Talk: Profile image change

Addenda

As any policy change or addenda needs to be approved by the community, I propose that, for the sake of stability and courtesy for community's decisions:

1. Any replaced image cannot be changed for the next two months;
2. Any proposal to change a recently changed image back to its original one will be rejected on sight every time the proposer raises arguments that had been refuted in the prior discussion.

― Thailog 14:21, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

Support — I am not sure if this is what I am supposed to do here, but yes, I agree to this proposal. *~~Ian Bernard~~* 21:29, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose — I think that if people think it should be changed, it should be conisdered based on his/ her reasons. Am I supposed to do this?Iceland77 talk • contribs 21:32, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

Please avoid using voting templates unless a voting procedure is specifically stated to be happening - this helps by forcing the community to evaluate everything everyone else says. You know what I mean - it makes for more intelligent discussion. :)

As I have previously stated and elaborated upon, I am in support of this proposal. The 888th Avatar (talk) 22:18, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with this proposal. It'll avoid problems like the current one. Dcasawang1 (talk) 23:30, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree except - ensure to emphasize the recently changed part. While I don't think pictures should swap back and forth unnecessarily, I also don't think that means pictures should be ruled out for eternity due to being voted out once. I realize you didn't suggest that; just being sure it was said. Vulmen (talk • contribs) 00:10, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

IMO, a period of 2 weeks instead of months should be sufficient, just in case the new proposed image had a solid and reasonable arguement, and that the recently changed picture had flaws. AvaFan MsgMe 06:35, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

Nah, I think a month is good. Image changes are incredibly harder to do now with the new policies in place. In order for something to be changed, pretty intense discussion would have had to take place. So for the sake of preventing the repetition of the same arguments over and over, a month is good. In my opinion, anyways.

Water Spout 06:46, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

We are talking about profile images right? If so, yes we don't need to change them recently, because at least I identify users by their profile picture. But, It should be entirely up to the user, we should just highly encourage them not to change their picture. Spo55 - Talk 02:18, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we're talking about profile images (the one that's normally in the infobox) for articles, not users. ;) We don't restrict users changing their avatar - I don't think any wiki on Wikia does... The 888th Avatar (talk) 03:36, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

lol! We don't restrict user avatars, unless they are explict images. 888:What do you think about the time period before a new change can be suggested? 2 months seem too long, for me. AvaFan MsgMe 07:16, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Two months seems okay to me - it is a significant period of time, but it makes it far less likely that we'll have a discussion where there's no chance community consensus has changed at all (in other words, a discussion that is a waste of time). The situation can change in two months, but after one month... not enough time has passed. The 888th Avatar (talk) 11:28, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

How long have we had Ozai's new image for?Iceland77 talk • contribs 21:45, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

A month. Dcasawang1 (talk) 02:03, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm...... 2 months sounds good. Although there should be some exceptions such as if there is a really dodgy picture and it HAS to be changed. JaidynM (Talk) - (Blog) 07:34, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

Then it wouldn't have been voted in, in the first place. :) Vulmen (talk • contribs) 07:45, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

1. 1 month
2. I agree Renatabls 15:26, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

It seems that this was never added. I still think it's relevant, though it may need to be revised due to the upcoming series. Proposals for new characters should be done as new and better images before available, but within a reasonable time span, otherwise we may end up having discussions every time a new episode airs. ― Thailog 14:38, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

Good idea to get this resolved before the series airs. But this will be rather hard to monitor. Maybe we should hold off an image change till three episodes featuring a certain character have passed, making sure we have enough image material to chose the best image depicting their character from. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 14:45, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. ― Thailog 14:51, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

So, are we going to uphold this practise? As image proposals are pouring in fast. If we are going to follow this, we might want to consider writing something in official policy about it, or at least on the proposal page, so that people know to hold off, and don't jump at the first image they see. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 09:54, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. Dcasawang1 • wall 13:07, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

