Forum:Scanlation Allowed Images

It has been bothering me for quite some time now, but there are images that allow scanlations simply to provide information for readers, such as maps and Devil Fruit revisions, while others, such as, retains RAW.

Now, I wanna clear this out for good. Scanlations are now not allowed on this wiki, and I don't think we should let this be an exception. After all, scanlators and subbers alike can have discrepancies in their own variations of translation, causing confusion, such as "Arabasta" instead of "Alabasta".

In a related issue, manga images that have emptied out speech bubbles are not considered RAW, they are just adulterated scanlation images that we use on desperation that we cannot get our hands on the actual RAW yet.

My point of this forum is: eliminate all scanlations, either by replacing them with raw or outright deletion. 04:22, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion Starts Below
If I remember correctly during the forum was specified that those images were exceptions. Although if you propose to remove (replace) them, then it's another story, but my point is they currently aren't against the guidelines.

I agree. 13:02, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

My understanding of the original raws forum is that it allowed for scans to be used when the raw couldn't explain what the image needed to explain (maps, diagrams, etc) or when the raw was poor quality. And even in the case of the latter, usually a good raw will show up eventually to replace it. I think the general attitude has been that blanked scans can be used temporarily until a good raw comes out to replace it. Using scans for a few hours (or days) is the only way for us to get images for several hours, and opens up image editing to more users than those who download the raws.

I think the current policy is fine, it just needs clarifications. 13:53, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

No reason at all to remove them. The images are fine. Blanked out ones are good and can be higher quality than most high quality RAWs. Personally I think we should go for the HIGHEST quality image and not just a blind "Only use RAWs" If we just blanked the scans it would be perfectly fine. SeaTerror (talk) 17:34, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

Uh no. Blanking every bubbles is gonna leave very ugly empty spots. And as for the scanlations allowed, some SBS images that have words do not have scanlations, while others do. I just see inconsistencies that makes somewhat of an eyesore. Besides, the translators tend to make mistakes like using "r" instead of "l" for a certain country's name, and there are so many other examples. 18:35, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

That was never a mistake. "very ugly empty spots" That is also just your opinion. Blanked images are actually much better images than most RAWs with low quality text. SeaTerror (talk) 00:25, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

Blanked out bubbles means the page has been edited. We want unedited, undiluted images. Otherwise, we can just add whatever we want into it. Here's an example of File:Tyrannosaurus Manga Post Timeskip Infobox.png: some guy edited this one, and RAW and undiluted. And that Hannyabal post-timeskip image, before it was properly replaced, some guy just filled in the lettered portion with pure black, doctoring it and not adding the buttons on his uniform. 06:15, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, when an image has been doctored beyond just cleaning, of course we should use raws. And have we ever considered getting someone who can make our own english translation images to match our own spellings? That would make things way more consistent for us.

And Yata, I understand you think preferring blanked scans for every image is wrong (and I agree with you there), but where do you stand on using them when there is no raw, or a raw is particularly low quality? 14:14, April 12, 2013 (UTC)

I understand blanking out things when we have no raw, but once we have it, I mean. 15:00, April 12, 2013 (UTC)

The funny thing is how eveery single RAW image on this wikia is edited by Calu or somebody else who can clean. So your "unedited" argument doesn't fit. SeaTerror (talk) 21:20, April 14, 2013 (UTC)

I guess cleaning is one thing we can allow, just to make the images cleaner. An exception, otherwise all other scanlation is not allowed. 02:09, April 15, 2013 (UTC)

Cleaning an image doesn't mean its a scanlation. You still ignored how there is absolutely nothing wrong with blanked out images. They are almost always higher quality than the RAW images. SeaTerror (talk) 17:17, April 15, 2013 (UTC)

Blanked out images: I see empty gaps in the image like the characters are just mouthing mutely to each other. Besides, when you blank it out, you can see pixels of the deleted dialogue compared to the background of the rest of the image. It stands out. 18:09, April 15, 2013 (UTC)

Point is, many SBS images are RAW, while some are scanlations. That is inconsistent. 05:36, April 17, 2013 (UTC)

You can't see anything like that at all. The blanked out images don't have pixels. SeaTerror (talk) 16:53, April 20, 2013 (UTC)

Some do. They have these large squared out blank white spots over the darker pixel background. 16:59, April 20, 2013 (UTC)

So I take it we should start filling images up with RAW, for ALL of them unless anime? 06:44, April 22, 2013 (UTC)

No. You're the only one who wants that and you have yet to prove blanked out scans are bad at all. SeaTerror (talk) 17:41, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

I can say the same for you on the opposite end. Blanked out speech bubbles are like characters mouthing mutely. And we will NOT use scanlations when possible. 21:22, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with blanking out speech bubbles being a bad thing. I'd rather have something than big white boxes with nothing. 21:48, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

I don't really care. I can't read Japanese anyway, so it doesn't matter if they're blank or not. 21:52, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

Blanked out look terrible. 21:55, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

Blanked Images aren't that bad, we should used them temporary until there is a Raw Available to replace it. -- 22:05, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

When a new chapter is out, we use blanked scanlation images till somebody uploads a raw. 22:08, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

Well, of course. If there's really no other clean option, we kind of have to use blanks. 22:08, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

But ST make it sound like it's okay (if not insisting) to keep using blanks after the Japanese version comes out. If I remember right, he also said it was okay (if not we should) to use scanlations. I disagree on both claims, blanks are terrible and scanlations have copyright issues. 23:02, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

I'm one to support the usual argument of "if it looks better, let's switch to it". But if the image is infringing copyright, and the scanlator's scan (it's technically stealing to re-use it), then of course it shouldn't be used. I bet most of the scanlations we've used have been stolen without even the scanlator's permission, which is both legally and morally wrong. I heard an argument a while back that we could try having our own original scans. I'm not sure if that was in this forum or another, and I'm not sure if it's been established on, but would it work? We'll have our own scans, it might not be copyright infringement (I'm not sure on that), and we don't really have to change the text. 00:32, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

Of course it would still be copyright infringement. The manga picture is the copyright part, not the text. As for using the scanlator's scan without permission, it really doesn't matter at all. There is no legality behind the scanslators, and if they couldn't sue us even if they wanted to. 00:39, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

If we DO use a scanlator's scan, we should at least give credit. I did something like that for the Sprite images. Not that it NEEDS to be required, but more for an honor/moral sort of shite. 00:44, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

They don't look terrible at all. The idea is to use the best quality image possible. That Fujitora image you reverted to RAW was downright awful quality compared to the blanked out scanlation image. Nada if you want to use an argument like that then every single image on the Wikia breaks copyright law. It also isn't stealing to use those images but that's an entirely different argument. If the quality is better then we should use it. SeaTerror (talk) 16:18, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

A blanked out speech bubble is like the character is muttering mutely. 17:11, May 3, 2013 (UTC)
 * At least Japanese it has words to fill in those spaces, giving the (better) impression that a dialogue is being done. And scanlation sometimes have the freaking watermark blocking the crucial part of the picture. 17:13, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

Seriously your arguments to be against blanked out speech are all awful and opinion based. Watermarks can be removed and I'm pretty sure the scanlators that upload to Mangarule don't use them. SeaTerror (talk) 18:04, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Mangarule doesn't use watermarks. Though the raw is usually out by the time they release. 18:22, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

I'm mostly against the idea of hybrid scans. I would like to remind some people this discussion that took place some years ago. There some interesting points were raised concerning raw and scanlation releases. I'll quote this:


 * "Also since no one has told me what the difference between scanalation and raw are, its because tones. those tones get lost in clean up processes, so often the scanlation groups have to replace them with their own. the orginals are just a series of "." but often the replaced ones are "(.)" depending on the tone. It happens, their not perfect. And also they may have to redraw the entire frame for smooth lines, I know I've compared two frames of one of each before and see alignment problems with the scanlation aginst it raw carbon copy. Of course, this varies between groups and techniques, but it is a point to be made; a scanalation isn't a true representation of Oda's work because something is lost in clean-up."

