Forum:Image Policy Forum Asset Preferences

	This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.

Hello, this forum is to get community opinions on if our image policy should be amended to give a conclusive statement on the use of recreations of in game assets on wiki pages. For simplicity, I'll be referring to these as recreated assets and the in game version as, well, in-game assets. The use of recreated assets on the wiki has largely come down to moderator discretion, with the position on how acceptable they are shifting.

Recently there has been a shift away from their use, however this largely came down to the actions of individuals. In order to avoid future conflict I feel there should be formal policy on their usage, and guidelines for their implementation. Before I get into that however, I would like to provide examples of what can fall under recreated assets using current images.

These can range from recreations of faction logos and flags, to assets more loosely based on an in-game image. Any changes are intended to only apply to main space pages, and any policy changes will not affect user page images. Aiden4017 (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Examples[]

In-game asset

Recreated asset

In-game asset

Recreated asset

In-game asset

Recreated asset

Proposal[]

While this is a discussion forum and not a formal vote, I do want to share some of my ideas on guidelines and implementation as conversation starters. Aiden4017 (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Implementation[]

These are the three main implementation methods that I could think of, however depending on the outcome of conversation around this topic a different implementation or hybrid model may be proposed in the vote forum.

• Side by side: in-game and recreated assets are both included on a page, such as in a gallery or Infobox tabber.
• Ban on use of recreated assets
• Replacement of images of in-game assets with recreated assets.

Guidelines[]

• Recreated assets must have a link to an image of the in-game asset or similar information about what it is that they are recreating on their file page.
• Recreated assets should clearly state in their file name that they are recreating an in-game asset.
• When used on a page, the gallery caption or image description should state the image is a recreated asset.

Comments[]

I support always displaying the in-game asset (or the same asset extracted through external tools). I'm fine with the addition of professional-grade recreations (like Dave's), as long as they are not a substitute for the original. I do not support something like the Enclave flag in your example above, as it's pretty speculative about what's behind the man's head. We can't see it.

intrepid3595/14/22 [11:43pm]

The Star Wars wiki has a system in place to handle user creations. We could adopt something similar to accomplish some of these goals.

intrepid3595/15/22 [2:10am]

Full support. Policy supported the inclusion of these for well over a decade, Im suprises to find the interpretation of that changed so much. Agent c (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It didn't actually, our Image policy has never said anything on the matter since it's creation in 2009. Like I said before, their acceptability has always been down to moderator discretion. Aiden4017 (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I would say that has always been a "common sense" argument historically, Can that be seen in game? If so and its being created for visual clarity then it is an improvement. There are advantages and disadvantages to leaving it open to a case by case basis, as there is with creating a rule. Do the gains of having a rule offset the losses? I believe the general rule that was historically used to yay or nay them is from the general content policy:

• All content needs to be verifiable. Other editors need to be able to check and verify it.

Can making that the yay or nay on the recreated images being used alone suffice? Sakaratte - Talk to the catmin 16:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

My thinking in defining a policy position on the issue is that the current policy has no position on the matter. Verifiable doesn't define a position, and just confuses the matter. For example, if an editor saw the Civil Defense emblem I've used as an example and couldn't verify its existence because they thought it was standalone (i.e. not something enlarged from in the corner of a billboard), then it would be removed. If it's not signposted what something is based on in my opinion it will lead to frustration between editors who know what something is based on and others who think it's a complete fabrication. Aiden4017 (talk) 03:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I think we should always prefer to use the in-game asset if one is available. Having recreations in the gallery - or in the infobox if no in-game asset is available - is fine imo as long as they are clearly labeled as such. The Appalachian 10:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Are pictures of NPCs resurrected with the console to better position them to be shown in pictures considered a recreated asset in this proposal as well? Great Mara (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

^ Considering that a lot of them have been removed, I would say so. Personally, I never found the harm in them, as long as it’s clearly labeled that the character has been resurrected with console commands. They can be helpful to get a better look at the character. As for the discussion as a whole, I believe that we should be lenient and generally allow recreations of in-game assets (as long they’re high quality, accurate recreations, which generally most seem to be) on our pages as long as they’re clearly labeled as recreations. The Greatest Savior (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I would disagree with fan made content being a staple. This opened up several sore spots within the last year or so, with a notable example being the knockdown drag out over minutia of the details of a recreation of a hanging BoS flag vs using only the same in-game flag. Flag textures, more accurate representation of colors as a result of perception of material the flag is comprised of, filling in physical holes in the flag, the trace of the lines/curves, etc. It is not a hypothetical; we went through this not too long ago. What is professional? What is good enough? When someone's art is removed for being subpar, it's inviting a fight where there is no right answer because it will always be subjective.

There is no need to supplement what is in game, when we have what is in game, and there's definitely no need to invent something when we do not. The wiki does not catalogue fanworks in any other official capacity, so why would exceptions be made for fan made images, especially when we have seen the uproar caused by disagreements on what constitutes quality work? Fan recreations strike me the same as the inclusion of IRL gun details based on appearances alone. It is an avoidable fight, where there's little benefit overall, even if there are instances where it is neat. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

As a graphic designer, as much as I'd love to see recreations allowed, Dyre's points are well founded. Not many months ago there was a huge fight about the exact colors in a flag, colors vs material, etc. Then we had another situation where there were 2 competing recreations: one was low quality but accurate, another was much higher quality but less accurate. How do you decide which fan recreations stay and which go? It's easy for the ones where there's no competition. However, if this does end up coming to pass, I would like to see the following guidelines:

• In-game views in the infobox. I know this is going to be an issue for objects that we've grown accustomed to using out-of-game renders for, like consumables and such, but given how different lighting works in and out of game, I think using in-game will be the most accurate.
• Fan recreations, renders, ressurected NPCs, raw textures, etc. should be in the gallery and properly labeled to reflect what they are and where they came from.