So what are we going to do with the recently accepted proposals with images of the first (two) episodes. Let them be for this once or halt them until later? Lady Lostris /  SOAP 13:34, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

Halt them. ― Thailog 13:37, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

---

Not to be a stickler for details, but shouldn't the tab "Approved proposals" be the one that has the proposals that made it through, and the tab with "Current proposals" be the one with the proposals currently under discussion? AvatarAang7 15:30, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

Since every proposal needs to be approved before discussion can take place, the term "approved proposals" makes sense. Lady Lostris /  SOAP 15:35, October 3, 2014 (UTC)

Procedure

@ Lady Lostris: Rather than undoing your edit again, I thought I'd ask here. When you say you left me a message, where do you mean? 66.30.119.16 13:44, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

Hi there – unfortunately, it seems that message notifications for anonymous accounts aren't working well at the moment (though the code release today is supposed to fix that). Here's what Lostris said:

"Hey there. I'm sorry, but I had to undo your edit to the image proposal page, as putting a wall of text there is not how it works. If you want to propose and image change, then you have to propose it by actually already showing the image you think would be better than the current one.

"The reason why we don't use the images on nick.com is because we prefer images that were used in the actual series. There are exceptions to this, but those are only for when the series doesn't profide suitable images."

Lostris is referring to a long precedent that we've established here over the years – a preference for episode screenshots over promotional images. As a tip though: for wide-ranging proposals and general community discussion, the best place is the War Room. Hope all that helps. :) The 888th Avatar (talk) 13:51, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! I suppose if I'd read the above discussion a little more closely I might have recognized that same preference to which you're referring... 66.30.119.16 14:03, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

Ah, didn't know the messages to anonymous users didn't work. 888 explained it indeed what I said to you. If you wish to propose a change, you can just follow the procedure set on the page, as anyone can suggest a change :-) Lady Lostris /  SOAP 14:22, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

Southern Water Tribe

I think we should change the current image of the Southernn water tribe into the current one from LOK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Tearbender (wall • contribs) This note was added on ~~~~~.

You'll find a full explanation of how to make such a proposal at the top of the page :) --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message me • Read my fanon) 02:34, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

Adding images in the middle of a discussion/vote

I think we need some sort of tenet that disallows the inclusion of images during a discussion, especially when they are added by someone else other than the original proposer. The P.I.C. is supposed to be simple: someone submits one or more proposals and one is picked or none is. Adding images continuously creates a break in the flow of the debate and it gets difficult to keep up after some time. Submitting the same images with some mild adjustments is fine (lighting), but completely new ones seems like a sidestep from the procedure. Proposals need to be approved anyway, so the inclusion of different ones after the original proposal had been approved seems like a back door loophole to seep different, and possibly unsuitable images. ― Thailog 10:27, May 15, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this completely. The proposal for changing Tarrlok's image is a prime example of this; so many new images were added, that it was impossible to keep up with the discussion, so much so that I actually just gave up. It should at least be required that adding new images to existing proposals go through the same process of being accepted by an Admin first like any other proposal, to close the loophole Thailog mentioned. As for adding new images to a proposal once the voting has started, I would say absolutely not. Completely side-stepping discussion of the image and going straight to voting should not be how it is done. HAMMEROFTHØR (wall) • 12:20, May 15, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah... it can get pretty confusing. . ƒelinoel_ 13:54, May 15, 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This rule would make the whole process horribly inefficient in choosing better infobox images compared to what it is now. When new images are added to a proposal, they generally have some aspect that might make them preferable to the original proposal. That's why they're worth discussing. This does not create a break in the flow of the discussion. It allows the flow of the discussion. Often times you have a discussion where someone says "if only we had a picture where..." - and someone finds one like that and adds it to the proposal. There can only be one proposal for a page at a time, so if someone finds a new image that's better than the one being discussed, they have to wait for the discussion to be concluded. In combination with the other new rules, we could be stuck with a sub-standard image for three weeks. Adding this rule in would be a horrible, horrible mistake. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message me • Read my fanon) 18:08, May 15, 2012 (UTC)

