User talk:Erik/Images

Comments from Bignole

 * I think we should better clarify this "poster" selection process. I know that recently we've been doing the "when a new one comes out then replace the old one", but I'm not sure I agree with that - especially when it comes to older films. A film released 30 years ago might have one theatrical poster, but if it gets re-released (ala E.T. - only on the re-release part, not the new poster part) then it could get a new poster. Maybe the original poster was more well known. Better yet, there were many films that were released more than once in a year, one immediate example is Friday the 13th Part III, which actually was released on August 12, 1982 and then again on May 13, 1983. If they changed the poster for the second release (and I have no idea if they did, but it wouldn't be a surprise to me if so) why does that get preference over the original poster? Or, what about recent films that haven't had the Wiki community coverage that films like Spider-Man 3 and The Dark Knight have had - they probably have half a dozen posters as well, but how are we to know which one is the "most recent"? I'm not sure how to better clarify the selection process, but I just find saying "use the most recent" as bordering on recentism for posters.


 * I think we should probably cover why images in the plot section are basically a "no-no" a little more, so that there is a clear understanding. I don't like to give a loophole of "if the critical commentary is in another section then it's fine to have the image in the plot section". To me, if the image in the plot section has critical commentary to support it in another section, then the image should probably be in that section. We probably need more of an explaination of what "critical commentary" is, and provide article examples and cut outs. I've noticed that there is always dissention over that piece from WP:NFC, and it would probably be good to have more of a defined answer for them.


 * If you are going to use a Jason image, might I suggest Image:JasonXdesign.jpg, as there is a whole paragraph devoted to that image, in addition to the large caption supplied for it as well. It's probably better than a general infobox image.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To partially address the poster image concerns, I've added "original" to "theatrical release poster" in the first paragraph. I think this is harder to require for recent films because there are multiple choices.  There is not going to be a perfect solution.  We may need to seek some clarification about how film posters work, especially one sheets.  A couple of possible criteria is to exclude teaser posters and to provide a "busy" poster whenever possible (think Star Wars final posters with all its elements compared to its teaser posters showing just a hand with a lightsaber).  We can suggest seeking consensus for doing so.
 * I don't think it's quite a loophole, but it's probably not appropriate for formatting and structuring purposes. In addition, what if images in the Plot sections had captions signifying their use, like at Dirty Dancing?  I agree that it is most appropriate to have the relevant image adjacent to the critical commentary, but if we do implement this draft, we would have to revisit quite a few Featured and Good Articles.  I'm just trying to ease the transition since some editors would be sensitive to the images' removal, even with these policies and guidelines in place.
 * I'm not sure how we can define critical commentary any more usefully. That's why I pulled the criteria and the acceptable uses from the relevant pages; I feel that anything we write to define it would be inadequate.  I wouldn't mind sharing examples, but if we did, we should try to be varied in them.  We should probably something more than the images in recent superhero films, and I don't know how many images in articles of older films are up to snuff.  What kind of dissension have you encountered at WP:NFC exactly?  It just seems that it's completely possible to exclude most, if not all, non-free images with the strictest interpretation ("just describe it well enough for the reader to imagine it adequately").
 * For Image:JasonXdesign.jpg, it would not be a bad replacement, but I think the rationale could be more direct. Remember that NFC enforcers have a problem with non-free images that just "identify" an element.  You use "identify" in #1 and #8 where Image:Fight Club cigarette burn.jpg explains specifically how the image illustrates the context.  That's another issue I want to address as well; is there anything that specifically says we can have one identifying image per article?  I hesitate to bring it up publicly to give NFC enforcers the idea of purging all film posters if there is no critical commentary about them in particular.  If there was something, I'd be happy to point to it for justification of having an "identifying image" in the infobox.  Thank you for taking the time to comment on my draft, though! :) — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 12:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We may just need to revist those GA and FA articles. A good portion of them only have images for the purposes of eye candy, with no real commentary about said image in the plot section or any other section.


 * As far as critical commentary goes, I think a variety of examples would be most beneficial. What I have encounted is people saying, "Character X wears a brown shirt and a dark hat", then they proceed to provide an image for it claiming that they have critical commentary. A brown shirt and a dark hat are not hard to imagine, and there is a chance that the article already has a single "identifying" image in the infobox for said character. Or, as far as TV articles go (and I think it relates to film articles) I've seen people argue that since there is a plot section discussing the plot then we should have an image from the movie - that, and, if they have any real world commentary in the article then it is free reign to have any image they choose in the article. Most of the time I come across "we just need an image of X, because it's important", but there is nothing in the article to suggest any importance.


 * I didn't realize that you were using the rationale on the image page as an example, I thought you were just linking to the image itself. I can tidy up the rationale on the image page; it's the article page that contains all of the clear justification for use. I would also say that a single "identifier" image would be all that is needed in any article. That would be a poster for a film article, and a character image (either promotional or screenshot) for the infobox of character pages. After that, all images in the body of the article must have critical commentary to support their use, IMO.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Steve
It's looking good so far. I'll keep this short, due to my relative inexperience with using images on Wikipedia, but here's what stands out on first glance: If I can come up with anything else, I'll add it to the list. All the best, Steve  T • C 07:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bignole that a slight clarification on why decorative plot section images are largely frowned upon is required.
 * Would it be worth placing further emphasis on the requirement to look for GFDL-compliant images before delving into the whole fair-use minefield? You state that these are preferred where possible, but maybe a brief note on appropriate use and placement could be added, or a link to either Images or Images for further information and guidance. Maybe also include a link to the Commons; I found it especially useful for grabbing a couple of images for the filming section in State of Play (film), in lieu of any production photos.
 * Related, but separating for clarity: images produced before 1923 are considered to be in the public domain in the United States. Perhaps of only limited relevance to MOSFILM, and maybe not worth noting explicitly. Same goes with the indeterminate copyright status of many pre-1968 images.


 * What needs to be clarified about Plot sections not having decorative images? I thought that explaining that the Plot section was just a description of the primary source and thus not critical commentary shows the reason for exclusion.
 * Maybe the draft could be revised to encompass all images; I guess my focus was on the minefield since a lot of editors work with non-free images. Maybe we could have a "free equivalent" paragraph that explains what else exists.  Also, I think it would be useful to mention the pre-1923 public domain films, though it may be a good idea to have an off-wiki embedded link explaining the circumstances of that.  Also, aren't trailers from a certain time period (circa release of The Searchers) considered public domain?  For example, the image of Marlon Brando... yeah, I'll see about having a "free equivalent" paragraph. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 12:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)