9,386 Pages

Forum: The Situation Room > Main Images

Episodes[edit source]

During the latter half of this season, the issue of group consensus for episode guide main images came up each and every week. It seems different people have different ideas of what criteria is important. Obviously the issue is moot until next January, but perhaps it's a good idea to get hash out what criteria are important in choosing a main image right now. Some people think it should be an image that reflects the mood of that particular episode, or the theme, or simply the most memorable moment. Some think non-character images should be avoided, some think main characters deserve at least one feature on a main image per season, some think that it's a bad idea to repeat a character twice in a row, or too many times in one season. Some people think that week's explosion should always be the main image. I don't think it's a bad idea to work out a set of official criteria and incorporate it into policy. What actually is important in choosing an image? --proudhug 01:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I was actually working on a similar post, proudhug. Reguardless, here are the rules I always followed:
  1. The photo must be dynamic. This means that something must be happening in the photo. This eliminates photos of people standing around. The main image is like the cover of a book. It should be interesting.
  2. The photo should be episode unique. This means that someone who has seen an episode of 24 can easily idenitfy what episode it is from and get a basic idea of which episode it was from. Not every episode has a heart stopping moment, but just about every episode has one where something unique happens.
  3. The photo should look good in 300px and 150px. This is a problem with some of the current main images, mainly in seasons 1, 3 and 6
  4. The photo should represent the episode. This means that the photo should generally give someone an idea of the most important themes of the episiode. However...
  5. Don't ruin the episode. This doesn't mean that the picture has to contain no spoilers, but rather than showing the actual ending of an episode, show a character reaction. See Day 5 6:00pm-7:00pm for a great examlpe of that.
Also, I don't subscribe to any policy that any character "should" be given a main image. The main image should be viewed on as an episode to episode basis. I don't feel that an image should be removed solely on the basis of repetition. If there are two equal images, then yes the less repetitive image should be selected.
Finally, I've made some picks for good and bad images, and put them here    Willo    talk    contribs    email   03:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

My biggest problem is the "overall season picture" idea that some people seem to have. I agree that each image should case-by-case, regardless of whether it results in a certain character getting way more images, or another one getting none. If a character appears in every episode of a season, but never qualifies for a main image, so what. The idea is to represent an important moment from each individual episode, not tell a coherent slideshow story on the season page. --proudhug 03:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Characters[edit source]

Wow, am I the only one left who prefers to use the official "OOU" promo image for main character images, ie. the ones featured on Fox.com? It seems people now want to keep changing these to action shots from the show. I think this is a bad idea, especially since I love the consistency of having the official promos for each of the main characters. Here's how I think character images should be done:

  1. If there's an official Fox promo photoshoot pic for the character's most recent season (ie. OOU posed, looking at the camera), we use that for their main image. (See Edgar Stiles)
  2. If no OOU promo image exists for the character's most recent season, an IU promo is used. (See Charles Logan)
  3. If no promo image exists for the most recent season, the most recent promo image available is used, following steps #1 and #2. (See Martha Logan)
  4. If no promo image exists at all for the character, a cropped screenshot from their most recent season is used. (See 99.9% of all characters on Wiki 24)