It is one thing to use raw or scanlation images when the situation calls for it and another to masquerade scanlations as raw. They are not the same thing as they are clearly doctored images and they are unacceptable according to our Image Guidelines! MasterDeva (talk) 12:19, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

==Poll== Since the talk seems inconclusive and halted, let's just go to the polls to resolve the entire thing once and for all.

''This poll will decide whether we allow scanlations. To vote you must have 300 edits and be a registered user for at least 3 months. The poll is now closed and the options are below. The poll will end in one week, on June 6 at 12:00 UTC.''

Replace all scanlations with RAW

 * 1)  16:00, May 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2)  16:09, May 28, 2013 (UTC) There are not many scanlation images on this wiki so it won't be hard.
 * 22:18, May 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * 23:13, May 28, 2013 (UTC)

Keep them as they are

 * 22:12, May 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * 02:43, May 29, 2013 (UTC) (I believe in what image is better.)

Poll Discussion
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Where's this poll coming from? I never saw any test poll or anything. According to the poll rules, we should have had some kind of test poll up before this thing got started. I'm all for resolving this, but I don't like this poll. I don't like either option, and I feel like there could be more, but we need to discuss that first. I move for cancelling this poll. 22:32, May 28, 2013 (UTC)

Well, since nobody was participating in this forum anymore after a few days of talking, even after bumping it, I thought we should just start the polls to get it all over with. 23:19, May 28, 2013 (UTC)

You can put up a test poll if nobody posts for awhile, but polls shouldn't be started without giving people the opportunity to see what the poll format will be. I really don't like this poll, since it leaves out the option for compromise where we edit/create scanlation images to match our own spellings, etc. 00:18, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I haven't made a poll for a while... So please, do make changes as you see fit. My bad. 00:35, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

Then the poll should be closed and redone after discussion. SeaTerror (talk) 01:22, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I'm closing the poll. Not even the "use blanked scanlations if they are higher quality" option was used. This needs to be redone. SeaTerror (talk) 03:11, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

Alright, then. Feel free to reset the poll in your (reasonable) terms. 05:14, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

How about one with 3 options: 1) Keep them the same. 2) Replace them all with RAW. 3) Edit or create new scanlations to keep them consistent with our spellings and guidelines.

Does that sound fair? 16:53, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

No point in creating the extra work. Using blank scans is the best way to go if they are high quality. SeaTerror (talk) 18:26, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

Just add the blank option, so ST will stop mentioning it. We all know it won't win anyways.

Other then that, I support the new poll proposition. 18:31, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah because people love low quality RAW images. Nobody actually cares about quality images on this wiki. SeaTerror (talk) 18:40, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

Some are LQ, but XScar has been cleaning a bunch of them, and they look just as good, if not better then the scans. 18:40, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

We also shouldn't delete the allowed ones but keep them the same. SeaTerror (talk) 18:42, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

In any case, here's a draft on how I think the poll should be: Conditions are 300 edits for 3 months to vote. How does this sound? 01:57, June 30, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Change all the "allowed" scanlations to RAW.
 * 2) Keep them as they are.
 * 3) Make some personal edits that are deemed allowable.

Bad because you refuse to listen to anything related to blanked out scanlations. Quit being so bias. SeaTerror (talk) 02:04, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

There's no point having a blanked out scanlations for maps and diagrams...if they could be blanked they don't belong in the Scanlation Images Allowed category in first place. But for clarification, is this poll just restricted to images in that category, or all scanlated images used across the wiki, including those with blanked text bubbles? 05:21, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

All of them, I guess people just didn't have time to find those blanked out ones in the past. And ST, blanked out scanlation is bull-and-cock. Might as well use some other language scanlation that is available at the first mark, if you put it your way. 07:31, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

You really don't get it. Most of the time the blanked out scanlation images are higher quality than the RAWs. Even AFTER they get cleaned. SeaTerror (talk) 08:10, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

Blanked out scanlation is still scanlation. Rules are no scanlation in general. Now we are trying to eliminate the usage of scanlations altogether, so blanked out scanlations are the targets. 16:14, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

Stop being a troll. You're own arbitrarily and asinine hatred for scanlations is making you blind and bias. Not to mention the fact that blanked scans are allowed until RAWs are available. The point has always been we should use the highest quality image available and that usually the blanked out scans are higher quality than even cleaned RAWs. SeaTerror (talk) 18:28, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

Apparently you're the biased one, against RAW. Blanked out looks like white blots all over the page. Can we just start the polls? 19:02, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

That's a giant lie and you know it. I support the highest quality images only. Even after RAW images are cleaned they are usually awful and the blanked out scan versions are still higher quality. Even a well cleaned RAW is usually beat out by the blanked scan images. You just have some extreme hatred for scanlations and scanlators in general. Maybe they stole your lollipop when you were a baby? Who knows what the arbitrarily reason is. SeaTerror (talk) 19:05, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

Keeping on topic, the most problematic images are the ship diagrams for the Going Merry and Thousand Sunny. I can't see an effective way of using the RAWs for them without losing necessary information. All the other images could probably be replaced without too many issues. 19:14, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

Well, the captions can serve as information legends and whatnot. To solve this issue, I suggest that we just start the poll. 20:42, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

The blanked out scanlations option has to be on the poll regardless. But nobody takes you seriously since you're so bias. SeaTerror (talk) 20:46, June 30, 2013 (UTC)


 * This kind of comment has nothing to do here. As you've been asked many times, discuss using facts, not personal attacks.

I see no comment asking me any time so there is no "many times". What I said is a fact and not a personal attack anyway. Just read Yata's comments and you will see him give no real reason for not wanting them and won't even CONSIDER having them as an option on the poll. That is the pure definition of the word bias. SeaTerror (talk) 21:13, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

I say include them on the poll, just for fairness sake. We all know they won't win.

