Following discussion on the topic and a vote on whether recreated assets should be allowed on the wiki, I am moving forward with a vote on amending the Image policy to give a definitive stance on the use of recreated assets. This will be divided into multiple sub topics, so please read the policy carefully before voting. If you want to vote for multiple options, please show your preference by including in your vote an indication of which is your most preferred option, such as (A) for your first preference, (B) for your second, and so on. Aiden4017 (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Policy[]
Definition[]
Recreated Asset: A recreated asset is a image file that is based on an asset that appears in game, but has been edited by the uploader in a substantive way. For example, cropping a screenshot to remove the player HUD is not a substantial enough edit to make the file a recreated asset, but filling in holes that are present on an in game flag is substantial enough to make the resulting file a recreated asset. Data mined textures are not recreated assets, as they are created by the developers but may not have visual effects that are applied to the in game version.
Guidelines[]
File pages for recreated assets must follow these guidelines:
- The file name must identify it as a recreation. For standardisation "recreated" must be used, not euphemisms such as "clean" or "restored" as these can give an inaccurate impression of the file's origins.
- The file description must state what in game asset it is replicating, what game this asset is originally from, what changes have been made compared to the in game asset or a link to a file page of the in game asset, and depending on the rarity of the asset where in this game it can be found (for example, if the original asset is only found in a single specific location that location should be listed, but if it is found easily in the game world it does not need to be specifically mentioned). (Note: added to policy per comments feedback from Intrepid359, The Dyre Wolf)
- It is on the uploader to provide proof of the images origin if it is called into question, and if they cannot provide this information the image will be deleted.
- Image files predating the creation of this policy in 2022, whose uploaders are no longer active in the wiki community, are exempt from this specific guideline. If an image of this nature is called into question, it is on the user who has raised the issue of the files origin to make all reasonable efforts to find the files in game. (Note: added to policy per comments feedback from Intrepid359)
Usage[]
When deciding on what type of asset or image to use, the main considerations are the images quality, the isolation of its subject, and the faithfulness to the subjects in game appearance. Above all, the main aim should be to provide an accurate representation of a players experience with the subject while playing the game. What asset type is used should be whichever most accurately conveys this player experience. For example, screenshots are best used to show NPCs, armor, clothing, and locations as they appear in game but textures are better for weapons, consumables, ammunition, and world objects. (Note: added to policy per comments feedback from Gilpo1)
Votes[]
These votes are on three different versions of the policy, with different features included. If you think a policy should contain a certain feature, but disagree with the wording presented, please vote neutral and comment on your issue with the current version.
Definition, Guidelines, and Usage[]
| ||||
Yes[]
(A) Agent c (talk)- Needs to be as little room to play here as possible. Preference A is all three. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 10:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- (A) I’m in support of utilizing all three as my first choice. The Greatest Savior (talk) 11:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- (A) The Appalachian
17:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC) - TheGunny2.0 (talk)
- A intrepid359
6/3/22 [3:04am] - (A) Jon the Don -JBour53 (Talk to my consigliere) 04:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- (A) UrbanAnge1 (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- (A) Тагазиэль 12:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
No[]
This vote is a bit confusing so I hope I'm doing it right. I disagree with the Usage section. We need clearer guidelines on this and more discussion. Because as it's worded now, all of our weapon, armor, and item renders from Nifskope would be demoted to a 2nd class in favor of in-game screenshots as that would more accurately reflect 'player experience.' This, however, will be laborious and may not give the clearest picture of the items in question and would be a huge step back in the appearance of item pages on the wiki. Gilpo1 (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Neutral[]
Definition and Guidelines[]
| ||||
Yes[]
- (B) Agent c (talk)
- Not as good as the above, but better than below. Preference B, if A is not available. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 10:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- (B) This is my second choice. The Greatest Savior (talk) 11:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- (B) The Appalachian 17:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- B intrepid3596/3/22 [3:05am]
- (B) Jon the Don -JBour53 (Talk to my consigliere) 04:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- (B) UrbanAnge1 (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- (B) Тагазиэль 12:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- The definition and guidelines are good. The usage section is not, per my vote above. Gilpo1 (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
No[]
Neutral[]
Guidelines only[]
| ||||
Yes[]
- (C) Agent c (talk)
- (C) This is my third choice. The Greatest Savior (talk) 11:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- (C) The Appalachian 17:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- C intrepid3596/3/22 [3:06am]
- (C) Jon the Don -JBour53 (Talk to my consigliere) 04:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- (C) UrbanAnge1 (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- (C) Тагазиэль 12:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
No[]
Neutral[]
I would vote no here to indicate that I do not feel only the guidelines would be enough, but there is the off chance, however unlikely, that all three votes could turn out "No." Which would really put us between a rock and a hard place, since we would then allow fan assets (vote already passed) without any rules. So this is a no vote, unless it is a last ditch yes vote. If that makes sense. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 10:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Other combination[]
(Please state what policy features you want)
"Lazarus" images[]
Note that this vote is seperate from the policy vote. This is on if images of NPCs resurrected through console commands should be considered recreated assets or not.