Now, obviously still there's much flexibility here (especially in #4 of course) because even OOU promo images often have multiple versions or takes, and there are often multiple IU promos to choose from when necessary, however I don't think there should ever be any exceptions to the above rules. --proudhug 03:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on these grounds: While the early season cast photos were clearly "in-character" so to speak, the more recent seasons have "actor" shots rather than character shots. While Tony is clearly in character for Season 7, Renee is clearly NOT in character. While I think they are fine to use on the actor pages, they are not photos of 'the characters' anyway, because they don't exist in universe. If the pages are written IU, why on Earth would you have an OOU photo? I think that there should not be any arbitrary rules set down for the photos. I think that it should be the best photo available.    Willo    talk    contribs    email   05:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
How exactly is Renee not "in character?" She's wearing the clothes she wore for the first half of the season. --Pyramidhead 08:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I don't like all the promo shots, I agree with Proudhug that they should be used for consistency. How is Renee's picture not "in character"? There's no way you can possibly say that. --SignorSimon (talk/contribs/email) 09:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I too don't like them all, but consistency is important. Your comment about arbitrary rules doesn't make sense, Willo. I'm suggesting we have relatively strict rules about image choice, while you're saying it should be the "best" photo available. Following consistent rules isn't arbitrary at all, while deciding upon the "best" photo is very much so.
As for Renee not being "in character" I don't see what you mean. She's wearing her in character clothes, so clearly the producers intend it to be a photo of the character, not the actor (even if there's no way the characters would've had a chance that day to sit down for a professional photo shoot). Regardless, the infoboxes are an OOU source of information, so it doesn't matter if it's a staged photo or an action shot. --proudhug 13:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I understand the desire for consistency. However, the photos use valuable space on the page. What's the point in having them there if they're not going to provide any information outside what the character was wearing that day? It wasn't I that suggested that Renee's photo was out of character first. This is from BlueRock's post on Renee's talk page:
That promotional we currently have looks like she's wearing a nun's conservative "everyday" garb (as opposed to the formal garb they are more often seen wearing in public). Also she's got that goofy smile that has nothing to do with her performance on the show.
The bottom line is it's not a good picture, and they are not good representations of the characters on the day. At this point consistency is having a adverse impact on the articles. A picture is usually worth 1,000 words. But if you choose the wrong one, it's worth much, much less.    Willo    talk    contribs    email   18:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I think perhaps you're exaggerating a tad with regards to how detrimental a "bad" photo is to a character article. I'd be extremely surprised if the average visitor is going to be angered, confused or upset in any way by a "misrepresentative" main image. You need to remember that Wiki 24 is an encyclopedia; an objective collection of information. Those photos are provided by the official production team and it's not Wiki 24's job to comment on quality. We leave artistic choices to the creators and merely archive what they've done, for better or for worse. It is for this reason that we don't include reviews or ratings of each episode/season/book/etc. in the main namespace. Rejecting officially selected promotional images solely because the community thinks it's "bad" or "not representative of the character" is no different than omitting or rewriting a scene synopsis because we feel it goes against the pulse of the show. It's a direct violation of the NPOV policy. --proudhug 19:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
And I think you are over exaggerating my points, again. You have a habit of that. First off, these images are meant to 'promote' the show. They are 'cast' photos. They are meant to PROMOTE the CAST of the show. Using them as character images are against the very purposes of the photos in the first place. Surely you don't think the creative staff is involved in taking the promotional photos?
I also was not speaking about the quality of the photos. I was speaking about their ability to successfully represent the characters as they appear on screen. While this is the purpose of the main image on the page, it is NOT the expressed purpose of the promotional cast images. What we have are pictures of actors in costume, not of characters.
Finally, your NPOV argument is outlandish, because you yourself said the photos were OOU.    Willo    talk    contribs    email   19:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV applies just as much, to OOU as well as IU, if not more so. It's certainly not acceptable for an article to say "Storm Force is a really crappy novel written by David Jacobs."

So forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you, but are you saying that you believe no "OOU" promotional images should be used for character pages? If your only reason for this is because you believe they're meant to be images of the actors and not the characters, then, based on previous comments from other users, I would assume you're in the minority in this belief. Everyone else seems to agree that they're meant to be images of the characters. I consider them an OOU representation of an IU item, just like the rest of the infobox, therefor they're perfectly appropriate.

The promotional department of 24 is certainly an extension of the creative staff, yes. The people who create trailers, write press releases and do promotional photoshoots are undoubtably artists in their field. Just because it's OOU, doesn't mean it's not art. And while they have an artistic purpose to promote the television show, we do not. While I firmly believe Wiki 24 does promote 24 very well, that's not a part of this project's mission statement. We are an objective resource for the fans of the show, not an advertising tool for the producers of the show. As such, it is not our job to decide what is the best way to promote 24. If those in creative control have made a perceived error in their promotional material (such as a non-representative image of Renee), it is not our place to comment on that, even through exclusion. I realize that's not exactly what you were saying, but deciding how best to represent a character through an image is a form of promotion, isn't it? Our job is to collect for the reader what Fox has provided and let them decide what's good and bad. --proudhug

"What we have are pictures of actors in costume, not of characters." What do you think characters are? They are actors in costume. How are these promotional images pictures of "actors in costume" as opposed to "characters"? --SignorSimon (talk/contribs/email) 20:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