I'll draft the poll below. 21:19, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the last option to what it should say. The issue the entire time has been that we should be using the HIGHEST quality image. SeaTerror (talk) 21:21, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

Good, we can start right away, if no more opinions. 21:44, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite interested on the third option, but can you clarify what it means? (I know I can't vote, just curious). Oh, and I also agree that higher quality images should be considered more, over images with lower quality. I'm sure the fans of One Piece would rather view a higher quality scanlation than a uncleaned, low quality RAW, they don't really care as long as the quality is good (and most clean raws don't look as good as Scanlation, most of the times). 23:30, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

You know, our own scanlations. 01:52, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean that we use scanlation images and replace the text with our own english text? 01:58, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

We can use even RAW and add our own scanlation text into it. 02:13, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

That is not what it means at all. It means we can use blanked out scanlation images. SeaTerror (talk) 02:14, July 1, 2013 (UTC)



I proposed that rule, and what I intended it for was only for images in the category Scanlation Allowed Images, which were pretty much mostly SBS images/diagrams, with a few images from Chapters. I do not mean for us to self-translate every single manga image, just the few images that really need English translations, and featured incorrect translations by our standards. I made an example on the right.

Regarding the poll, I don't think option 4 makes sense to have on this poll. The way ST intends the option to be is that we replace all manga images with blanked scanlation images, because in his mind they're always higher quality than raws. However, every other poll option deals only with the images in the category. It doesn't make sense to have one option in the same question that has a significantly wider reach than any other option. It should be removed from this poll and discussed as a separate matter in a separate forum. I don't intend to say this as a way to silence ST's opinion, but I just don't think it belongs in this particular forum. This forum and poll should deal only with images in the category. 02:17, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

I just want to know: Why do we want to get rid of scanlations? If the problem is the english text, we can just blank it out. I don't see any harm of using scanlations, the way I see it: high quality > low quality. 02:35, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any reason with removing the scans in that category. If those images were in Japanese, what would be the point in having them? 02:55, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

They're honestly kind of pointless, since we can just use the captions. 03:10, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

Locked the test poll so it doesn't look like the poll is already over without any votes.

@ST, your love for blanked out scanlations have gotta stop. JSD is right, with that 4th option, you'd get rid of all RAW and use scanlations all the way, with your love for scanlations here and there, and you say I am biased. 04:59, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for not letting this go, but there have been problems in the past with issues being not fully discussed before starting the poll. Here is an image with a lot of Japanese text, whose equivalent is currently on the wiki as an Allowed Scanlation:

https://imageshack.us/a/img823/3958/j2q.png

If Option 1 wins, how will you fit all of that into a caption? Even if you wrote out all the information in a separate paragraph, you wouldn't have the arrows pointing to the elements in the picture, and the text is arranged too haphazardly for directions like "left to right, top to bottom" to be effective. 05:45, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

None of you are right. I said the highest quality image should always be used which is USUALLY the scanlated images. The RAW images could possibly be better but it is pretty damn rare. You have not once given a real reason as to why the high quality blanked out scanlation images should not be used. So yes you really are the bias one. SeaTerror (talk) 06:17, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

I told you my reason so many times, and blah blah blah, you said no reason. It looks crappy, blanked out bubbles, like blots on the page, like characters talking mutely, like white marks on the center of the bubbles that telltale the markings of the scanlation text have been erased. Also, sometimes you can see the scanlation marks here and there, even if most of them has been cut off. And let's face it, sometimes people add in their own fillings for things being cutoff due to scanlations, and sometimes there are scanlation texts that can't be erased so easily due to them being part of the images (which would leave a blanked out spot in the middle of the image). Here are your reasons, happy? 08:20, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

We could always blank out the box, then add the RAW Japanese text in, like what I've done, although I did a really hasty job at it. Someone could do it way better then I. And what do you mean by scanlation marks? Are they the scanlation logo or watermarks? We could always exclude the mark from the image or find another scanlation image without the mark if we really needed that particular portion. 09:21, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't really have a problem with using scans with raw text added back in, as long as the scanned image hasn't been significantly doctored, like this one of Marine base 6-5.

And is everyone in agreement that option 4 doesn't belong on this poll? As I've said, we can have the conversation about raws and scans in general, but it needs to be outside this forum. I would actually like to make some changes/clarifications to the general policy, so I can promise such a forum will not go ignored. I won't make that forum until ST agrees that it doesn't belong here though. 13:06, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

Yup, option 4 should at least be altered, if not removed. InSaiyan actually has a good idea as well, if we could add that as an option for the poll. 16:55, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'm the only one who actually read this forum.

In a related issue, manga images that have emptied out speech bubbles are not considered RAW, they are just adulterated scanlation images that we use on desperation that we cannot get our hands on the actual RAW yet.

My point of this forum is: eliminate all scanlations, either by replacing them with raw or outright deletion. Yatanogarasu Talk 04:22, April 10, 2013 (UTC) So yes this forum is also about blanked out scanlations. SeaTerror (talk) 17:14, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

The issue of the raw never being available anymore is gone ST. It's been released the moment Mangapanda releases (or earlier) consistently since Chapter 694. 17:15, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact that those RAW images are still usually low quality. SeaTerror (talk) 19:29, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

The best way I see is: If the scanlation has a better quality over the RAW then we use that BUT we blank out the english text and replace it with the RAW text. That's what I've been doing and nobody seems to notice, or just ignore, except for one individual. So people complaining about the english mistranslations can be pleased and the people who wants higher quality images also pleased. Examples of some I've done are here:  and. As I've said before, noone seems to notice, it pleases both sides of the argument and it's easy to do. Although the ones I've done had been hastily completed, I'm sure somebody else can do a much better job. 03:00, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is opposed to the idea of adding Japanese text to scans, so I don't think we need to poll that at all. If there's ever an issue with the scan though, we should obviously revert to a "true raw" after discussion on the image's talk page.

That takes care of the issue with blanked scans overall, but it still doesn't deal with images in the category. Are we all ok with proceeding with the 3 option poll to settle the issue of Category:Scanlation Images Allowed? 03:19, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

Adding Japanese text to scanlations would just be stupid. You might as well just be using the RAW. SeaTerror (talk) 05:20, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

Didn't you already establish that the quality of RAWs are lower than the quality of scanlations, it wouldn't be the same as using the RAW. I thought your goal was to allow scanlations to be used or do you want the scanlation to to have english text? 05:59, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

It makes absolutely no sense to add Japanese text to scanlated images. It would be basically editing images twice for no reason. The images would be fine left blank. SeaTerror (talk) 08:47, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

It'll be no problem for me editing the images, I actually find it very entertaining to do, like a hobby. I wouldn't mind leaving it blank either but the problem is, the others don't want blanked scanlations. However, they seem to agree on having scanlations with RAW text. 09:01, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

Apparently ST doesn't get it: blanked out images with too much speech bubbles are just ugly. 16:35, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

Only Yata doesn't want them and doesn't have a real reason for it other than "ugliness" that doesn't even exist. SeaTerror (talk) 18:07, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