Not entirely. The recent Iroh discussion is a good example for this. The first image was met with immediate rejection, and upon this the proposer added more and the conversation shifted from discussion one image to discussing two new ones. And then someone else linked four more that would probably be rejected if proposed separately. You can't deny that that's a sidestep from the procedure. At the very least, the proposer should have to propose new images to be added to the current discussion, and this way we wouldn't have to wait to close the discussion and open a new one. You can't effectively prove that adding new images without due process allows flow of discussion when (so far) there are three two people admitting it gets confusing and may prompt them to step out. The way Iroh and Tarrlok were handled just needed a little more organization. A reader should be able to know what images were originally put forward and which ones were added afterward. A simple line break in the gallery should do the trick. You can't expect everyone to read these long strings of posts when they jump in to voice their opinion. P.I.C. is not the same as discussion a policy. You don't need to take other's opinions into account when you give yours, so you don't need to read every post. Thus, no one can be expected to know that new images are being added as the conversation progresses. You come in, you see the images, say which one is better for you and leave. Most times you don't come back because you don't expect new images to be added. How can you garner consensus when a conversation keeps shifting topics (proposed images)? The bottom line is, the proposer does not have carte blanche to add every image he/she wants after his original proposal is approved. There's a loophole in the process and needs to be sealed. Not to mention that it also allows said proposer to protract the debate indefinitely as long as he keeps adding new images to the debate. ― Thailog 18:51, May 15, 2012 (UTC)

Oh I guess I misread the title, I am for ceasing the additional images posted during a vote, during the initial discussion though add away. . ƒelinoel_ 18:53, May 15, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with ARG 200%. The ability to add more proposals mid-discussion allows for better proposals to come forward. The creation of a rule such as the one being suggested would not only delay the coming to a consensus, but could result in poor images being on the characters' pages for weeks at a time. I would like to make a suggestion, however. Maybe there is a way for anyone who has contributed/commented on a proposal thread to be notified every time a new proposal image is added? That way, people would constantly check back whenever neccessary. DarkKnightRises (wall • contribs) 20:46, May 15, 2012 (UTC)

Well, as far as effectively making a case when at least two people disagree with it goes, I guess that applies to both of us now. The Iroh proposal was rejected in the beginning, but it was sound enough to be approved for discussion. The subsequent images proposed are more likely to have some quality that sets them apart from the current and initial proposals, so they could have better luck. In the case of Tarrlok, the later proposals are on average garnering more votes than the initial three, something that you neglected to mention when using it as an example. The bottom line is that the system we have now has helped us select better images over time for different articles and the longer an article has been around, the less likely it is for that article to need an image replacement. We shouldn’t make a new rule based on the image proposal for Iroh (or Piandao), since that’s an isolated case in the big picture. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message me • Read my fanon) 21:10, May 15, 2012 (UTC)

But doesn't allowing users to add new images to a proposal whenever they want to go against the fact that new proposals have to be accepted by an Admin before they can go to discussion. The fact that one user believes an image is worthy of discussion isn't enough to allow it to skip this phase of the process. As for adding new images when voting has begun, this completely skips the discussion process entirely. The decisions we make are based on discussions between users, but this completely side-steps that and goes straight to a vote. Isn't that against the point of having a Profile Image Change page - so people can discuss a change before deciding upon it. HAMMEROFTHØR (wall) • 21:16, May 15, 2012 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, Thor, but I believe the aprroval by an Admin is more to recognize the fact that the current image could indeed be changed, should better options arise. DarkKnightRises (wall • contribs) 21:21, May 15, 2012 (UTC)

