, and perhaps the occasional very clear image of a hand holding something important. The back of a head, or a shoulder, or a part of a limb, or a blurry image of just a hand holding a pistol... not eligible. I understand the edits are made with very good faith, so it was our fault for not more clearly explaining this in the inclusion criteria.
If no one objects, we can explain these clarifications in these two important places:
  1. Category:Images (characters) - where the inclusion criteria "officially live", where these clarifications should be added
  2. Template:CharacterImageCategory - the template that goes on all the character image category pages, should say something like "depicts a clear and recognizable image of the eligible character's face, with limited exceptions"
Agreed? Blue Rook  talk  contribs 15:36, May 18, 2015 (UTC)

Building on characters and the images, what do we do about the Unseen Characters category. I have been told to stop adding the "Unseen.png" to any character who's only heard via voice-over. I don't see what the deal is when we use this method for any unseen character heard in an audio-only presence for the various Unnamed Character lists.--Gunman6 (talk) 00:55, June 15, 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, note the actual name of the file you are wanting to add: "unseen4gallery.jpg". The name indicates what is intended to be used for: In a gallery of characters, where there is a vertical list of images (eg the unnamed characters page, or list of infected on Cordilla virus), a gap looks unsightly and so for purely aesthetic reasons that graphic is inserted.
However, in the 1,000 or so separate articles for characters without pictures, there is no aesthetic improvement. Furthermore, adding that graphic (a huge editing effort) adds precisely zero additional information to the page. We know that it's an unseen character by virtue of the fact there is no picture there. I do not see the need at all for this mass edit--Acer4666 (talk) 18:52, June 15, 2015 (UTC)
We have other characters who are often mentioned or who we have yet to upload pictures of and I'll gladly do the work now one else wants to do. We also, again, have other characters who are voiced but partially seen or who we have chosen not to upload due to only the back of their heads being in frame. This doesn't have to be artistic but it can be complimentary and again it won't make people go "Oh, there was an exception made here but there wasn't on this list of unnamed people."
We strive to be coherent so this shouldn't be a big deal and should help improve the search for all the wanted pages and updates needed. Many have said they refuse to agree to certain exceptions on this wiki so this also shouldn't be any different. This helps to reconfirm any notion that the character might be seen.--Gunman6 (talk) 19:38, June 15, 2015 (UTC)
But this is a pointless task. It does not make it any more "coherent" to add text in place of an image. Do we also add "unseen location" to the location articles? "unseen business", etc? There is no need. Remember the image policy, that images should be used solely for article illustration. Adding images that contribute nothing to a page is not something we want to do--Acer4666 (talk) 19:44, June 15, 2015 (UTC)
Then we might as well undo any of the lists containing the unseen jpeg and delete that image since again it lacks coherency with the rest of the site. We can simply say then that the characters on that list were unseen (granted, they already state that they were heard over audio only). If we don't need to know more about unseen characters then there's no reason for it being on the list either. Coherency is a must for any site otherwise people wonder about exceptions to the rule(s).--Gunman6 (talk) 19:52, June 15, 2015 (UTC)
As the creator of that file, I will assert that the purpose of that image was indeed for the two major types of galleries (see the File Summary at File:Unseen4gallery.jpg: "placeholder for unseen characters in image galleries"). The same goes for File:Unident4gallery.jpg.
To add this image to all the character info boxes in Category:Mentioned_characters and to the audio-only characters, is, at best, work for the sake of work, and at worst, visually disruptive since images are supposed to be centered there, not text. And since it is an image-of-text, I would say its doubly out-of-place. I understand you are willing to add the image Gunman, and that is certainly appreciated... but this is not about editors simply trying to avoid the grunt labor of implementing it. By extension, this also goes for File:Unident4gallery.jpg being added to Category:Unidentifiable characters articles.
Also, Gunman can you explain in more detail what is meant in your second paragraph, in earlier post above? The addition or omission of this image to character pages will not affect searching, as we already have the categories above. (I almost missed that whole paragraph, by the way, because of you fun-with-indents adventures :) Blue Rook  talk  contribs 20:02, June 15, 2015 (UTC)
Why bother replying if you won't read it, indent or not? I am saying if we won't add it to a single character page and since you guys strive for consistency then the unseen should be removed from the galleries or lists it's in, especially since those unseen characters are also mentioned as being unseen. The whole point of this debate is to be consistent. If we refuse to have each page go by the same rules then we have this discussions time and time again. I'm not talking visually as that's all subjectivity.--Gunman6 (talk) 20:07, June 15, 2015 (UTC)
I did read it.
