Forum:CT Archive/Head shots in infobox

Wookieepedia &gt; Consensus track &gt; 

Not too long ago, I lobbied against standardisation towards infobox images. Now, I argue for it. This may seem, to some of you, to be a dramatic change of mind, a Lucas-esque "going back on my word". But now, I have seen much of Wookiepedia - I have actively contributed to both articles and discussions, and I have proposed reforms - some succeeding, some failing.

But now I present, rather melodramatically, something that could change Wookieepedia's appearance wholesale. I am proposing that for infobox images, we use head shots, or mug shots. Now, before you rush about clicking the [edit] button next to Oppose, hear me out.

Here are the reasons why I think a head shot in the infobox is a good idea.


 * 1) Identity. To me, the Infobox is a sort of identity tag for each of the characters. It gives us the cold, hard facts about them at a glance, much like an ID card. Well, I ask you, does your ID card feature a full-body shot? Or does it have a mug shot? The key word here is "identity". Mug shots tend to have a higher familiarity rate than, say, a full body, or waist-up shot. Because, when you remember, or recognise someone, it is from looking at their face, not their attire, or their body language. This also applies to helmets - Boba Fett's helmet is far more identifyable with the average joe than, say, the rest of his attire. Ditto for Vader.
 * 2) More commonly used in encyclopedias. There are exceptions, but on Wikipedia for instance, when there is a biograpical FA, you can put your money on the image being a head shot. This, again, ties back to identity.
 * 3) Character. Character is always demonstrated in the eyes, or facial expression of someone (though, to a lesser extent, it can be shown by body language). To use an in-universe example, the busts of the Jedi Archives. They are designed to demonstrate, and show the personality of that particular Jedi Master, and that is far better done by showing the face; the eyes, rather than the superfulous body. When the face is obscured, this brings up a different problem, but that ties back to identity. Removing the body does not lose us information - rather, it gives us what is needed, and cuts away the...dead weight.
 * 4) Regulation. If we choose to go with portraits, we can give this Wiki (or Wookiee), a far more uniform look. A full body shot can be cropped to be a portrait (quality permitting), but you cannot expand a head shot to incorporate the body. I feel, that by taking this choice, we will be able to give Wookieepedia a far more professional, and consistent look and style, in terms of character articles.
 * 5) Serves the article better. By placing a head shot in the infobox of an article, many full body shots would have to be bumped. Many would argue that, say, for Grievous, a full body shot is more telling of his character. Well...not only is his pose generic (at least for someone with four arms), but we can't see anything about his expression (in the eyes, people). To be blunt, it gives us jack about his character. But, if we place these full body shots down in the peripheral sections (Personality/Traits, Appearance), we can actually describe their attire or appearance, and have the image that serves the content best, right next to it.

I think I've covered all of the arguements "against" in that as well. Apart from "looks akward, too colse". But whatever the hell you choose to do, don't vote against me because you hate me, or because I irk you. Vote against what I am saying because you believe I am wrong, and that what I have said above is void. And, don't vote with me because you like me, all two of you. Vote for what you think is right. And remember: "If the image fits, you must acquit". . .  .  .  22:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) .  .  .  .  22:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)