| ||||
Yes[]
- Agent c (talk)
- The characters are dead, and undoing death is a pretty substantial alteration to make. Yes, it can be done using only the console, tools built into the game, but it is a change to the character which cannot otherwise be observed; there is no skill tree or quest which can produce the same result. In some cases, with increasing frequency going into F76, corpses are given discoloration and signs of damage or decay. Whether or not it is appropriate to attempt a recreation of the pre-death skin tone will need to be had, since that would otherwise now be allowed. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 10:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe they count as recreated assets. However, I also very much believe that they should be allowed as long as they are properly marked (which they generally always have been), as they can be useful and helpful for the viewers. The Greatest Savior (talk) 11:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- I wouldn't even consider these "recreated" - if the IP holder hadn't created the asset, they couldn't be rendered in the first place. intrepid3596/2/22 [10:35am]
- The Appalachian 17:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- TheGunny2.0 (talk)
- I mean, it just simply is. Jon the Don -JBour53 (Talk to my consigliere) 04:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- UrbanAnge1 (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Тагазиэль 12:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Resurrected NPCs should be labeled as such in the filenames and descriptions and the images should be allowed. So I guess 'yes' is the right way to vote here?Gilpo1 (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
No[]
Neutral[]
- Ressurecting an NPC to increase visibility of what they look like is no different from rendering them T-posing in GECK and should be allowed regardless. Great Mara (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Comments[]
Looking at this section
- The file description must state what in game asset it is replicating, what game this asset is originally from, and where in this game it can be found.
The only featute that is missing is having the user explain the nature of tbeir changes made. Does not have to be technical information on how it was done, no need for "used MS Paint to do X," but a short description of what separates the recreated asset visually from the game asset. For your flag example, it could just state "patched holes in the flag." The Dyre Wolf (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
The wording on these sections is unclear to me.
- "The file description must state [which] in-game asset it is replicating"
- Would a recreated US flag from FO76 need to be labeled with the name of the asset as found in the game files, would the uploader need to copy the name of the existing file on the wiki, or would they need need to create their own name like "FO76_US_FLAG_RECREATED"?
- "Where in this game it can be found"
- This could be excessively onerous. One asset could be found in 172 locations. We don't make original file uploads identify this information. We don't even identify this information on 99% of our wiki articles. I think the article that the asset is added to is where location information belongs, and it shouldn't be up to the artist to complete that location information either.
- "It is on the uploader to provide proof of the [image's] origin"
- 5 years after an image is uploaded, the uploader may not be around. Instead, I'd suggest that a link to the equivalent in-game asset be added to the image details so that this information is permanently on record.
