Forum:Minor adjustments to Image Guideline (poll added)

Just gonna bring up the "unacceptables"...


 * Porn or nude images
 * Fanart art of any form - from fan colour images to full character depictions, though there is one exception (see "Acceptable").
 * Doctored images of any form.
 * Images unrelated to this wikia, we're not an image host, sites like Flickr exist for this purpose.
 * Images showing multiple pages from the manga.
 * Animations showing more then one event e.g. showing a full fight scene between two characters.
 * Images of people with no involvement with the making of One Piece at all.
 * Watermarked images, these are claimed by an owner as their property and they may be offended if the image was taken without permission.
 * Note: TV, DVD and sub watermarks are excepted from this rule. However, no image taken from Youtube may be used.
 * spoiler images (note: see Spoiler Rules for more information)
 * Images uploaded solely for user page usage. If you upload the image elsewhere (e.g. Flickr) you will be able to freely import it on the wiki, by the "Add Image" button.
 * Videos {Cf Youtube.}

These two I want to focus on...


 * Porn or nude images
 * Watermarked images, these are claimed by an owner as their property and they may be offended if the image was taken without permission.
 * Note: TV, DVD and sub watermarks are excepted from this rule. However, no image taken from Youtube may be used.

I once raised this, but since I'm just working out what needs to be adjusted to IG based on the recent Raws and sections vote... Are we fine with both these rules still or do they need adjusting? The only reason I brought up the Porn one, is we don't know if Oda will ever do that, I want to expand on that... I don't know how to word this but something like "censor offical works" is what I'm trying to write, I'm not in any way looking to flood the wikia with this because most images are fanart, or unrelated when their of their nature and Oda's YET to make any. Keep in mind the wikia will be aimed at the same market as OP is aimed at here, so it might be just all agreeing that doesn't need adjusting at all. Plus, I don't know if the editors would feel comfortable allowing it should Oda ever make some "mature" images or if we'll even have a place on them, since we'd likely only mention such an event in passing comment in a trivia section somewhere. And I myself am against it. :-/

I'm just think it needs to be expanded on to read "Porn or nude images; even if they are from offical source" if thats the case. :-/

The second is, since we basically don't use Funimation dubs or anything like that for images and the uploaders seem to seem towards no watermarks at all, should we even bother having that there? I'm wondering if its infringement on copyright if we do have an image pulled from the DVDs. One-Winged Hawk 19:05, August 10, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
What is meant by nudity and porn? I mean the latter is a no-go anyway, but "nudity" isn't really defined.

19:37, August 10, 2011 (UTC)

Thats actually a few good examples of what I'm trying to bring up here, I had completely forgotten they existed. Strickly speaking, by the current rules, we shouldn't have those two images, this needs sorting up. One-Winged Hawk 20:48, August 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no idea who is a major or regular editor anymore... Forgive me for not inviting everyone to this discussion. ^_^' One-Winged Hawk 21:30, August 10, 2011 (UTC)

To me, the nudity thing would only apply if we allowed fanart or something. Yes, those pics are revealing, but I wouldn't consider them true nudity, just suggestive (at least Nami's). If Hancock appeared completely naked in the jungle, and the only things covering her extremities were leaves or something like that, then I would consider that porn. However, the pic with Hancock I don't have any problem with. She's in the bath, where people are expected to be naked, and the anime isn't exactly directed at 10 year olds. I mean, we have other pics that show breasts, or at least accentuate them to an exaggerated point. If you wanted to really argue, Nami's wanted poster could be considered soft-porn. 21:38, August 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * Can't add much here, the view of "nudity" in classic interpretation is considered the body as a art piece while the view of "nakedness" is considered a weakness and sexualisation. This is more "fan service" then anything. The hancock image is the least concerning of the two images I must admit since she has her back on us, there is nothing really much to it. One-Winged Hawk 21:41, August 10, 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't act more Catholic than the Pope, really. There is absolutely no reason to forbid images like the above two, everything is perfectly covered. A fully dressed Nami can be more "suggestive" than this, and it is impossible to filter that. 22:24, August 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * Thats what I'm trying to get fixed here. Even though those images are not so bad, they shouldn't be on there.  We can't see anything but they are still naked and therefore "nude" as such.  I'm trying to get this rule ammended so it lets us have these images on.  Suggestions of text are welcomed. One-Winged Hawk 13:21, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, there is no way a character could ever bear anything completely because that would get Oda and Funimation in serious trouble. Like Jinbe said, there is nothing explicit on there. If anything, the nudity or porn rule would only affect avatars, which are really the only pics beyond our direct control. 23:38, August 10, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Those two images up there are fan services at best. If Oda/anime provides it, then it's allowable. But if it's self-colored in (i.e. fanart) or obvious porn/nudity things, then it's not allowed. 00:57, August 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * Its most likely Oda himself won't do it, however, I have known a anime to allow a third party studio to produce something Hentai-esque uder license of the original studio. Which is why I've always felt there needs to be a little more to this sentance, but the wording escapes me.  Obivously, if that ever happened, we'd have to decide then I guess either way.  We don't allow even safe fanart up on the wikia so fanart porn is never going to appear so defining that much is not an issue.  The only time the wikia has ever allowed fanart is for good relicas of symbols and logo such as jolly rogers in the absence of ones from the series itself.

I don't really see how you could think that only leaves covering somebody is porn. SeaTerror 07:22, August 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well there is the old net saying "if there is no porn of it it shall be made". Pretty much every possible subject on the net has pornagraphic images in some shape or form and there are many genres of porn. It really depends on how far you want to dive into it. ^_^' One-Winged Hawk 13:21, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

I don't, I'm saying it depends on how much is revealed that it should or could be deemed inappropriate. 07:30, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

That's not a saying. That's a rule. :P I meant it wouldn't be pornographic just because its almost nude or even nudity isn't porno. SeaTerror 18:49, August 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * The nude figure has been appeared many times throughout history in paints or other art forms and never once been considered pornographic (okay there ARE exceptions but thats not the point). The two things are similair classifications but their not regarded in the same light; you can take your child into an art museum showing a nude exhibbition but not into a brothel. One-Winged Hawk 21:00, August 11, 2011 (UTC)