No, he's not the only one who thinks that. And we're better served to have the raw text rather than a blanked image, because we can then refer to our own images when we need to make a decision based on translation. Since we are dedicated to staying accurate to the original publications of One Piece, and therefore the Japanese version first and foremost, we should keep images that are as close as possible to our Primary Source, the Japanese manga. I can't overstate the encyclopedic value of having our images be from the primary source. It just makes us more accurate, whereas blanked scans just show laziness and aren't helpful. If people are willing to make raw/scan hybrids, you shouldn't complain ST, since you won't be doing the work related to them. 02:03, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Raw/scan hybrids aren't primary source though, since scan groups tend to redraw parts. If there's text outside of a speech bubble, then the scan group has erased it and filled in the blanks, which is clearest on the cover pages that are filled with ads. And InSaiyan has been using MangaPanda scans, which definitely shouldn't be used under any circumstance (they're so smudgy that they look worse than the raws). When I see Japanese text on an image, I like to know that that's the way the image originally appeared in the magazine or volume (barring cleaning to compensate for the cheap paper they use in the magazines). 05:38, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

I think the quality of MangaPanda scans are better than RAWs, guess it's just me. But since you don't like the quality, we could always use another scanlation group, there's another out there that may have better quality. I only plan to use Raw/Scan hybrids for character infoboxes, locations, scenes etc, not for cover pages. The cover pages should only be RAWs since it's really hard to make hybrids of them. 06:05, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

After comparing MangaPanda scans with other scanlation groups, I agree with Zodiaque, the MangaPanda scans are very smudgy and ugly in comparison to other scanlation groups, although I still believe it's slightly better than uncleaned RAWs. However, I've found a different source that has no watermarks, and could be used as the base for Scan/Raw Hybrids. 06:14, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Or you could just not do them. Its extra unneeded work done for no reason. SeaTerror (talk) 18:13, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand option 3. Also, what about "Allow copy and paste of raw Japanese text over blanked out scanlation if no other alterations is present"? I believe it was proposed in the discussion.

Can we rephrase that and say "Allow copy and paste of raw Japanese text over blanked out scanlation if no better alterations are present"? 00:23, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we really need to poll that, but if we do it should be a separate poll question. Whether or not we make these "semi-raws" doesn't really affect images in the category of Category:Scanlation Images Allowed, which is what the main purpose of the poll below is. We need to figure out what to do with the few images we currently allow to be in English. Also, I don't think anyone's mentioned this yet, but we obviously have to leave the images that serve as examples of what NOT to upload (such as the GIF with subtitles) alone. Since it's been awhile, I'm going to update the poll now too. I'll make a 3 option poll about the category. If other people still want to make a poll about other options that don't apply to the category, that's fine, but they shouldn't be options of this poll. 12:37, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

Then I just changed it back. I already proved this forum was also about blanked out scanlation images. We can add the other options people want to this current poll. SeaTerror (talk) 18:14, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

The scope of option 4 is significantly larger than the other options. It deserves a different poll, not this one. Make up a new poll template with different options about whether or not we use blanked out scans everywhere. Look at the goddamn title of the forum, ST. We're mainly supposed to be handling images in the category. If you want to poll option 4, it must be a separate poll. I can't stress that enough. 03:20, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

In a related issue, manga images that have emptied out speech bubbles are not considered RAW, they are just adulterated scanlation images that we use on desperation that we cannot get our hands on the actual RAW yet.

My point of this forum is: eliminate all scanlations, either by replacing them with raw or outright deletion. Yatanogarasu Talk 04:22, April 10, 2013 (UTC) Done being pwned yet? Well time to yet again revert the poll. I find it ironic you said I didn't read it yet you were the one who in fact didn't. SeaTerror (talk) 05:19, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

I meant the title of the forum ST. The discussion pretty much already decided that blanked scanlation images were acceptable placeholders for raws, though they should be replaced eventually, so nearly all discussion within the forum has been related to the issue of images within the category of scanlation images allowed. You're allowed to poll the issue, but it must be a separate poll question. Based on the discussion and how each points' intended use was, Option 4 does not apply in the same way that the other poll options do, so it must be a separate poll. Don't believe me? Read this:

Option 1: Change all allowed scanlation images to RAW.
 * This option explicitly refers to the category of allowed scanlation images.

Option 2: Keep them as they are.
 * Here, them refers to the images mentioned in the last poll option, so again, only images in the category.

Option 3 (My revision): Allow members of the wiki to alter images in the category of scanlation images allowed so that the spellings are consistent with what the wiki uses. (Use our own English translations)
 * Again, refers only to images in the category.

Option 4: Allow the use of blank scanlation images over raw images if higher quality.
 * Refers to all images across the wiki. Since it would affect images outside the category of scanlation images allowed, it would be foolish to have this option included as an option on the same poll question as the other options, which only affect images in the category.

If you make up a separate poll about how we deal with RAWs in general (though I'd prefer it to be in a different forum, but if you're too lazy to make that then I can't stop you.) that's fine, but option 4 cannot exist in the same poll question if it affects all images on the wiki. 12:05, July 5, 2013 (UTC)

You are right, this forum is about that category only. I forget this for a moment because "some people" were apparently trying to use this forum to challenge what was decided in the RAW vs scanlation one, that's off topic.

Now that Yata's back in action, we should probably start up this discussion again. As far as I can tell, there are three separate issues, and this forum is a complete mess. The second and third could probably be polled together, but they should be separate from the first. I'm personally against the hybrids, and so is SeaTerror. JSD's OK with it, and Yata and DP have allowed it to some degree, but community opinion and the circumstances in which they could replace other images isn't clear.
 * 1) Should we allow scanlations (with text) for images in the Scanlation Images Allowed Category, or should they all be converted to RAWs?
 * 2) Should we allow blanked scanlations across the wiki, and if so under what circumstances (taking into account the fact that we no longer have to wait a few days for RAWs anymore)?
 * 3) Should we allow RAW/scan hybrids, and if so, under what circumstances?

As one final point that hasn't really been talked about, it seems that everyone's OK with scanlations if there is no text in the image, in which case that should formally be acknowledged as wiki policy. 06:23, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

We're OK with scanslations until a raw comes out, yes.

The hybrids are ok if they look good, but the ones that Insaiyan keeps uploading are pretty obvious. Anyways, the poll format is good. 06:56, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

Zodiaque, it will be acknowledged as a wiki policy depending on the results of this poll. Although, there already seems to be a majority. 08:08, July 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * I was referring to situations like this, which haven't been discussed at all in this forum, and would apparently be allowed no matter which option wins. 08:42, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

I'm ok with going ahead with polls as Zodiaque proposed. And for the record, if there's no Japanese text in an image, HQ scans are totally fine. The general rule for scanlation images in any context is that as long as they aren't edited a bunch and feature some kind of error when compared to the raw version. So if there's no text, and the image isn't poorly doctored, then scans are fine, by the current rules. And if you disagree with those policies, check out Mangarule's scan quality, because they're the best and I don't see why we shouldn't use their images. 03:03, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

Draft poll options. Any complaints? 06:30, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

Open it. 12:34, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

One more thing, I've been thinking about it, and it might be better to put Poll 2 into the following format:

1. Should we allow the use of blank scanlation images over RAW images if higher quality?
 * Yes


 * No

2. Should we allow RAW/scan hybrids, where Japanese text is superimposed over high-quality scanlations, to replace low-quality RAW images?
 * Yes


 * No

This would lead to four outcomes, and avoid a three-option poll with wasted votes:
 * Yes and Yes: May replace LQ RAWs with blanked scanlation or hybrid.
 * Yes and No: May replace LQ RAWs with blanked scanlations. Hybrids banned.
 * No and Yes: May replace LQ RAWs with hybrids. Blanked scanlations banned.
 * No and No: RAWs only.