- intrepid3596/2/22 [10:21am]
- For points 2 and 3, I think that's exactly what sort of standard it is hoping to create. That if a user adds a recreation, the responsibility to provide such a link or source for the original asset is theirs at the time of uploading. The policy putting that information upfront, makes it clear, if you add something without a source, expect it to be deleted, so have your sources readily available if you want the creation to stand. That would hold whether it's 5 days, 5 months, or 5 years between uploading and questioning the image source. I agree that linking to existing wiki pages would be the easiest way to do this, because it also means the recreations can easily be found not only by stumbling on them in the wild, but by seeing what links to original images. The only exceptions to this would be with assets where there is not already an original wiki page for the asset, so something like adding the information to the recreation's talk page or the talk page of whatever article the recreation appears on, could do the leg work. In those instances, where it is simultaneously covering both the original asset and their work, it should be up to them to have proof the original actually exists. As long as we do have that original, though, your "Game_OriginalAssetName_RecreatedDiscalaimer" could easily stand up. If the asset comes up before the original, the "Recreated" bit is what matters; if and when the original is added, the names can be worked out along with links between the images. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm fairly certain there's a clause in our policy guidelines stating they are not intended to be applied retroactively, so I wrote these guidelines with that in mind. I have added a clause explicitly for images predating this policy, I hope that makes you more comfortable voting for the policy. Aiden4017 (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Can the "where in this game it can be found" wording be removed? That works fine for an asset that appears in one or two places, but for something like a flag or a Nuka-Cola bottle, we're looking at dozens or hundreds of locations where it can be found in the game. Locations are usually added to our articles by editors over time, and an asset tied to those articles will naturally have location information added in the same manner. It's a big ask to have one editor do that just to upload an asset.
- intrepid3596/2/22 [10:11pm]
- Significant difference between providing an example and every example. As a bare minimum, proving it is real and can be found at all is necessary. For assets with an existing wiki page, that's super simple, since they can point back to the wiki for information we already have. It would only ever have to be instances where they are recreating an asset for which we do not cover the original, where we would have them documenting something new. Any recreation is going to have an original somewhere, and I am struggling to think of an example where the recreation could be accurately done without a reference piece; as long as they make that original asset clear, it accomplishes the documentation goal. If an emblem shows up on 37 billboards, for the purposes of verification, we only need one. Anything extra would just be them going an extra mile. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- intrepid359
- Can the "where in this game it can be found" wording be removed? That works fine for an asset that appears in one or two places, but for something like a flag or a Nuka-Cola bottle, we're looking at dozens or hundreds of locations where it can be found in the game. Locations are usually added to our articles by editors over time, and an asset tied to those articles will naturally have location information added in the same manner. It's a big ask to have one editor do that just to upload an asset.
Clarifying Gilpo's question[]
- The poll is over, but can we get some clarification on the point Gilpo brought up please? This is important and may require a slight modification to the final clause. TheGunny2.0 (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Giving this its own little section, just so it's not lost in the weeds. Personally I have no preference on the two options for primary photo and secondary photo. Both do something better than the other, so taking the path of least resistance and keeping them as is would not be a problem with me. But I do agree that the worn over a character image is more accurate to the player experience...discounting any bugs which send the character into a lazy T pose. For the sake of uniformity, I prefer the clutter free backgrounds of the renders, but there are a handful of items, particularly bulkier gear like power armor where the pose of the render bothers me. But it's a small issue, which I have no strong feelings about. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Results[]
Assuming that everyone is on board with the clarification in the last clause of the first proposal, both provisions pass. Is there any dissent to the inclusion of the clarification? TheGunny2.0 (talk) 11:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC) Assuming that everyone is on board with the clarification in the last clause of the first proposal, both provisions pass. Is there any dissent to the inclusion of the clarification? TheGunny2.0 (talk) 11:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- We need to know the answer before movig forward because it could bring a significant change. Until clarification, I believe it is best we pause any efforts which would shift that aspect of the change. Everything else could move forwards, and we can either see clarification come and added, or if there is dissent, opening a follow up forum, specific to the issue and just working it through, and letting folks know not to alter primary and secondary images until the second vote wraps. The Dyre Wolf (talk) 17:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
| Policy vote forum overview | |
|---|---|
| Policy | Image policy |
| Amendment 1 | Userpage images · Vote · 16 August 2010 · 10-2-1 |
| Amendment 2 | Gallery image order · Discussion · Vote · 2 February 2022 · 12-0-1 |
| Amendment 3 | Allowing recreated assets · Discussion · Vote · 1 June 2022 · Ratified 8-2-3 |
| Amendment 4 | Recreated assets guidelines/Lazarus images · Discussion · Vote · 10 June 2022 · Ratified 9-0-1; 10-0-1 |
| Related topics | Content Policy · Content organization guideline · Article layout guideline |