It just occurred to me that you are referring to a visual consistency "between character articles and unnamed character entries". In this instance, no such thing exists. That is apples to oranges. Unnamed characters do not have info boxes; they just have a picture and a caption. The consistency that Acer and I are talking about is the visual consistency "among all unnamed character entries on an unnamed page". Back before I made those two images, the text for unseen and unidentifiable characters on the unnamed pages ran all the way over. That was inconsistent, and quite ugly visually. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 20:09, June 15, 2015 (UTC)
Again, not talking visually in terms of whether it looks good or bad, talking about consistency for "Oh, this person is noted in their stand-alone entry but we don't know if they're seen or unseen, they're just voiced." The listed guys are indicated as voiced and heard only and yet they have Unseen pics. It might be two different things in how they look and whether they're named but it's the same in terms of how they're presented on the show in voice-only fashion.--Gunman6 (talk) 20:17, June 15, 2015 (UTC)
I believe ya but I cannot dig up any examples at the moment to see this. Can you some? Blue Rook  talk  contribs
Take anyone who's heard on the phone but not given anything to call them by such as Harry's daughter (Day 5) and then compare to any of the following Named Voices. Regardless of whether the image saying they're visible/invisible is at a good resolution or not, why must one be favored over the other. On a wiki, you don't want to give the impression that one is held in higher esteem.--Gunman6 (talk) 20:32, June 15, 2015 (UTC)
I might be missing something, but all the characters I spot-checked from Category:Voiced by unknown actors either had images or had no images, appropriately. None of them had the gallery placeholder, and correctly so. Are you saying you want to add the placeholder to the ones who have no images, such as Taylor (Day 4)? Blue Rook  talk  contribs 20:48, June 15, 2015 (UTC)
Not in gallery format just a version of it let alone something indicating that this person isn't physical seen to the named pages. Since that's not popular now though, I'm also for just not having the placeholder at all, as long as there is coherency. This isn't about saying "Hey, let's put a gallery on each stand-alone page."--Gunman6 (talk) 21:09, June 15, 2015 (UTC)
The problem with removing them is that the galleries will then look like something is missing. If there's a gap in a gallery of images, it looks like one failed to load or hasn't been added yet. The unseen graphic tells people that the gallery is indeed complete and not incomplete. The reason is that there are many other images in a big line on the same page, and for "consistency" and "coherency" of that page, the unseen graphic completes the gallery. This is not the case for individual, image-less articles, which should stay image-less because they do not need any image, and there is nothing that would suggest they are incomplete--Acer4666 (talk) 09:32, June 16, 2015 (UTC)
How are they incomplete when the unseen characters are clearly stated as being unseen? Again, this causes a lack of coherence with the rest of the pages. The single pages are suggested as being incomplete because the "Voiced by unknown actor" category again applies to either a seen or unseen person.--Gunman6 (talk) 09:37, June 16, 2015 (UTC)
No, they're not "clearly stated as being unseen". Look at the gallery here. Nowhere on Sara Kaufman's entry in that gallery does it say she was unseen (because it's an in-universe article), so removing that graphic would leave an unexplained gap in the gallery of pictures. Again, this would cause a lack of coherence with the rest of the page. As both solutions leave a "lack of coherence", let's stick with the current system that doesn't leave ugly gaps in galleries.--Acer4666 (talk) 09:43, June 16, 2015 (UTC)
It's not coherent with the rest of the site so it's really not needed. Or figure out some other placeholder.--Gunman6 (talk) 09:50, June 16, 2015 (UTC)
It is needed, that's the whole point we're trying to make. Acer and I have tried to explain that the need behind the placeholder is visual consistency for galleries and for the unnamed articles inside the page where you see them being utilized, but it seems like you sort of just keep waving away the idea of visual consistency among galleries and lists like it does not matter. That placeholder has nothing to do with this concept of coherency "with the rest of the site" which you keep mentioning. Without it, that particular gallery or unnamed page looks like one of those poorly-maintained wikis out there. One of your recommendations is to remove it, but we've tried that: all the months/years before they were created, and it looked like ca-ca.
It's 100% visual when it comes to list articles and galleries. Meanwhile, there is no policy which states that "something must always be present in the picture areas for all the info-boxes of named characters". If that were the rule or the precedent, those placeholders would already be on all the Taylor (Day 4)'s. On the contrary, if there are no and never could be any useful images, it's perfect for articles like Taylor's to be blank... which is not just my opinion, but the longtime precedent for the whole project. (This of course excludes articles which legitimately qualify for Category:Articles needing images, for which images are known to exist but simply no one has gotten to it yet.) Blue Rook  talk  contribs 05:01, June 17, 2015 (UTC)

