Forum:Infobox images

This vote is about what type of images should take precedence in Infoboxes. The two options describe different orders, should we have two usable images from different sources.

The essence of it is: Which of these two types of art should be chosen by preference?
 * Cinematic style art/screenshots (presumably taken from trailers, teasers, and the like) such as this, although the description also covers art such as these Cinematic images.
 * "Official art", from commissioned stand alone pieces, or cropped from sources such as Novel/RPG covers, comics, manga.

It remains unclear if only the "photo-realistic" art is intended.

Unable to reach majority required for policy proposals.
 * This vote began in 2009, and almost four years later, we're still not even close to having 3-to-1 support for either of the proposed options.
 * I'm going to resolve this as a failed policy change proposal. This means that whatever the current policies state about the subject of infobox images remains in effect (and as it likely isn't much, please continue to use your best judgement when editing articles).
 * If you feel strongly that artwork in infoboxes needs to be controlled at policy level, you can propose a new policy change in a new thread.
 * — foxlit (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Vote
Votes A:
 * Option A
 * Cinematic Screenshots
 * Cinematic style art
 * Official color art (commisioned stand alone pieces, like those at sonsofthestorm.com)
 * Official b&w art (commisioned stand alone pieces, like those at sonsofthestorm.com)
 * Cropped color art from official sources (Novel/RPG covers, comics, manga)
 * Cropped b&w art from official sources (Novel/RPG covers, comics, manga)
 * In-game screenshots
 * Other (action figures, statues, etc...)
 * Wowpedia:Nopics

Votes B:
 * Option B
 * Official color art (commisioned stand alone pieces, like those at sonsofthestorm.com)
 * Official b&w art (commisioned stand alone pieces, like those at sonsofthestorm.com)
 * Cropped color art from official sources (Novel/RPG covers, comics, manga)
 * Cropped b&w art from official sources (Novel/RPG covers, comics, manga)
 * Cinematic style art
 * Cinematic Screenshots
 * In-game screenshots
 * Other (action figures, statues, etc...)
 * Wowpedia:Nopics

Comments
So with the recent changes to the Garona article the issue of which image should be used for the infobox came up. I went search for answers in the policy pages and found this in Wowpedia talk:Lore policy. It was proposed by Baggins and Ragestorm agreed with it.


 * 1. Cinematic Screenshot
 * 2. Official colored art, followed by official B&W art (exception being if B&W is of higher quality, or better detail. This comes down to whichever is more aesthetically pleasing, and best accuracy to source material.)
 * 3. Ingame model (including models from previous games) (only if the NPC has a special unique model for itself)
 * 4. Ingame (WoW) non-unique model screenshot.

That being said it was never adopted as official policy. On Groms page he commented he perfered the photo-realistic images of the cinematics (Talk:Grom_Hellscream). But later in articles such as Thrall the cinematic images were replaced with official art (Even Grom's was for a while i believe). Baggins later commented he perfered seeing official art in the infobox instead of model art (Talk:Thrall). Personaly i think an official policy needs to be adopted. I propose the following priorities for infoboxes. Either

Option A
 * Cinematic Screenshots
 * Cinematic style art
 * Official color art (commisioned stand alone pieces, like those at sonsofthestorm.com)
 * Official b&w art (commisioned stand alone pieces, like those at sonsofthestorm.com)
 * Cropped color art from official sources (Novel/RPG covers, comics, manga)
 * Cropped b&w art from official sources (Novel/RPG covers, comics, manga)
 * In-game screenshots
 * Other (action figures, statues, etc...)
 * Wowpedia:Nopics

or

Option B
 * Official color art (commisioned stand alone pieces, like those at sonsofthestorm.com)
 * Official b&w art (commisioned stand alone pieces, like those at sonsofthestorm.com)
 * Cropped color art from official sources (Novel/RPG covers, comics, manga)
 * Cropped b&w art from official sources (Novel/RPG covers, comics, manga)
 * Cinematic style art
 * Cinematic Screenshots
 * In-game screenshots
 * Other (action figures, statues, etc...)
 * Wowpedia:Nopics

Exceptions made of course for lore accuracy or quality of picture (good b&w over a bad color). What does everyone think? any better priority rankings?-- 03:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would go for the Option A, because most times the cinematics give the better quality images and show the character most likely how Blizzard images it in real life, however few exceptions can be applied because of the quality of the picture. Also thanks for the research I didn't knew about that. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 03:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * For proposed policy changes, please use the Wowpedia:Policy status phases process. You can advertise your proposal here on the forums of course. Most likely the Wowpedia talk:Lore policy never made it into the policy because it didn't go throught the process or an admin wasn't willing to champion it (admins can amend policy by caveat, although it s frowned upon without consensus from the other admins). -- Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 5:12 PM PST 20 Jul 2009

Could we get an explanation of what "Cinematic style art" means exactly? -- Fandyllic  (talk · contr) 1:33 PM PST 12 Aug 2009


 * If by cinematic images they mean like some of these Cinematic images I'm going to have to go with option B. I think artwork can capture the essence of the person better than the limited styles of cinematic images. 20:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Cinematic screenshots i was refering to screen captures from the finished cinematics like this. Cinematic style art should be more properly called computer generated art or photo realistic art such as this and this. 20:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to vote "Meh". Also, since this is a policy vote, I thought it kinda important to have the description of the issue at the top of the page instead of buried in the comments. --Eirik Ratcatcher (talk) 23:07, July 28, 2010 (UTC)