Adding new proposals can only take place after an admin has approved the discussion to begin with and like I said, the added proposals bring increased quality on a large scale. Images should be able to be added during the discussion phase. That’s how we can be extra-confident we’re getting consensus around the best candidate we can. And when people add images, of course they should be discussed first. We would never go straight to voting with more images on the table that are being considered. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message me • Read my fanon) 21:50, May 15, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a user should be able to add a new image to a proposal because they believe it should be added; it should still be at the discretion of an admin, just as any new proposal would be. If not, it allows people to add images to a proposal without having to get it okayed by an admin, images which possibly wouldn't have been accepted normally. Anything like this that allows someone to go around existing policy needs changing. As for voting, proposal #9 for Tarrlok was added after voting was opened, and no discussion on the images merits was every taken. Isn't this exactly what we want to stop. HAMMEROFTHØR (wall) • 22:05, May 15, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with ARG entirely here. Proposing new images during a discussion often times brings us much better images than the initial proposal; which in the end garner support and become our new profile image. For example; an image is proposed, but there is an obvious alternative out there that is more suitable. It is of good enough quality to be approved for discussion, but with this rule, the better image could not be added and considered for replacement. I do however agree that images that are added during the discussion should be approved for discussion just as the initial proposal is.

Perhaps when an image is added, the uploader must announce it's addition in the discussion; and before further conferring may occur, an admin must approve the image. Albeit this would slow things down a bit, it might give us some time to stop and have a look at the new proposal, maybe even reducing confusion a bit. Annawantimes (Talk) 22:35, May 15, 2012 (UTC)

AvatarRokusGhost, please try to be a little less condescending in your reasoning. Your jab at my "neglecting to mention that the later Tarrlok proposals are garnering more votes than the initial three when using it as an example" seems to imply bad faith in my reasoning. Do try to be more objective. I would also invite you everyone to re-read my second post. I'm not trying to "bar proposers from adding more images, period." I'm saying that the hazard addition of more images amidst discussion leads to a sloppy and hard to follow debate. And what I'm suggesting is a method to optimize that procedure when its necessity arises. My suggestion in a nutshell:

• Anyone can add more images during a debate when the participants are not completely satisfied with certain details of the currently discussed images. In that case, images can be added as long as they stir in the direction of the expressed preferences.
• The new proposed images should be submitted as if they were a new proposal so that the admin can attest for their policy compliance.
• If approved, the images will be added to the pertaining discussion in a separate gallery indicating they were added posteriorly to the original proposal. The admin should also add a line break to the end of the discussion prior to the new additions and state the number of new images added.
• No new and undiscussed images can be added during a ballot.

DarkKnightRises: "I believe the aprroval by an Admin is more to recognize the fact that the current image could indeed be changed, should better options arise." Definitely not true. An admin doesn't accept proposals because he thinks the current one should be added. They accept them as long as the image(s) comply(ies) with the standards for profile images. The decision will be ultimately left to the community. It's the only way to keep it unbiased. I don't think Iroh's needs changing, but I still approved the proposal... for discussion. The admin only has to make sure the image is suitable to be a profile image, and that should apply to new additions as well. ― Thailog 22:39, May 15, 2012 (UTC)

So, what Annawantimes said... ― Thailog 22:41, May 15, 2012 (UTC)

The criteria you gave in your first bullet-point for when new images can be added seem vague. Whenever someone adds an image, they’re trying to stir in the direction of whatever reason they had for adding it. Interpreting when users aren’t satisfied enough with the current suggestions is also a fuzzy line. If someone has a legitimate reason for adding an image to a discussion but they have to wait to expand the debate until one other person shares the same reasoning, it will only lengthen the process.

I don’t think w should have the additions to the proposals approved as if it were starting from scratch. That would stall the process once its already initiated and break the flow of the discussion.

Like you pointed out, the reason discussions are approved is for our standards for profile images. More often than not, the proposed replacements have something the initial proposal was lacking, and the initial proposal has already been approved at this point. I think that the community has proven in past PIC processes that it can uphold our standards once the admin has opened the process. Scarcely has a new proposal not lived up to our standards, and I can’t recall a single case where it beat out the current image and the initial proposal (both of which comply with our standards) to become the infobox image.