Which layout would everyone prefer? 14:39, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

This one looks better. 14:59, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

@ Zodiaque: Yup, that format is good. Would that be a separate poll than the Scanlation Images Allowed Category? 02:48, July 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * I've replaced it. Yes, Poll 1 is for images in the Scanlation Images Allowed category, Poll 2 is for all other images that have text on them in some form. 04:16, July 12, 2013 (UTC)

In the first poll, can people who vote for 1 also vote for 2a or 2b? 12:58, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

Of course not. MasterDeva (talk) 13:01, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

Why shouldn't they be able to? If allowing scanlations for the first poll has a clear majority over converting them to RAWs, then people shouldn't be forced to change their vote from 1 to 2 to have their opinion on 2(a) or (b) counted. 13:29, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

The poll will decide whether scanlations should be used at all or not. Voting both yes and no doesn't make sense, you choose either one or the other. In order to vote for 2.a or 2.b you have to vote for #2 (yes) first. MasterDeva (talk) 13:50, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

It's not voting "yes and no". It's voting "yes, but if no wins this is the option I would prefer". It's the same logic behind people being able to vote "no" to ban someone, yet still being able to have a say in the ban length - the only difference is that the polls are concurrent. 13:56, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

Either you vote one thing or change your vote and choose the other. In the example you mention above, about banning someone, the first poll only decides whether that person will be banned. It isn't certain that the person will be banned though! That's why the length poll is separate from the first. Only after the first poll has decided "yes" people can vote on the length. Note also that since they are separate polls, users who didn't vote on the first one can still vote on the second poll. Here we have a single poll with two options and a sub-option. Even if you treat them as two polls running at the same time you still have to clear the first poll in order to move on to the next. MasterDeva (talk) 14:51, July 11, 2013 (UTC)


 * Well yes, 2(a)/(b) would only be relevant if Option 2 won. We could run them as two separate polls. But each of them would have to run according to the rules - two weeks each. What's the point of taking four weeks rather than two to reach the same outcome? It's simple matter of efficiency. 15:24, July 11, 2013 (UTC)


 * It has more to do with laziness rather than efficiency. There is nothing wrong with how the poll was crafted. What we're discussing here is a situation were people can vote for both options instead of choosing one and later changing their vote to another. If someone wants to change their vote later it is their right and they are free to do so. MasterDeva (talk) 17:03, July 11, 2013 (UTC)


 * Being able to vote in the sub-question of the option you didn't vote for is nothing new though. Calu did it here, in a poll you participated in, yet you didn't complain about the option there. And again, it's not choosing both options. It's effectively conducting two separate polls at the same time, based on the understanding that the second will only matter if the parent option wins. This has never been an issue in the past, so I'm not sure what all the fuss is about all of a sudden.


 * Anyway, since we're not getting anywhere between the two of us, input from other people would help get this issue out of the way. 17:28, July 11, 2013 (UTC)


 * You neglected to mention however that the poll you linked to specifically mentioned that "even if you didn't vote for the above. If the above option wins, which option would you choose?" in the heading. Here we are moving with the assumption that people for granted will change their vote from the beginning. That's what all the fuss is about. MasterDeva (talk) 18:08, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

Great, four days and still no progress. I've moved the thread at issue down to the bottom, above this post, for visibility. The reason why I want to be able to vote on the sub-question without having to put my name under Option 2 in Poll 1 is that I have a clear opinion on the sub-question (that edits should be allowed), but I'm undecided on the question RAWs vs scans for images in the category (no-one has adequately set out how images with large amounts of text, such as the Thousand Sunny image I posted above, would be dealt with, but at the same time there are a images whose text could easily be fit into a caption, where the RAW would look better).

If the only issue is semantics, then a proposal for wording that would avoid complaints would be appreciated. 16:02, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

Simply add the part I quoted above to the poll's header. MasterDeva (talk) 11:08, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

Can we just open the polls. 09:19, July 18, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, missed Deva's post due to all the forum bumping you were doing, Staw. 12:39, July 18, 2013 (UTC)

I added "with no other alterations" to the last question just to be more clear. Also as far as I remember "Should we allow the use of blank scanlation images over RAW images if higher quality" is ALREADY allowed... in the original forum won the option "When a good raw is available, update the scan image with the raw one".


 * I've added "continue to" to that question. If the blank scans option loses, all existing blank scans will be replaced where found, and RAWs will have priority over blank scans regardless of quality. 13:54, July 18, 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that in most, if not all, of InSaiyan's edited images the Japanese text is either pixelated or compressed rendering it hard to read. If compared with the raw there is an obvious difference. MasterDeva (talk) 14:02, July 18, 2013 (UTC)

Poll 1: Scanlation Allowed Images

 * The poll below consists of two parts. You may vote for an option in either or both parts.
 * Part II will only have effect if Option 2 of Part I wins.

Poll 2: Other images containing text

 * The poll below consists of two questions. You may vote on one or both questions.
 * Depending on the results, there will be four possible outcomes:
 * Yes and Yes: May replace LQ RAWs with blanked scanlation or hybrid.
 * Q1. Yes and Q2. No: May replace LQ RAWs with blanked scanlations. Hybrids banned.
 * Q1. No and Q2. Yes: May replace LQ RAWs with hybrids. Blanked scanlations banned.
 * No and No: RAWs only.

Please note that regardless of the outcome of this poll, scanlations will continue to be allowed for images not containing any text (Example).

Results

 * Poll 1: Option 2 has won. Scanlations will continue to be allowed for images in the Scanlation Images Allowed Category.
 * Option 2(b) has won. The scanlations may be edited in order to maintain consistency with our own translations where necessary.
 * Poll 2, Q1: Blank scanlations are not allowed.
 * Poll 2, Q2: High quality RAW/Scan hybrids will allowed if the RAW is low quality.

Results Discussion
Alright, since the editing of scanlation images is something we can do now, we should probably create some kind of category and fill it up with images that need to be edited. Also, since we have further banned the use of blank scanlations, we should be adding them to the "Scanlation Images" category until proper RAWs can be found for them. As we said in the discussion before the poll, blanked scans may still be used as placeholders for raw images, so they should not be deleted (as long as a raw isn't out yet/the image is already used here). 16:26, August 1, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of creating a category listing low quality RAW images that needs to be replaced with edited scanlations. 08:11, August 3, 2013 (UTC)


 * There should probably be a category like Hybrid Images for any such images that you do, as both a means of transparency (so that people know that the images aren't in their original state) and so that if the rules around them change in the future, they can all be dealt with easily. 09:40, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

Right, so I found some of the blanked out scanlations, and if someone would be kind enough to change them as necessary. I thank you. 03:38, August 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * I also found something of interest: this image is original raw, and the explanations are placed on the thumbnail frame, like a legend for a map. 04:27, August 15, 2013 (UTC)

We already have this category that lists all the lq raw images, we don't need a new one. 13:57, September 4, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion Part 2
It's been bothering me for a while now, but the scanlation/RAW image discrepancies is still high. Here's some examples:

Can't we just do it like how the third image does it, pure RAW with the translated text in the thumbnail text, as opposed to being in the image? 21:25, February 22, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. --Klobis (talk) 01:53, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

I do agree with you for the most part, but the thing is that the text that I did for the third image is kinda the limit before the thumbnail caption becomes too long. I do think that there's too much text in the Fishman Island map for it to be viable. There's probably too much on the Sabaody image also (although the subtitles that are currently on it are really incomplete). For these two images, we would probably have to put a bullet list of translations somewhere nearby.