A photo of Kiefer Sutherland wearing his Jack Bauer costume, sitting on a chair smoking a cigarette while Jon Cassar gives him direction is a picture of an actor in costume. Promotional photographs are meant to be photos of the characters. Fox pays for these photoshoots to promote the characters on their show, not the actors they've hired. They own the characters, they don't own the actors. --proudhug 20:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Except they are not. They are used, primarily, to promote the show and the cast of the show. One way to ease viewers into a new cast of characters is to show them the cast ahead of time. What the promotional photos are is the same as a program for a play. Inside the program there will often be photos of the cast of characters and the leads in costume, but smiling and facing the camera. This is done so that you can recognize the actor/character combination when they appear on screen, but it doesn't mean they are "in character".
We are the editors. It is our decision as to how to best present the information Fox provides. And, yes, the people working on the photos are artists. But that is not what I said. I said "creative staff", which is the people responsible for the content of the show. This is the writers, actors, directors, et al. Shooting the promotional photos, while creative is below the line work. Period.
I am not saying that the Renee photo should not be included, merely that it doesn't represent her on the day and it's inclusion on a page about her seems rather odd and out of place. While it was an official fox release, so were later episodic promotional photos that better relay the character. In fact, I think that in universe promotional photos almost always encapsulate the characters better.
Finally, a lot of pondering into the consistency issue has led me to this following conclusion: Isn't it more inconsistent to vary the use between IU and OOU photos in the sidebars? Wouldn't it, in fact, be more consistent to only use IU photos for article pages and save the OOU photos (which are only used for the main cast, with the exceptions of Victor Drazen, Mark DeSalvo and Mike Novick) because they draw lines that are arbitrary IU and only make sense OOU?
It just seems like a rather arbitrary rule that was created way back in the day that we follow because it's always been that way and it's easier than changing the rule. It's not consistent, the photos are sometimes not representative, and they draw arbitrary lines that need not be drawn. While it was not my intent earlier in the debate, it is now, due to the lack of a cohesive positive argument that is about the quality of the images, but is instead about arbitrary things like representing what fox uses to promote the show, that all of the posed, OOU promotional images be used on OOU pages, such as the actor and season pages. Because that is more in line with the original intent of Fox, anyway.    Willo    talk    contribs    email   20:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Willo, nothing in the sidebar is IU. The information there is an OOU source: Who played Jack Bauer? Kiefer Sutherland. What seasons was he in? 1-7. When did we see him last? Day 7 7:00am-8:00am. What was his status at that point? Alive. What does he look like? The official image that Fox provided. Rather than being inconsistent with the IU/OOU images, the preference is to use a promo shot, but the others are used when one doesn't exist. Hence the suggested hierarchy above, to provide consistency. If we went with the type of consistency you suggested, where everything has to look the same, we'd have to include Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, etc. headings for every character, regardless of whether or not they had anything to do with any of those Days. And I'm sure everyone agrees that would be silly. Consistency comes in the rules for inclusion, rather than universal inclusion.

I never once said the above-the-line creative staff was responsible for these photos. I said the "official production team," of which the promotional department is an extension. While not an acceptable source of canon, trailers, press releases and promo photos are official 24 productions. As a matter of fact, the promo photos are more of an official production than most of the spin-off material, which do provide IU information. Above/below-the-line has nothing to do with it. --proudhug 21:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