Again, forget the whole "It looks awful" or "It looks perfect" routine. The stand-alone pages without images also look like crap because we don't know if they're seen or unseen either and again you're making an exception to the rule just because of a visual issue with the lists. I am trying to make these pages be better illustrated and contrary to popular belief, it does add something and that is letting us know that no image of the character exists much like the list's gallery placeholder. If you are going to continue the whole routine of "Oh, we're making an exception" like you keep doing, you are showing favoritism which is an unprofessional method to exert on any wiki, end of story.--Gunman6 (talk) 19:19, June 17, 2015 (UTC)

Gunman, it should be patently obvious from an article whether a character is seen or unseen. Unseen characters will either clearly be marked as a "mentioned character", or they will have an appearance table marked with "voice only", or they will be listed as a character from a novel, etc. Seen characters, with a tiny handful of exceptions, have pictures on them. I don't see where the confusion you are so concerned about is coming from.
If you want to suggest an alternative placeholder graphic, then by all means suggest one here, but I don't see how you say the current graphic is inconsistent with the rest of the site. It's white text on a grey background, it couldn't get much more consistent with the rest of the site--Acer4666 (talk) 00:03, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
I suggested another placeholder as well and that wasn't not built upon.--Gunman6 (talk) 02:34, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
First, hold the set. Gunman when you said "exception to the rule", what rule specifically are you referring to?
Secondly, what was your alternative placeholder suggestion? Maybe I am missing it, but I cannot find anything specific. If by "wasn't not built upon" you mean "no one created concrete sandbox proposals to support my broad undifferentiated idea", well, I did not jump on the idea of an alternative because I do not support it. Reason: I see it, an alternative must either be text (for which there is no precedent in individual articles, and is very ugly) or an image (unacceptable distraction because we'd be showing an image for something that by definition cannot have an image).
  1. What I'm describing is not a "routine", and I am not remotely saying anything like "Oh, we're making an exception". Please do not put words in my mouth especially when I've repeatedly stated that the "consistency" you refer to cannot exist between apples and oranges.
  2. You continue to assert that the standalone pages look like "crap", but you also say "I'm not talking visually as that's all subjectivity" whenever I talk about established visual precedent. Pick a side. You cannot have it both ways, or your entire argument about a fundamentally visual issue has zero credibility.
  3. It may be helpful to note that yours is the only complaint which I can recall ever seeing about this topic since I joined in 2007. Having probably read everything on the wiki before I joined as well, I still recall nothing about this. It is a non-issue.
  4. "Favoritism" to who, specifically? "Unprofessional" because I don't agree with what you are supporting? Come on.
Blue Rook  talk  contribs 16:03, June 18, 2015 (UTC)

We can reword it however you wish but on June 15 I did briefly discuss that if we can't come to an agreement, we can find alternatives to this and I didn't mention any of the options you just brought up but I'm sure there's more than just those two possibilities.

Again, the unseen characters are not always "explicitly" stated as being unseen and so I'm suggesting finding a way to add something that this character is unseen and to create coherence on this wiki. "Crap" or "unfinished" are definitely words that can be used to describe these pages as they look as unfinished as the list of unseen characters did prior to the placeholder being added.

You stated that the whole placeholder should only be used on the list only for visual purposes and that came off as a sign of favoritism and "apples-and-oranges" is definitely another way of showcasing an outspoken opinion regardless of how the intent was originally to use placeholders only for one list. A "non-issue" simply because one doesn't see the purpose of the discussion is a great way of telling people to quiet down and hush up.