The sixth image is from an SBS feature on foreign official releases, so I don't know why that's being brought up here. 02:36, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

Didn't know about the sixth, so let's just slide that aside. As for the others... we could just increase the thumbnail size to stretch the width, lessening the number of lines required. And besides, did you check the Bleach wiki? They have their battle data arranged as such, I count about 8 lines of words. And it still works out nicely. Not saying we have to follow their standards, just showing their niceties. 04:54, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

Well, based on the poll, I don't see why having the scanlation images is somehow now less preferable than the raws... Seems like our real problem here is that after the poll, very little changes of our images actually took place: Nobody actually made it into a project, so of course there are still inconsistencies. Someone with the skill needs to actually edit the images, or we need to get some from scanlations. The second image seems fine. I'll go ahead and get Powermana's image for the 3rd image, since their translation is consistent w/ us. I marked the 4th image for cleaning. I have no idea about the first and 5th images.

The 6th image might not actually fall under the "scanlation" category. Based on the SBS text that it's used with, Oda's talking about how OP is being released by Viz in English, and the image is shown in English. So technically, since it's a translated image that appeared in the RAW, wouldn't that just make it a RAW? 05:11, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

We agreed against scanlations in general, and now we are trying to determine whether or not to eliminate the scanlations allowed exemption as well. Since scanlations are faulty at best due to mistranslation issues and biased translators being a possibility. Also, modified images such as scanlations can be considered a copyright infringement issue (yes, scanlation and this whole wiki, as well as using RAW images, are all copyright infringement issues, let's not delve into that). The point is, my comment is to hope to start a project to convert all scanlation images back into RAW, and to subtitle it with text in the thumbnail. 06:19, February 23, 2014 (UTC)

Bump. So can someone start hunting down RAWs and change it, if there's no more arguments? 01:12, February 25, 2014 (UTC)

To be honest the caption solution for images with a lot of text is not really clear and can be confusing. Try doing that for the second image for example. If there are mistranslation, why can't we simply correct them?

Scanlations seem rather dodgy, and to be honest, I am a little biased on using them for wikis. I'm okay for reading them, but using doctored documents... well, you get the picture. 22:46, March 10, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion Part 3
I just went over SBS Volume 76, and saw how the images are RAW scan, yet the use of caption to translate them. It turned out pretty fine. So I like a review on the scanlation allowed images, and to change what can and should be changed to RAW, and just use captions as a way to translate. If there is not too much text in one image, it should be RAW. 17:33, April 3, 2015 (UTC)

Nah, they look clattered that way. We shouldn't overload image descriptions with translations. If the only thing that changes in a pic is the text inside the bubbles/boxes, I don't see any issues with scanlations. MasterDeva (talk) 17:53, April 3, 2015 (UTC)

Well if they don't have too much text, I don't see why not. Like this one, this one and this one. Not too much to put into caption. 01:31, April 4, 2015 (UTC)

First one can be reverted to anime with caption. The others cannot be changed. SeaTerror (talk) 18:53, April 4, 2015 (UTC)

I actually disagree with ST here. I think any image with a diagram and arrows should be translated. And if the image does not have those, we should not have to translated it. So I'd say the first one should be, but the other two should be left Raw. We've got more active translation editors now, and a couple editors/admins (Kage, Calu) that can clean and typeset the images to fit our needs. In fact, one image from SBS 76 that was tranlsated by User:JapaneseOPfan and typeset by Kage was. I don't see why we can't continue to have more scanlated images. 16:38, April 5, 2015 (UTC)

If there's enough room to place the translation in captions, I see no reason not to do that, instead of using a scanlation for so little text. Scanlations are always frowned upon, as they are... unofficial. 17:09, April 5, 2015 (UTC)

I agree with JSD. 17:20, April 5, 2015 (UTC)

What you just said contradicted your post. You say to have them RAW then say you have more scanlation images. Besides you can't even caption the last two since there is too much text. SeaTerror (talk) 19:10, April 5, 2015 (UTC)

Okay, let me clear things up: the first image is an example where we can use captions, since there is so little text. The third one, we can just simplify whatever is said there and put it in the caption, we don't have to copy word for word. If the text is simple enough, we can just use RAW and caption. 20:38, April 5, 2015 (UTC)

Can't cut any of the text out. Full text is needed. SeaTerror (talk) 04:09, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

Nyon was explaining how the Gates of Justice works, with some extra words. We just have to explain how it works in simpler terms, less words. We're not copying word for word from scanlators. That would be something you do for SBS images and info-box and maps. 05:43, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

We're not copying any words anyway. Those are translations. There are no extra words. SeaTerror (talk) 05:45, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

Okay, here's an example of what I am trying to get through to you: Simplification of what the scanlation says. Minus unneeded words. 16:09, April 6, 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) (Scanlation text) "In other words, if the gates are not open, a ship caught in the current would simply sweep straight on by."
 * 2) (Our caption text) "If the doors are not open, the ship would simply go around in circles."

Still no unneeded words. That's about the current itself especially. SeaTerror (talk) 19:09, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

We can shorten whatever the scanlators had written, and put it in the caption. Sheesh! 20:23, April 6, 2015 (UTC)

Yet we can't. SeaTerror (talk) 03:25, April 7, 2015 (UTC)

Why the hell not? Scanlators sometimes put extra words into their translations, and Mangastream is not perfect, as they sometimes misname things. 05:42, April 7, 2015 (UTC)

The only "extra" words there would be is if they localized something which Viz does too. SeaTerror (talk) 19:13, April 7, 2015 (UTC)

What he means is that we can convey the same idea with fewer words. Dialogue and straight up summary are written differently and not every word is absolutely vital if we're just summarizing the main idea,  03:29, April 9, 2015 (UTC)

"Yet we can't." SeaTerror (talk) 05:22, April 9, 2015 (UTC)

You just like to say that so you can plagiarize on the scanlator's dialogues word for word, right? 14:38, April 9, 2015 (UTC)

LOL. If that is counted as plagiarizing then using a RAW is plagiarizing too. SeaTerror (talk) 18:39, April 9, 2015 (UTC)

Or is it because you just don't want to write out the caption yourself? 20:51, April 9, 2015 (UTC)

I still don't get why you think we can't just summarize the dialogue. 01:12, April 10, 2015 (UTC)

Read the images again. You can't summarize them. There's a reason why the scanlation allowed category exists too. SeaTerror (talk) 02:36, April 10, 2015 (UTC)

Of course we can.