Not adding new images during a voting procedure makes sense, since they weren’t discussed. From an organizational standpoint, I can see how putting a line break in the gallery and in the discussion would make things clearer. I’ll support that as well. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message me • Read my fanon) 23:23, May 15, 2012 (UTC)

Well, in Iroh's debate, Wan-Shi-Tong-Servant presented four linked images for consideration, which in my book is the same as uploading them, and two of them are not suitable for profile images[1][2]. These would and should be rejected if proposed. The need for admin approval of new images would mostly work so as to guarantee they are equally suitable as the original proposals and to ensure that they are placed separately and the debate is line-broken as per my suggestion. It would not be "starting from scratch" nor stall the process. I think proposals are handled quite quickly, and most discussions last days anyway, with considerable time spans between posts. It's not like a debate goes on for 10 minutes straight and then everyone would have to wait 15 minutes until an admin accepts the new images so that everyone can resume the debate. ― Thailog 23:43, May 15, 2012 (UTC)

When the new image is brought into a proposal, there would be some delay between when the image is made visible and when that option can be discussed. It would be just like starting a new proposal, except that there is already a discussion taking place, which would be slowed down by the extra part of the process. It might also take longer for an admin to make a ruling on, since its not clearly visible at the top under the "current proposals" banner. This inefficiency would happen to proposals with new images on a regular basis. I think it would make more sense for an admin to have the ability to remove or unapprove images from a proposal that come after the initial one. That way, the process is not halted every time a new image comes into play and we won't have to worry about images that don't meet our standards. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message me • Read my fanon) 23:59, May 15, 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. But admins will need to be extra alert to spot new images added after the original one and separate them visibly (at least until most users get used to the procedure). ― Thailog 00:05, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

I am honored to accept this responsibility. Glad we came to an agreement. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message me • Read my fanon) 00:10, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought we were in agreement since the beginning... :p ― Thailog 00:14, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

"anyone who has contributed/commented on a proposal thread to be notified every time a new proposal image is added?" YES! Yes, please.

'What if, if we added a new picture, it would appear in the course of discussion, (i.e., between paragraphs) instead of at the top? That way, we would have a definitive and clear visual indication of the chronological addition of the images?

'"Scarcely has a new proposal not lived up to our standards, and I can’t recall a single case where it beat out the current image and the initial proposal" I'm a little confused about what you're trying to say, here. It is good that the new proposals are up to standard, but it is bad that they have never outdone the existing proposal . . . ? So is this for or against adding new images? User:Wan-Shi-Tong-Servant/signature (wall • contribs) 01:08, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

It seems that all that can be said, has been said, on this matter; I support multiple images in image discussions as long as it can put into inception cleanly, with proper moderation to prevent the discussion and it's subsequent images from getting out of hand.--DarlingDio (wall • contribs) 03:27, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

@Wan Shi Tong: I meant that new images added are rarely below standard, and even if they are below standard, they won't make it to become the profile image. I also think its better to have all the images in one place, so they can be properly compared. Simple line breaks can do the trick of separating when a new one is added. --AvatarRokus Ghost (Message me • Read my fanon) 03:40, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

Line breaks are fine and all, tidy at least; but without much indication of which segment is discussing which image, it can be pretty baffling for users who just came across them. Since we're implementing this right now, I suggest including a small title right under the line break which will function as a normal-text heading - it'll be Image #2 (bolded, without indentation) for the segment on said image, Image #3 for the subsequent segment and so on.

I'm curious tho. Shouldn't we let this discussion run for a few more days before going ahead with the plan? Y'know, to get more input on this matter? Axiovatar Talk 05:17, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

I think implementing the plan immediately was a good idea. It is much clearer, and obviously much tidier. DarkKnightRises (wall • contribs) 13:36, May 16, 2012 (UTC)