When in the hell did I suggest that we should have Day 1 headers on season seven characters? What the hell are you even talking about? How did you make that jump? It defies all logic. You completely ignored my point about drawing character lines and, while the infobox itself is OOU, the picture, I think, should be considered apart from the infobox. The picture would exist there even if the infobox didn't, or only provided IU information. We wouldn't use a behind the scenes photo as the main image on an episode page, so why do the same basic thing to character pages?    Willo    talk    contribs    email   21:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It was an example of an analogous byproduct of the type of consistency you were proposing. I apologize if you actually thought I was saying you suggested that specific idea, but you only have to reread the post to see that I didn't. I don't want this to turn hostile, so I think that, since we've both completely laid out our arguments, it's just a matter of awaiting input from other editors. --proudhug 01:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I know exactly what you were doing. It's call over-application syndrome or "people can marry their turtles" syndrome. You take the original intent, take it way out of proportion, then represent it as a by-product of the original persons idea. In no way would imposing my policy result in anything like what you suggested. It would never actually occur because it is stupid. I was making a comment about how we should have all In Universe photos for characters. To say that idea means that we would have Day 1s on every page is a gross hyperbole.    Willo    talk    contribs    email   05:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it was a hyperbole. I was using a somewhat exaggerated example of the same type of rationale, in order to illustrate how silly it was. It was an attack on your logic train, not your idea. I'm glad you understand. --proudhug 12:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, because using all In-Universe photos (which, by the way, is not is not without precedent) does not even run on the same logic tracks as what you suggested it does. That would be me suggesting that, since you feel like we should use the photos from Fox without question or judgment, then we should include everything Fox or the producers of the show provide, including promos for upcoming episodes, casting for Season 8, etc. Which is something I'm sure you're against. So, how about we debate the actual policy proposed and not some imaginary non-proposal you've come up with as being analogous with my proposal when they are are, in fact, completely unrelated and merely a distraction from the actual issues?    Willo    talk    contribs    email   18:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The argument that the pictures are just of the cast members is not true. Here are the blurbs the photos were distributed with: [1]. It's not "Kiefer Sutherland," it's "Kiefer Sutherland as Jack Bauer." So from FOX's point of view - ie, the only one that should matter - the OOU photos are still of the main characters. Not the actors playing them. -- 03:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that we should use the best and most descriptive image whether it's a promotional photo or not. The current image of Renee Walker is unrepresentative of her character both in attitude (the character has never smiled the entire season - in fact they poked fun at this in one of the S7 DVD commentaries) and her outfit (which was only worn for the first 5 episodes/premiere before she changed into the jeans and leather jacket). Usually the cast promo pics are great and the best image available for the character, but in rare cases like this I think an exception could be made. I don't see why it has to be one way or the other. SeanPM 07:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Why do you suppose Fox chose that particular photo to represent her character? --proudhug 12:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe because Annie looked good in it? Maybe because her character wasn't completely developed when the photo was taken? Maybe because a smiling photo creates warmth, and we are supposed to like Renee right off the bat? Maybe because the people in promotions were sniffing glue? Does it matter?    Willo    talk    contribs    email   18:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It matters in the sense that they're professionals and do this for a living, so they've probably got very good, well thought out reasons for doing what they've done. That's not for sure of course, but I'd just assume they're not flippant with these types of decisions, as you may be suggesting. I mean, there are many times when I've been sure the writers of 24 were sniffing glue, but that doesn't affect any of our policies at Wiki 24, of course.

Thank you for proposing that we get back on track, Willo. I've made a proposal for a character main image selection policy. You and I have both stated our opinions and reasons for how it should be done. Now we just need to await more input. --proudhug 19:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

My input doesn't pertain to main-character-image-selection-policy, but rather to just two character images in isolation. Really, I'm not trying to cop out here, I simply don't have an opinion yet about a policy consideration. I will say, however, that the images currently in place for Renee and Sean are awful, especially Hillinger's (no offense intended for the original tagger of those images). I think it's incredibly obvious that in those two cases, they represent the characters not-at-all. I mean, Sean smiling? And Renee looking like that? Those are useless. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 04:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, there are lots of promo photos that I don't like either. But my main goal is to implement a policy which alleviates us from having a dicussion about each and every character main image and what best represents them in the show, etc. If the policy is to utilize the official promo image whenever possible, that can avoid debate after debate about who likes what and why. Not to mention all of the otherwise-unused promo shots that appear only on Talk pages. --proudhug 04:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Creating a policy specifically to cut off the possibility of free debate over such an important aspect of our articles seems... wrong. I think we should always leave the debate open for these things. If we mandate that promos always be used instead of screens, at least some of the time we'll be stuck with promos that many agree are awful, which is an unacceptable consequence. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 21:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