-Gilpo1 (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

To me, recreating content like this sounds like fan content, and would prefer the original image whenever possible (except characters that are dead, since you can revive them with the console to see how they look alive). You may say something like "we gain more with recreated content than without it", but, it only sounds that there could be more ways to interpret such content - images being different color, shape or position - and who will then say whose version's correct? {{SUBST:Signature/Energy X}} 21:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see this as fan content. For it to be fan content it would have to be an original concept. This isn't about original concepts, its about reconstructing stuff that is obscured. I think it helps inform our readers better, as long as the original and the reconstruction are side by side I don't see a problem. Agent c (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely support recreations. I'm surprised this is even an issue, as for nearly 15 years we've been using these without a fault and they've become a kind of a staple of the wiki, to the point of our media being used by official Bethesda-published games (for example, the Crimson Caravan logo implemented by Obsidian is a 1:1 match for ours) and merchandise (eg. here). Bethesda evidently likes what we were doing, so trying to purge that is basically shooting ourselves in the foot.

Second consideration is usability. Apart from textures potentially looking bad - especially in older titles - a recreated asset can be displayed at a higher resolution, making them more clear and visible to people with eg. visual impairments. Squinting to tell pixels apart is not good UX, especially on a very popular site.

Third consideration, legality. All game wikis operate in a gray area, and using own creations is always better than just grabbing files and posting them verbatim.

Fourth consideration, this is a single incident in 15 years. The policy of using recreations has stood the test of time. Deleting them has not. :) Тагазиэль 08:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Not sure I buy the legality issue since a wiki typically is protected by fair use copyright, but I still think we should at least have guidelines on file names and what's being recreated listed on the file page. For example, in a Discord conversation you informed me that the red and black NCR bear logo is based on a poster in one specific level of Fallout 2, which is not something that is readily apparent if you're just looking at the file. It's not something that's easily found without knowledge it exists, and could easily lead to it being dismissed as a complete fabrication if no one involved in the conversation is aware of that one specific instance. So at the least, I think guidelines similar to the one's I've proposed should be adopted as future proofing. Aiden4017 (talk) 08:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

That's a good point. I'll have to add this to the wiki, but it was an interesting journey to recreate it. :) Тагазиэль 09:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I do not buy into the idea that because something went unchanged for a long time, that the change is bad, and it is more telling that when discussion of fan art did take place for the first time, it was an issue. And the older the existing titles get, the more troublesome a justification based in aged graphics becomes for fan art.

In the classics, characters do not have talking heads, and the sprites themselves are low definition. Nowhere on site are there instances where squinting to tell pixels apart are applicable than here. Users could easily take bad looking assets as free reign to recreate these characters, weapons, armor, or virtually anything as fan art and have the upload here be entirely valid following this rationale. The same goes for recreations with the Bethesda era games, if not more so, where there are mods which make decade old faces much easier on the eyes, as well as sculpting tools for F4 which can be used to recreate characters from F3/NV, all in the name of a smoother, better looking wiki experience. Hell, there was a user in discussions the other day who found a site which let him use AI to make "real" versions of character faces, and shared the ones based on the infobox pictures we have available. Looked worlds better than the squint worthy, less than bleed edge even on release, 2 generations old graphics of F3/NV. There should not be a purely subjective too old or too ugly window for fan art to be added.

If the legality of using game assets is what concerns you, I would first worry about modern, high definition images using materials from new titles and updates. And if that becomes the case, there will be many, many more images and issues to work out. Hardly a selling point for fan art being hosted on wiki articles. Blogs, forums, discussion threads? Sure, all great places for it. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 05:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

In the classics, characters do not have talking heads, and the sprites themselves are low definition. Nowhere on site are there instances where squinting to tell pixels apart are applicable than here. Users could easily take bad looking assets as free reign to recreate these characters, weapons, armor, or virtually anything as fan art and have the upload here be entirely valid following this rationale

I think given the examples thats an inappropriate use of reductio ad absurdum. One uses a generic image with no distinguishing features, the other does not. Agent c (talk) 07:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

If the problem is squinting at assets, the assets on hand are most definitely worth talking about. In those instances, all could be up for consideration as something to be recreated. Catering to users browsing wanting to see smoother, clearer images would most definitely qualify any of these assets if this is the metric that matters. Fan made material for named characters or equipment would make more sense to recreate, not less. But there is no reason to make up material, where we already have the assets from the game. There's no shame in something from 1997 or 2007 looking like it is from 1997 or 2007. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 07:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Nobody's making up material, but providing high resolution recreations using a time-proven approach that Bethesda and Obsidian value. Plus, accessibility. I require glasses and there are many more people with vision impairments, and high resolution versions would make the wiki both more attractive and accessible.

And yes, user experience is absolutely a core metric that matters. :) Тагазиэль 08:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

If it is not from the game, it is made up. Of the examples shown, 2 of the recreations would be fan art which take liberties and have to make assumptions to complete damaged art work from within the game. One is pointless, since it is an exact replica, meaning the thing which it is, already is. Manufactuing material, just because it is better looking than what is actually from the games, is a problem not a solution. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 10:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Vote[]

• Vote on allowing recreated assets: Forum:Image Policy Asset Preferences Vote
• Vote on specific policy options: TBA.