Note the third image's caption, which changes text from what is written in the scanlation. 02:57, April 10, 2015 (UTC)

And yet those captions are too long. Especially the second one. Also I already said what should be done with the first one. SeaTerror (talk) 03:35, April 10, 2015 (UTC)

First one, anime or manga, it is easily RAW with captions. The next two, cut out a few more words, and we got it done. 06:21, April 10, 2015 (UTC)

Making a super long caption isn't getting anything done. SeaTerror (talk) 20:05, April 10, 2015 (UTC)

So is making a small thumbnail image that makes it very hard to read the text. 21:36, April 10, 2015 (UTC)

You're not supposed to be reading an image like that with a thumbnail. SeaTerror (talk) 21:55, April 10, 2015 (UTC)

Then why bother using scanlations? It'd be more of a hassle to have to click into it so many times, when a caption can easily write it all out. 22:47, April 10, 2015 (UTC)

"And yet those captions are too long." SeaTerror (talk) 23:01, April 10, 2015 (UTC)

Then shorten them. 00:25, April 11, 2015 (UTC)

Then lose all the meaning. SeaTerror (talk) 01:16, April 11, 2015 (UTC)

Do tell me how that is. 01:17, April 11, 2015 (UTC)

You either make them too long which will look bad on an article or you make them too short and lose all the meaning. This forum is pointless. 02:02, April 11, 2015 (UTC)

Then don't make them too long or too short, just enough. And the first image, just "Deep currents (left); Surface currents (right)" is okay. 02:50, April 11, 2015 (UTC)

Not possible. You would cut out information by making them shorter. This is ridiculous anyway since the only reason you want this is because you have a huge hatred for scanlations for no reason. There is no reason to get rid of images that can't be captioned. SeaTerror (talk) 19:47, April 11, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, blame the ones who want to use proper image guidelines. 22:43, April 11, 2015 (UTC)

"Proper image guidelines" SeaTerror (talk) 07:54, April 12, 2015 (UTC)

That's right. You're the one who's trying to use scanlations when we can avoid it. 08:52, April 12, 2015 (UTC)

Actually it can't be avoided because the captions will either be too long or too short. "There's a reason why the scanlation allowed category exists." There is nothing breaking image guidelines because of that category. SeaTerror (talk) 20:03, April 12, 2015 (UTC)

But there are scans where we can shorten it in captions. 21:03, April 12, 2015 (UTC)

We might as well just poll it. I've had this kind of argument many times and I know this isn't going anywhere. 21:10, April 12, 2015 (UTC)

There isn't anything to poll. Not that many people commented on the forum. Plus there are no scans that can be shorted in captions anyway. Those examples proved it. SeaTerror (talk) 02:56, April 13, 2015 (UTC)

You're just too cynical to even try to shorten these dialogues. 03:03, April 13, 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you even know what that word means. SeaTerror (talk) 07:12, April 13, 2015 (UTC)

Really. You just don't wanna try to use RAWS when I offer you a very good way to do so, you just wanna stick to the old ways. You don't even wanna vote on it. How is that not cynical, selfish? 16:39, April 13, 2015 (UTC)

You only offered an absolutely horrible way of doing this which I already proved. You're now not only using cynical wrong but also selfish. SeaTerror (talk) 18:16, April 13, 2015 (UTC)

Really, you won't even hear people out before calling them horrible, who's not selfish? 18:24, April 13, 2015 (UTC)

We have an impasse with a discussion that clearly isn't going to resolve itself. I'd say that's enough for a poll. Trying to get ST to admit he's wrong is like banging your head against a wall. You won't accomplish anything and you'll probably get a headache. 18:30, April 13, 2015 (UTC)

I am fully aware of that long ago. Nevertheless, it is my duty as admin to talk some sense into whoever participates in this forum. 18:32, April 13, 2015 (UTC)

"Not that many people commented on the forum." So again, there can't be a poll yet. Also I'm definitely not wrong. I'm 100% right about the length of those captions. Might as well put Luffy's entire history section as a caption if you want them that long. SeaTerror (talk) 18:35, April 13, 2015 (UTC)

Get off your high horse. Polls don't need a many comments to start. You're not wrong, 100% right; talk about arrogant. 18:54, April 13, 2015 (UTC)

You're using words wrong again. SeaTerror (talk) 23:44, April 13, 2015 (UTC)

Look, I'm not gonna play word games with you. If you don't like it here, don't participate. 23:52, April 13, 2015 (UTC)
 * And I know what arrogant means, that's what you are. Thinking you're always right, deluded, selfish, and arrogant. 23:53, April 13, 2015 (UTC)

I never said I was always right. I actually showed you how those captions were too long and how meaning would be lost if they were shortened. You also don't know what deluded or selfish mean. SeaTerror (talk) 00:08, April 14, 2015 (UTC)

Okay, bug off. I don't need you insulting me and my vocabulary. 00:48, April 14, 2015 (UTC)

Anyways, if there is no more arguments, then I suggest a poll to decide how to handle this. 00:56, April 14, 2015 (UTC)

I never insulted you. Also, again there have not been enough comments on here for a poll. Barely anybody would vote as it is. The default version would be to leave it alone since it is still an active discussion. SeaTerror (talk) 01:57, April 14, 2015 (UTC)

Last time there was about 16 people to vote. If we post this poll on the news bulletin, they'd just vote, how many people commented does not matter. Since we're just arguing in circles. 02:45, April 14, 2015 (UTC)

Good luck with getting Galaxy to vote again then. SeaTerror (talk) 04:29, April 14, 2015 (UTC)

Okay, 15. And I don't think anyone would wanna talk about that jerk again. 04:56, April 14, 2015 (UTC)

This third-part discussion was not just the two of us arguing, some others did add their opinions too. That warrants enough to create a poll. 04:57, April 14, 2015 (UTC)

You completely missed the point. Most of the people who voted no longer edit. Plus the people who commented here never came back. SeaTerror (talk) 09:16, April 14, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, well, if we open a poll, we can see how many people would vote, and determine how to solve things from there. Quick, effective, and done. 16:02, April 14, 2015 (UTC)

And also, before we vote or argue, do check this image out, and how it is captioned and used. I think that worked out pretty fine. 20:52, April 15, 2015 (UTC)

You have to be trolling with that last comment. The caption only says "Sea of fire explanation." without providing an actual explanation. SeaTerror (talk) 02:09, April 16, 2015 (UTC)

That image gives enough information, in my opinion. After all, "a picture is worth a thousand words". 03:32, April 16, 2015 (UTC)

So trolling it is then. That image gives literally no information since it isn't explained at all. SeaTerror (talk) 21:48, April 16, 2015 (UTC)

Poll 3 Discussion
How does the poll look? We might as well open it since this has gone nowhere. 22:31, April 16, 2015 (UTC)

Needs more options. SeaTerror (talk) 22:39, April 16, 2015 (UTC)

What options? 00:57, April 17, 2015 (UTC)