But my whole point is that it's not our place to judge the quality of officially released products. We strictly enforce using only official plotlines for summaries (ie. canon), yet because of this, some of the time we're stuck with plotlines that many agree are awful. We're here to archive what Fox gives us, not to fix their mistakes. --proudhug 11:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You're comparing forbidden judgmental/subjective statements about content within an article (saying something like "in a stupid plot twist, Ostroff then steals the key card") to discriminating between a handful of images of various quality (for the purpose of choosing one of them as a main image)? These couldn't be more different. Besides, FOX "gives us" any image we upload from the show, promo or screencap. I don't believe we must change policy to stick with the promotional version of content 100% of the time, especially given that the matter is so contentious. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 12:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
It took me a while to find this discussion, but I wanted to see the logic behind this precedent of promo images for main characters. Basically, my personal wonderings were directed here when I remembered that my fav character Ira Gaines had his picture changed from him looking evil, and about ready to smack Andre Drazen in the face, to him with his hands on his hips looking camp and like he's about ready for some bum fun. So I wanted to see what led us to this sort of change being the rules!
I think the rules should change. I'm not proposing we remove every OOU promo shot - rather, if someone says "I don't like Victor Drazen's pic I think this one is better" we don't say "no, because this is how it works here", but we discuss the change much like we would do for the main image of an episode, and if a screencap is preferred to a promo shot then we allow it.
Firstly, to say that the promos are something Fox provides therefore choosing anything else is a direct violation of NPOV. As Blue Rook said above, on-screen footage is provided by fox. Do we copy episode guides verbatim from the fox website? And episode credits? Do we use the images for each episode that the DVD menus give us (provided by fox)? Of course doing this encyclopedia is a creative process, and we can use our own judgement (like we do for episode main images, and character main images that don't have promos).
Secondly, although the rules are consistent, they lead to inconsistency for the reader. As you say 99.9% of characters have in-universe screencaps, yet some are a shot of Chloe posing for a camera in an empty CTU set. In proudhug's response to Willo making this point, you said that to follow that logic would be to include "Day X" headings for all the days in each character's page. Well yes, but the sections would be empty, so they would still be inconsistent. And it wouldn't make sense to have headings for empty sections, and there is nothing we can do about that. They would be inconsistent because they have to be. Whereas the pictures don't have to be! We don't know what Renee Walker was doing Days 1-6, but we do have a screencap of her where she isn't posing for an imaginary camera in CTU.
As for the promo images being clear shots, well any character major enough to have a promo will also have a shot of them on-screen that is clear enough of them.
I am just yet to be convinced that using these promos all the time is a good thing--Acer4666 17:16, May 20, 2011 (UTC)

Somewhat related, what do people think of including two images for characters who have spanned multiple years on the show, similar to the way Memory Alpha does it? --proudhug 23:57, May 21, 2011 (UTC)

I looked at a few; wasn't a big fan. Expanding the sidebar so dramatically is a bad use of the limited real estate we have in the default skin, unfortunately. I would have been all for this if other skins were an option. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 05:22, May 22, 2011 (UTC)
I also think it doesn't quite work aesthetically - but for many of the major characters we getg a represenatation of what they've looked like via the images on the Category:Character-by-season articles. But I do agree that just having the most recent season's pic for many characcters isn't always the best (but that's probs down to my personal view that there's been a decline in quality as the series went on)--Acer4666 08:10, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

Holy necro! I wanted to revisit this issue before the new season gets going... I've changed my position a bit, and I believe the character articles should not use the official cast promo images, unless they are actually from a particular episode. We've got about half the Season 7 characters standing in a featureless gray void, which is something that most certainly doesn't happen to them on-screen at any point. I know there's a little ambiguity in how Fox describes them, but given that the bulk of each article is writing about the characters as real people, wouldn't it make more sense to use a main image that is unquestionably in-universe? For instance - there's no point at which Jack walks between lanes full of taxis with his hand on his gun, whereas something like this is from a scene that somebody in-universe would have access to. Not to say that particular image is the one we should go with, but this approach seems more consistent to me, especially when 99% of all characters didn't have photo shoots. So I guess my proposal is:

  • Use portrait-style episode promotional images if available, or
  • Use good-quality cropped episode screen-captures if not. Might not mean anything, but it seems the HD versions of Seasons 1-6 have been taken off Amazon, which might suggest the Blu-rays are finally coming out soon. If that's the case, then we'll soon (finally!) have access to a whole lot of great-quality images from the early seasons. We can still use the pre-season promo images for actor pages and whatnot. --Pyramidhead (talk) 04:30, February 10, 2014 (UTC)
Also, I think it would be cool to do like MA and have earliest and latest appearance images. It might stretch things out a little but if we use images that aren't so tall it won't be that bad, and it's a cool way to show the passage of time. For instance, use this on the top and crop this one for the bottom. --Pyramidhead (talk) 04:33, February 10, 2014 (UTC)
I'd probably want to see what a page would look like with two sidebar images - I'm not a big fan of the ones on MA and think that, as Blue Rook said above, it causes space issues--Acer4666 (talk) 13:44, February 13, 2014 (UTC)

So where are we at now?

