This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. JocastaBot (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I told Erebus that I would do this at some point, and since I have some free time today I figured I'd get started.
There's been some debate both on-site and on Discord about the infobox images for characters (such as Torra Doza) who appear primarily in animated material but are later given "realistic" portrayals in FFG cards or other relatively minor media. Historically, we have decided that the most realistic image should be given priority.
The problem is that in many cases, the "realistic" images either have what RattsT described as a "bizarre uncanny valley effect" or simply do not match the way that the character was intended to appear by its creators. It seems to me that if a realistic image shows a character later on the timeline, it would of course make more sense to use it, but if the image shows the character at the same time as their primary appearance (i.e. Resistance for Doza), then it is not accurate to use the "realistic" image.
In fact, there is already precedent for this. This CT discussed Echo's infobox image and came to the conclusion that while a more realistic image that closely matched Temeura Morrison's face was available, an image from The Bad Batch should be used because the toy did not accurately represent Echo's appearance. In my opinion, images like Doza's are similarly inaccurate. The current image may be more realistic, but it also varies significantly from the character's appearance in the show.
I'm interested in hearing others' thoughts on the matter before I do any kind of CT. What arguments do people have for or against changing these images? VergenceScatter (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Just addressing one argument that I heard in Discord earlier: "Realism is, has been, and always will be the preeminent factor for consideration when determining an infobox image." This and similar sentiments seemed to be behind many of the votes on the Torra Doza CT. However, while our current precedent is to always use a realistic image, this is only precedent. There is no policy laying it down, and we are free to change our precedent at any time. Frankly, I think that this precedent is simply wrong, and that "because we've always done it" just isn't a valid reason to continue doing something. Similarly, arguments about being consistent are also illogical in my opinion. It doesn't matter if we're consistent if we're consistently wrong.VergenceScatter (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I think it's wrong to say it's inaccurate. If it's canon, it's accurate. You may not personally like the more realistic art style, but that's just a matter of personal taste. I suppose I wasn't really persuased to see a problem with our focus on realism. Stake blackmsg 22:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
For me, I'm not convinced by the "inaccurate" argument either, but rather I take the approach of recognization. Readers are looking for a character that everyone knows to look a certain way, and then when they see the article, the image is from a random trading card or webpage and looks very different from the character they expected to be reading about. The infobox is meant to be an easy resource for quick facts about the topic, and the image used should be recognizable. The only case where I feel recognizability takes a backseat in infobox images is when we have an image from a lesser known source depicting the topic at a later time with noticeable visual differences. MasterFred(talk) 22:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
We also have examples like FN-2199 and FN-2003, who appear in The Force Awakens, but have images from lesser-known sources because we actually see their faces there, compared to them wearing a helmet in the film. Ramsay Sanders (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it's canon, but if it contradicts a vast amount of other canon material, I think it is inaccurate, at least not accurate enough for an infobox. My objections aren't that I don't like it; it's that it contradicts the intentions of the character's creators and prioritizes a single card image over two seasons of a tv show, which I don't think makes sense. Fred, I agree with your point. VergenceScatter (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I suppose it also depends on your definition of a contradiction. Usually we prioritize depictions where we see faces rather than helmets (FN-2199/FN-2003), but CC-10/994 uses a picture from The Bad Batch rather than Kanan because the two depictions contradict each other. Ramsay Sanders (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
It should be a recognizable image of the character. A lot of these "realistic" portrayals hit the uncanny valley or otherwise don't capture the spirit of the character. About the only character page that I think works better with such a "realisitic" portrayal is Tanivos Exantor Divo, and that's it. The discrepancy is pretty jarring to me. SilverSunbird (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree with your reasoning, mostly, though I personally don’t see the Torra FFG card image as a significant departure from her depiction in animation — YakovChaimTzvi (he/him/his) (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I guess that's a matter of opinion. I feel that it is a significantly different appearance, but ultimately that case is only one of several characters that are affected by this precedent. VergenceScatter (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I can agree that if a realistic depiction of an animated character isn't instantly recognizable as said character, it shouldn't be in the infobox. That is not the case with the Tora Doza image, or the Synara San images. They are instantly recognizable as who they are. I would agree that isn't always the case. Case-in-point, Kazuda Xiono. That illustrated image does not look like him and doesn't belong in the infobox. - JMASHey, it's me! 23:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't have any issues with Tora and Kazuda's infobox images, and I don't think they vary significantly from their depiction in animation. Animation is known to exaggerate certain facial features, such as the eyeball size. FN-2199 and FN-2003's infobox images do not use the live-action shots because we do not have a view of their faces like in the other material, not necessarily because illustrations are better than live-action. I also don't see how it's an issue that Echo's realistic action figure look is not representative of his depiction in The Bad Batch, especially since it's actually more accurate to Temuera Morrison. I think that should be changed honestly. If Echo makes a very brief live-action debut that shows his face and is accurate to how the toy looks, will we still depend on his most prominent appearance which would be The Bad Batch? No. Because live action and realistic depictions, assuming that it demonstrates the same level of information (ie the FO stormtroopers actually showing their faces rather than depending on illustrations) should take precedence. This is also why we use Hera Syndulla's realistic depiction in Star Wars: Squadrons and not her appearance from her prominent feature in Star Wars Rebels, and countless other examples. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 12:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
I echo Stake black's sentiment. Whether one feels an image is "too" realistic, hits an uncanny valley, or is "unrecognizable" because it originates from "a random trading card or webpage" is a matter of personal opinion, which is completely subjective. I personally always preferred seeing realistic images of animated characters, as the first thing I always think is "Where did this come from?". SorcererSupreme21 (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.