Again, if we can't agree that the placeholder should be used for other pages, we still haven't solved what can be done about unseen characters. We have not made it clear even if it's clear to the editors themselves outside of characters in the "mentioned" category. --Gunman6 (talk) 19:44, June 18, 2015 (UTC)

An earlier question remains unanswered. When you said I keep making an "exception to the rule", what rule specifically are you referring to? I cannot determine, and if you will not answer it, how else am I to take that other than as an indication that you are quite literally making up rules?
Saying visuals do not matter but then saying that they do, even when seemingly no one has brought this up ever before in almost a full decade... it's confusing and inconsistent at best. It is clear that you want a change but the reasoning for it still after this whole time appears convoluted to me on account of this inconsistency.
I, and the only other person in this discussion, do not believe there is a problem to begin with. I do not believe there is anything to be solved. Still not sure how that position is "outspoken" or demonstrates "favoritism". To be clear: I believe that the firmly-established precedent of our categories combined with the intentional absence of an image has been fine for 10 years, continues to be fine, and in the absence of real, actual suggestions, will continue to be satisfactory into the future. Since no one else has jumped in to support your idea, it is on you to sandbox recommendations and make concrete proposals. Then we actually have something concrete to talk about, since we are not going to stop disagreeing on the conceptual level. Otherwise you can only continue to try and pull apart replies and hope someone else will do the actual work. No one is obligated to sandbox a proposal that satisfies your idea simply because you have an idea. Blue Rook  talk  contribs
It's what you call a figure of speech, let alone a way of expressing that one page must be treated different from other pages. I said that the visuals shouldn't matter if they're not going to be on the other pages but since you guys can't agree on unseen characters going without it on the lists then I would say it does matter on the other pages again because of the consistency and because a voice-over category isn't enough information.
Again, treating a page differently from the rest can lead one to suspect favoritism. I can suggest any other kind of placeholder or image that indicates this person isn't visible and could definitely create a placeholder myself.--Gunman6 (talk) 21:18, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
If you are suggesting we need to cater to a reader with insufficient intelligence to realise that a "voice only" appearance means they are unseen then we may as well give up now--Acer4666 (talk) 21:38, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
Again, "Voiced by unknown actors" doesn't tell us if that's a voice-only role or someone dubbed during post.--Gunman6 (talk) 21:41, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
I'm not talking about that category, I'm talking about the appearances table that says "voice only" next to their appearances. It's really simple, I can't see anyone getting confused--Acer4666 (talk) 21:46, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
The "voice only" credit isn't stated on all of the voice-only roles.--Gunman6 (talk) 22:14, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
It should be...can you give some examples please?--Acer4666 (talk) 22:29, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
This is for the named characters portrayed by yet to be identified performers.--Gunman6 (talk) 22:38, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
An example, please. A link to a page.--Acer4666 (talk) 22:40, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
Rick Rosen, Karen and Paul Tate don't have voice-only credits for their appearances. We could also probably make the voice-only (*) font slightly bigger (if not by much).--Gunman6 (talk) 01:53, June 19, 2015 (UTC)
They are oversights that have just been fixed now (except for Rick Rosen, who is a mentioned character as he has no live voice appearance). "mentioned" characters are similarly obvious as to why they have no picture. Hopefully the confusion you feared has now been cleared up--Acer4666 (talk) 02:00, June 19, 2015 (UTC)
How big is the font set for that footer directory for the "Voice credit only"?--Gunman6 (talk) 02:11, June 19, 2015 (UTC)
I don't know the precise size, but it's perfectly large enough for anyone to read it--Acer4666 (talk) 02:22, June 19, 2015 (UTC)
Does it have to be in the corner?--Gunman6 (talk) 02:26, June 19, 2015 (UTC)
This debate is getting silly now. If you want a large scale change of the way things are formatted, please propose it in the Wiki 24:Sandbox page, as Blue Rook said, and then we can discuss whether the community agrees with the change. I'm not going to do format changes for you that I deem unnecessary--Acer4666 (talk) 02:30, June 19, 2015 (UTC)
This is why I don't do discussions and why again this overbearing favoritism is obvious from the get-go. A wiki is never about what we like or dislike sharing on it, it's about making it more approachable to the public who comes hear to view it.
I didn't ask for anything, only made a suggestion and to act like everyone can automatically see what's displayed is very inconsiderate to those less fortunate. I can see it but I know several people who would struggle to find that in the corner of their screen even to the best of their ability.--Gunman6 (talk) 02:45, June 19, 2015 (UTC)
If you want to change something, you have to "do discussions". You are asking to change the appearance templates, but you're asking me for all the info on it. To answer your question, no it doesn't have to be in the corner, if you can come up with a better solution on the sandbox where it's not in the corner, and the community agrees, then it can be changed. But you're not doing anything, you're just elongating this discussion until we do it for you. If you want a change in format, let's see your idea in the sandbox.--Acer4666 (talk) 02:50, June 19, 2015 (UTC)
I can't work the sandbox let alone recreate it for you so I can only describe various other places to put the "voice only" legend.--Gunman6 (talk) 02:53, June 19, 2015 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.