  1. Is the consensus then to start switching over the solid-background cast images to in-universe ones?
  2. Are we okay with putting pre-release images on character pages (like was just done with James Heller and Chloe O'Brian)? It would seem like putting those at the top contradicts the policy confining pre-release info to the notes section. Also, from an in-universe perspective the plot hasn't advanced past the end of "Chloe's Arrest," so the situations in those images haven't "happened" yet. It's especially jarring considering how different Chloe looks, while there's no mention of how that happened in the article proper. --Pyramidhead (talk) 22:50, March 12, 2014 (UTC)
  1. If you are referring to the preference of quality promos which are taken from IU scenes over OOU promos of just the actors themselves in costume, then yes I agree. (If you're referring to something else please let me know; I'm not able to re-read this whole thread.)
  2. At the moment, the policy has not changed, so nope we cannot include pics of Heller as POTUS or Chloe's new look, etc. on their character pages, or other iu pages. I'm still down for a policy change however, in the other forum article. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 00:25, March 13, 2014 (UTC)
  1. I think the consensus was that we go with what the community feels is the best, most representative shot of the character, either an iu shot or an oou promo. I personally agree that the iu shots often do this better than the oou promos, but I don't think we have to get rid of all oou promos. We can use our discretion as we have always done with a choice of pictures.
  2. Blue Rook we did discuss the spoiler policy in that other forum post and changed the policy to allow pre-release information, but not on in-universe pages. The only place allowable on in-universe pages currently is the BGIN section, which I agree with.--Acer4666 (talk) 00:43, March 13, 2014 (UTC)
I am aware, but that doesn't include images, right? This is only referring to pics. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 00:49, March 13, 2014 (UTC)
"Information" covers officially released character names, casting decisions, plot points, pictures, videos, whatever! They can be put anywhere on relevant oou pages, or BGIN on iu pages--Acer4666 (talk) 00:51, March 13, 2014 (UTC)
Hmm that isn't specified in the policy, and it probably should be made clear because wikians quite naturally mentally divide content into text or images. I understand "information" can be construed to include images in many uses, but in wiki context doesn't it generally refer to text?
Also, I think allowing OOU images in BGIN of IU articles is a half-measure that satisfies no one. The new users who want to see that new-Chloe picture or the President Heller image are not going to be satisfied that it's on the bottom of the page, because they probably will not even scroll there to begin with. And for those veteran editors who don't want to see spoiler images, having them "just on the bottom" of the page really just sidesteps the purpose of the spoiler policy. My point is, either we allow those images at the top and change the policy (and add a warning banner, etc), or leave them strictly to the OOU pages entirely. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 01:15, March 13, 2014 (UTC)
Well the polic currently does not mention images specifically and treats everything the same; I don't see the use of having different rules for each. If you want a word other than "information" to indicate the inclusion of all pre-released media, then we can change the wording. Allowing pre-release images on the wiki at all is sidestepping the (old) point of the spoiler policy and any veteran editors wanting to avoid spoilers are gonna get hit either way whether we allow them just on oou or in BGIN too. For me, the current spoiler policy is now to draw a distinct line between what has been shown, broadcast and officially written into the 24 canon; and what we have gleaned from various official sources, which may be changed or removed at any time. I think that is an important distinction to make. As Pyramidhead said, allowing new pictures on the page but no written text explaining it is gonna be even more confusing to visitors/veteran editors too! It seems counter-intuitive to craft different rules for text and images.--Acer4666 (talk) 01:26, March 13, 2014 (UTC)
Ugh, well I've never been stoked about the spoiler policy before, so I suppose I'll never like it. :) I'll concede the point and go change "information" to "content" on the project article. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 02:19, March 13, 2014 (UTC)
(Oh and your line about "bum fun" back when you reopened this Forum thread in 2011 has still got to be one of the top 5 funniest things I've ever read here!) Blue Rook  talk  contribs 02:23, March 13, 2014 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.