File talk:Boa Hancock Anime Infobox.png

Which version?
Standing is better than sitting, even if the feet are left out. 03:31, January 13, 2013 (UTC)

Lighting is bad on Nada's. Not frontal. Not facing the camera. Sewil's is best. 03:39, January 13, 2013 (UTC)

The sitting image is really most fit as an infobox image, really. I mean it's completely frontal and her whole body is shown. Who's to say standing is better than sitting? What looks better is to be the chosen image.

Her whole body is not showing in the sitting one. The standing one may not be frontal, but her details is actually seen. If frontal views overwrite full views when it comes to infobox images, then somebody needs to rewrite those rules. There is so much that the sitting one leaves out, and we shouldn't have to put her basic outfit in the gallery. That belongs in the infobox. 05:23, January 13, 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Her whole body is shown in the sitting one. What is missing?

Her waste. Her hips. Her bloody skirt. If you want the sitting one, there's a perfectly colored manga picture of her sitting in the gallery there. There shouldn't be a new picture in the gallery showing the skirt when it can just be seen in the infobox. Sitting has missing details, standing does not. I never expected an edit war like this. 05:57, January 13, 2013 (UTC)

Her skirt is right there. And waste and hips is basically the same thing so I don't see why it's such a big deal. Your image has bad lightning and bad quality and is shot at a worse angle.

The design of her skirt isn't seen on the sitting one. Both images' quality are pretty high, the lighting is...I honestly don't see the problem with the lighting. As for "worst angle", do you mean it's because it's not frontal? There are many other accepted infobox images that are in more of an angle than just this. I'll say it again: The sitting has missing details. Even with the "poor lighting and angle", that alone should be reason enough not to have the sitting one. 06:05, January 13, 2013 (UTC)

The design is too seen. And who cares about her skirt anyway? That's not what the image is for. The lighting is bad because it's like a white filter that looks like sunglare which ruins the image. Unless you can find the same image but HQ and without the sunglare we can't use it.

Who cares about her skirt? Do you not realize the purpose of the infobox image? It's to showcase and identify the character in all features: Face, body, and attire. The sitting image excludes the latter. The design of the skirt is BARELY seen. You can only really see the edge of it. I highly doubt people care about the sunglare more than they care about the skirt. A small sunglare in the corner doesn't ruin an image. Leaving out details does. Look at both images and tell me which one leaves out details. 06:16, January 13, 2013 (UTC)

If Nada's picture wasn't weird at the top (lighting, but more importantly, deformation), it would be a clear winner to me. I don't think a frontal view is important, this is not a portrait. The sitting is a more important bias than the angle (which hides nothing).

I think "frontal" means more that we shouldn't have images taken in profile (the side) than we "we must have everything taken from exactly straight ahead", so to me the standing version is frontal because it shows all of her front and hides nothing. (Look at Sanji's infobox for another example of a frontal view) One key thing an infobox picture should depict is height/size, and that cannot really be done with a sitting picture. The sunglare was a lot more of a problem in the jpg version, but as a png it's not as noticeable.

And if anyone does try to upload the sitting one again, crop Salome's head out of there, as it's not part of her body. 16:27, January 13, 2013 (UTC)

I like the standing version better, but isn't it a post-timeskip one? 19:11, January 13, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but since Hancock looks and dresses exactly the same, nobody really felt the need to give the switch to her. 19:27, January 13, 2013 (UTC)