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 Wookieepedia - 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 identifiable 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)
 * 2) See comments - \\Captain Kwenn// &mdash; Ahoy! 22:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Imp 22:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Adamwankenobi 23:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) QuentinGeorge 00:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC) - Support, but with similar caveats to Kwenn. By all means, headshots should be preferred, but if there is no suitable one, we can be flexible.
 * 6) --Xwing328 (Talk) 02:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Quality permitting and flexible, as the others have said.
 * 7) Where available, portraits are best. -- Darth Culator  (Talk)(TINC) 04:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Since someone deleted my supporting vote from the other day, I guess I'll add it again, though with the same caveats that Kwenn mentioned. - JMAS 21:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Full-body images are just as good, and sometimes better, than headshots. Images in the infobox should not just be limited to headshots when a better full-body image is available. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2)  I need a name  ( Complain here ) 00:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) The good Admiral sums it up. -- Redemption Talk [[Image:Oldrepublic.jpg|15px]] 00:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Head shots are often not enough for non-humans.  Use upper body shots at the least.  -Fnlayson 03:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Head shots for humans *are* often the best, but we shouldn't tie our hands with an actual policy, especially when dealing with nonhumans.
 * 6) I prefer high quality full body shots.--DannyBoy7783 04:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments
Not every character is going to have a head shot, and even then, not all are going to have good-quality ones. It would be best if we could use as many as possible, but really, there has to be some flexibility - \\Captain Kwenn// &mdash; Ahoy! 22:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Each article needs to be looked at as an individual. -- Redemption Talk [[Image:Oldrepublic.jpg|15px]] 22:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Where possible. .  .  .  .  22:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Kwenn & Redemption. There has to be some flexibilty in this...not every character who has a picture available in a canon source has a headshot.  StarNeptune Talk to me! 22:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said above, quality permitting, we can crop any image to become a head shot. .  .  .  .  22:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Key words: where available. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Full-body images are just as good, and sometimes better So much for avoiding subjectivity. .  .  .  .  06:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just speaking the truth. You've always been voting to use only headshots in infoboxes, which isn't good for all cases. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 12:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * IDs and bios in Earthly encyclopedias don't have to deal with with nonhuman individuals, which is why they're filled with headshots; the human face is our primary method of recognition. Note, however, that *animal* pics in encyclopedias are almost always full-body shots.  jSarek 16:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Human supremacy now? I thought we were regarding all species as equal, being semi-in universe. ;P .  .  .  .  21:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In that case, that's a good argument for full-body shots of humans, too. If we're being truly (by which I mean excessively ;-) ) in-universe about it, some aliens might well use other metrics to tell humans apart, meaning they'd need a full-body pics to tell Dooku from Padme. jSarek 02:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure Rin Tin Tin would have a portrait in an encyclopedia. If you want to know what a species looks like, go to it's respective article. .  .  .  .  03:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not the atitude we want. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 12:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur. I don't want to have to go to a species page to see the full body shot or have to scroll down. I want it from the get go.--DannyBoy7783 16:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But it's an individual. The article about Lak Sivrak is not about Shistavanens, nor should it be. It's about his life and times. Besides, if you want to see what he looks like in full, I suggested bumping full-body shots down to the Personality/Traits sections, or some other such peripheral section to the Bio. Did you not read any of this CT? .  .  .  .  20:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Full-body shots do not deserve to be that far down in an article. They deserve to be in the infobox&mdash;where they all were until Thefourdot came along. I'm not trying to be rude, but it's the truth. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 21:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What is this "deserving"? They're not people, Jack, they're images. They don't "deserve" a thing. Neither do head shots. .  .  .  .  21:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Then let me rephrase: If they're good full-body images, they shouldn't be that far down in an article. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 21:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, not all articles have "Personality/Traits" sections, or indeed enough room for multiple images - \\Captain Kwenn// &mdash; Ahoy! 21:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, in that case, either the article should be expanded, or the full body shot should be spaced. At any rate, I'm yet to hear an arguement as to why we shouldn't have head shots in infoboxes... .  .  .  .  21:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No reason at all. It's just a matter of looking at a specific article and chosing an image. Each article is an individual. Not every article will look good with a headshot or full-body shot. The only time when one should take precinct over the other is if one is of better quality. -- Redemption Talk [[Image:Oldrepublic.jpg|15px]] 22:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)