Not gonna lie, I have not read this forum since I posted on it. But I will say this: You need to clearly define "can be explained with a caption". I have no idea what that means. If you really want to poll this, expect a long poll discussion. 01:12, April 17, 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly how to define that. Maybe as "an image where the text can be adequately summarized with a caption to the point where including a direct translation in the image itself would not add significant benefit to a reader's understanding of the concept the image is meant to convey." That's the clearest and most thorough definition I can come up with. 02:01, April 17, 2015 (UTC)

It's too subjective anyway. The examples all posted here either ruined the meaning or were way too long. With the final example not even providing a single explanation of anything. SeaTerror (talk) 18:58, April 18, 2015 (UTC)

If my definition is subjective, then so is what you just said. If people disagree about what works, we have talk pages and polls for that. 22:29, April 18, 2015 (UTC)

The first part yes. The last one is 100% not subjective. Did you even look at the Punk Hazard page? There is literally no explanation. SeaTerror (talk) 23:31, April 18, 2015 (UTC)

I'm not talking about these specific images, just a general rule. These images can be decided on their respective talk pages. 05:50, April 19, 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this why we have polls then? To decide what is better via majority? 02:16, April 20, 2015 (UTC)

This is why I'm fine with the current system: Discussion based on the image itself. It might be nice to have a rule of thumb such as "diagram images with arrows may be translated" or something like that, but ultimately I believe it should be case-by-case. I also believe we shouldn't go through with this poll, because it will never solve the underlying problem. 05:11, April 20, 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand the purpose of this poll. "Should we allow RAWs instead of scanlations if they can be explained with a caption?" - what? Are you implying we have a rule or policy against using RAWs? Sometimes we use RAWs, sometimes scanlations. It depends on the image. This poll will change nothing if it passes - on the other hand, if it fails, then suddenly we'll have to change all RAWs into scanlations? 19:39, April 20, 2015 (UTC)

I rephrased it a bit. Is this better? 03:01, April 22, 2015 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. 06:22, April 22, 2015 (UTC)

Should we unlock it and start anytime soon? 23:53, April 25, 2015 (UTC)

We might as well start it now. I was just waiting to see if anyone had any problems with it. 00:03, April 26, 2015 (UTC)

"I also believe we shouldn't go through with this poll, because it will never solve the underlying problem."

" This poll will change nothing if it passes " Discussion never ended. SeaTerror (talk) 19:13, April 26, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, polls should be agreed upon before being implemented. Here there was clear opposition. Again, the whole thing is too subjective. 19:21, April 26, 2015 (UTC)

Okay, we were hasty, so we will redo it later. But we are currently continuously discussing on this issue. Of course we need a poll to settle business. Since there are conflicting issues. You think we shouldn't go through with this poll, that's one person's opinion. Others want to see how many people agree/disagree. 21:12, April 26, 2015 (UTC)

Until someone can explain in clear detail the situations where a raw "can be explained with a caption" and the situations where it cannot, this poll should not exist. A poll worded the way it is now is not clear at all, and needs to explain specific situations and use examples.

But again, I think the best policy is the one we have now: A case-by-case basis where we may discuss the merits of translating each image individually. This lets discussion be more clear and detailed for each case, and we don't have to guess about what might come in the future and get locked in to certain policies that don't fit a new image. We've done case-by-case before and it works. Why change it? I'm open to discussing the images you've mentioned in the beginning of the forum, but only individually. I personally believe creating one blanket policy is foolhardy and close-minded, and will only hurt us in the future. 15:07, April 28, 2015 (UTC)

That case-by-case is not exactly a good example, as we only need the pictures of each officer member to know who is who. And here are some good examples for using captions when possible: 1, 2, 3, 4 (especially 4). Which brings us more reason to use captions, and to use a poll to argue against those who don't want to use captions. 17:38, April 28, 2015 (UTC)

As a side question, if we do NOT use captions, are you guys gonna go into those SBS images where there are captions to label the RAW text, personally translate them into scanlations? That's bad. 17:39, April 28, 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that it's bad. So long as the only alteration is text in question, and  only  the text, it's quite good. MasterDeva (talk) 17:45, April 28, 2015 (UTC)

Bump. Sorry to forget, but we really need to clear things up here, start the poll, and get it past us. 18:43, May 7, 2015 (UTC)

Bump Bump. 16:36, May 9, 2015 (UTC)

If there is not gonna be anymore responses, then I can just reopen this poll. 01:23, May 14, 2015 (UTC)

"Until someone can explain in clear detail the situations where a raw "can be explained with a caption" and the situations where it cannot, this poll should not exist. A poll worded the way it is now is not clear at all, and needs to explain specific situations and use examples."

Case-by-case decisions are the best anyway. 02:01, May 14, 2015 (UTC)

It's simple, actually. If the RAW contains information that is not too lengthy, we can add the translation onto caption. 05:37, May 14, 2015 (UTC)

Seems like nobody is interested in talking about this issue anymore, so why not just restart the poll and get this over with once and for all? 02:57, May 23, 2015 (UTC)

What is "not too lengthy"? What about stuff like diagrams and maps? Again, you've got 3 people opposing the poll, and only two (including yourself) agreeing. And if this does ever poll, then "case-by-case" should be option. 20:48, May 24, 2015 (UTC)

Depends on how many words are in these diagrams and maps. Like this one has very little words compared to this complex map. The former one can be captioned, while the latter can be scanlation. 21:22, May 24, 2015 (UTC)

Look, it's being simplified as much as it can be. What more can we do? 21:42, May 26, 2015 (UTC)

You know, I just came back to this, and I was totally willing to edit the poll a bit and just about ready to open it. But once I thought about the poll, I still realized that it's super unclear of what it's supposed to accomplish. Here is my understanding of what it basically reads as now:

Basically, it's all conditional things of "IF they can be explained" and it's all basically leading to "We SHOULD change them, IF we can", which is all really subjective anyways. The poll is just basically

"Should we do this subjective/conditional thing?

Yes, if we believe in subjective/conditional thing, we should do something

No, if we believe in subjective/conditional thing, we should do nothing "

It's all just so conditional and so subjective, that I still really don't see the point. It's poll to ask IF we should change something IF something else is true, IF etc... It's just so many "if"s that I feel it really solves nothing.

Let's just never use the poll and just go to image talk pages and solve those case by case, and then see if after we do all that we can come up with a more clear rule for RAWs. I just think we're kind of going at this in a backasswards way that's much more difficult than what it needs to be. 01:56, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. 02:07, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I just don't understand why people are having the trouble of understanding the simplicity of this poll? We determine if the image is too wordy or not, and use captions or scanlations based on that. Easy. If we have 10 super long speech bubbles in the image, obviously it's too wordy. If it's a simple infobox with two simple words in it, it's caption. 02:09, May 28, 2015 (UTC)


 * The way we're going right now, it's always scanlations over captioning. We need at least a standard guideline to prevent that, this poll helps. 02:10, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

The poll does nothing. We have to do each image case by case. SeaTerror (talk) 02:27, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah well, this one is obviously a caption-able thing, yet we still go by scanlation. That's not right. We need to set a standard at least. To ensure we would at least do this case by case. Otherwise some wisecrack can easily convert all images to scanlations. 02:37, May 28, 2015 (UTC)