Forum:Characters infobox pictures

For the characters infobox pictures, I think we should use a closeup of them, rather than a full body shot. We can put the full body shot in the gallery of the Appearance section, but the main picture of the infobox is to get the face shot of the person. Many other wikias use closeups of the characters' face, rather than a full body shot. Like Whitebeard's infobox, rather than Boa Hancock's. Yatanogarasu 17:35, December 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it would be a trillion times easier that's for sure. It would also be tremendously easy to get screenshots, and better yet, when a good shot comes up we can update the images to how the character has recently looked. I agree with this motion, but the full body shot has been such a staple of this wiki for so long, I don't really know how well others will take to the suggestion. Anyway, that's my opinion and I think it's a good idea. -- YazzyDream  02:03, January 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hancock's current image is the exception, it was forced down rather than voted by the users. Even Mugiwara Franky said that it was inappropriate but he was mostly ignored... I think the current system works good enough. Use a full body image that displays properly the details of the face and if that's not possible, follow Whitebeard's page example resolve around it. MasterDeva 09:07, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with using close-ups for the infobox. Although, if there is a good full body picture, then sure, put it on the infobox. The problem is that it's getting harder to get full-body with good quality, as in most of them, the character's face is really smashed up (like that picture from the Whitebeard Pirates). We should put the close-ups in the infobox, and the full body pictures in the Appearance section (like what I did here). GMTails 17:29, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the close-up pictures, especially Hancock's image, since her face is partly covered by her bangs that are being blown by the wind. I prefer close-ups that feature the face of the character well, and maybe a full shot if the face is fully shown. JapaneseOPfan 20:35, February 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * This goes against the Image Guidelines, although in absence we've allowed a "hip to head" shot. I disagree with a close up as its not enough of the character and sort of goes against the point of the character image begin there. I'll make note to add this, we'd have to vote on it since it goes against the guideline, and prepose a change to th guidelines first. However, you can't do that until they change, sorry guys. I know that guideline is a pain, but without them theres nothing for anyone to defend themselves with if theres an argument; not you guys ever do that. :-( One-Winged Hawk 00:39, February 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Not at all, Angel. Like I said the full body shot has been a staple of this wiki since it's inception, so there needs to be more consideration. At the moment I don't think we should vote on it yet, since I believe more people should take a look at this proposal. And you're pretty much unofficially in charge of the image guidelines. What's your personal opinion on the matter? -- YazzyDream  00:47, February 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * not really, anyone can write these guidelines so long as the wikia editors are in agreement, I'm not in charge offically or unoffically, they belong to the wikia. I'm just the one who points out we need to correct something.  If you don't correct it, in the event should some actually READ these pages, they'd know exactly what support for their cause they have.  In the event of a edit war, its the job of admins and beaucrats to come to a verdict by outweighing both sides and comparing to Image Guidelines, or whatever guideline is currently being involved, usually a vote is held as well to make sure the wikia editors are content with the sitaution though to avoid arguments.  If theres ever a disagreement or people feel they need to be updated, I can't go against the vote. In fact the only time that our history the admin was forced to go against it was just the toggling images matter. Back that was a host of problems, which do not link to this topic really.


 * ANYWAY. I do note the problem is a slight tweaking. Let me quote it; An image of a full body pose is preferable the only exception is when no full image exists in the first place. .  In other words, you can only use a image when there is no full image ready to use, however there should be enough of the character present (say, from wasit upwards usually is deemed "alright" it seems these days) to help with swift identification.  In the case of Hancock, we have lots of images by now but the full one we've ended up with is **** to say the least and urgently need correctly.


 * If they've got a scar on their leg thats important, naturally a full image would be the only way out. But if the focus of the character is in the upper half of the image, you can get away with half lengths. Although it DOES go against the guideline and if someone finds a decent full length image, you cannot force the half length to remain.  But in the absence of one... Yeah, I think its okay, just don't forget that its against the guideline and could be a edit war later down the line. Basically, enough to let users see what the character pretty much looks like and nothing less.  These days, "Appearances" host the fine details anyway.


 * Though if you want to make solid the "half over full if full is rubbish", THAT we can vote on and THAT then closes the door permamently to this problem and makes sure that the guidelines support half as much as a full. I don't support anything less they half length images, because in the case of Jesus who I just reversed the images on again, the close up closes the view on his body structure, he looked like he was also passable as a fat man rather then a strong man. ^_^' One-Winged Hawk 01:11, February 5, 2011 (UTC)