Forum:Temporary forums/Overhauling image policies

Opening post
So I felt I might be the best person to write an OP for this, since T:GTI was partially made in response to my own images uploaded to the wiki. Back in 2012, I use to upload images from VHS rips on YouTube of various oddities, and these ended up all over the site. Eventually, the head admin User:CzechOut made the page and featured several of my images as "bad examples" of images, and featured a bunch of better pictures to show better examples.

Alongside this, we also have T:IUP, which is a less flashy list of basic rules about use. GTI and IUP are so similar that we should consider merging them into one simple guide. But more importantly, along side this, we need to question two things. Should this new guide be written from scratch, and how many of these decade-old-rules don't hold up anymore?

The main point of this debate is to state that A) these guides should be combined, B) the writing needs to be updated and newer images need to be found, and C) many of the rules in both T:GTI and T:IUP should be changed or retired.

Before we start this, there's also a third page for image rules, T:ICC. I think this should be updated but not merged. Having one rule list that goes into detail and another that is a "cheat sheet" works for me!

Widescreen images
This was the favored practice of admins a decade ago, but isn't so in-vogue today. Basically the idea was that by cropping the top and bottom of images to look "widescreen" instead of 4:3, it would made the focus of the images more clear.

To me, this seems like something that might have seemed cool in 2011, but is just odd in 2023. It's my belief that since over 65% of televised Doctor Who stories were broadcast in 4:3, it should not be our official policy that we have to cut out details on the top and bottom just to make it look more slick. The cropping on our files, in my opinion, should correlate to whatever looks best and gives an accurate view of the story itself.

BACK UP YOU'RE TOO CLOSE!!!
Next, I wanted to bring up another policy that I think makes the site actively worse.

It was the opinion of CzechOut and others when making these guides that the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT FEATURE ON THE HUMAN BODY... was the eyes. It was very important that any reader on any platform be able to immediately see the eyes. This was so true that it was suggested that cropping the hairline and chin of infobox photos was for the best.

I think this looks horrible, and is a photo technique used by no one else on the planet. Look at the infobox image for Vislor Turlough. It looks bad, it doesn't accurately show what Turlough looks like, and indeed even a hard-core fan might need a moment to recognize the actor. According to the framing, the most important detail is the lack of eyebrows and the pale skin. Maybe it's Matt Smith? If I could just see his chin and hair, maybe the distinction would be more obvious. :/

The eyes are not always the most important feature, and it should not be our official policy that infobox images shouldn't show an actor's chin or hairline.

When it comes to what is important in an infobox image, it really should be a case-by-case basis. Like, Fourth Doctor should have the hair and scarf in the image. Ninth Doctor has the Dalek in the background for obvious thematic reasons. Rarely is the most important thing the eyes, nor is it typically the same across every image.

TURN LEFT
Okay, so this is a big one that might initially appear a little blasphemous. I've taken some graphic design courses since I started on this wiki, and I have never had someone repeat to me the rule about all images facing inside of the design. Like, I've never never never never had someone tell me "the person's face must never face away from the book's spine because then the reader will remember that reality exists and they'll close the book." Never.

So I do think it would be a good idea for this being our official preferred policy to be retired.

Colour Comics


So this has been one of my big disagreements over the past decade with this guide. If you're out of the loop, I'm talking about: "No colourisation allowed". So why is this disagreeable to me?

Well, let me put it like this. A few years ago, on a forum which sadly wasn't archived at all, we had a mini-debate about SPECIAL EDITIONS! (The Five Doctors, Dalek Invasion of Earth, a bunch of stuff on The Collection, etc) And it was the concluding opinion of CzechOut (again, to my memory, since that era is gone) that it didn't matter. We, as a wiki, should count all episode editions as valid, and we should use whichever image looks best at a thumbnail level. If this is the case, why do we ban the use of colourized comics? If a colour comic, published officially, looks better at a thumbnail size that the black-and-white original, I think that's what should be used. This is also an impractical rule due to how obscure some first edition comics are.

For instance, I (as an American) collect old back-issues of TV Comic. Let me tell you that these issues are so rare and hard to get that it isn't even funny. And the reprints featured in Doctor Who Classic Comics are gorgeous and much easier to get a hold of, but according to our own rules they aren't good enough. If you don't have a hyper-obscure first-edition copy of some comic from 1965, you're out of luck because the reprint is banned.

Basically, I think this one needs thrown out immediatley.

Separate rules for out-of-universe images
This has come up recently in the edit history of the image used on Rafe Wallbank. Basically, some editors on this wiki believe that images used on out-of-universe pages should have separate rules from those on in-universe pages. That is, the basic standard for cropping and framing, and what sort of images we use.

I am inclined to agree with this position. Looking at Rafe's page, it is a little silly that he's framed like one of the main Doctors, and cropping it just hides extra details in the photo.

One Image Per Section
This is a rule I don't think used to be here, and I personally think it's not needed. This made sense back when we were combining of all of the Master's pages into one, meaning the page was the length of War and Peace and was likely to blue screen your laptop

Since then, bandwith standards have increased around the world, and I haven't had a problem with the site in ages. Most loading issues I used to have were more about there being too many ads, which isn't even something we can control!

So I think we should replace this with the more practical and easy-to-remember maximum of "one picture per paragraph." I think most editors can see when a section is too bloated with images just by looking at it, so really it's just a thing of case-by-case discretion.

Allowing promotional images
So I thought I would include this one, since it's a rule we changed years ago, and I think it's generally been for the worse.

Basically, for characters/stories/moments who didn't otherwise have illustrations (stuff from audio/prose mostly) we used to allow promotional artwork, mainly the miniature comics printed in Doctor Who Magazine. But years ago, we had another debate in another unarchived forum, and one of the admins came to the decision that because "advertisements are not stories," we would discontinue this policy.

I think this has been a mistake, as do others, and I'd like to make this part of our official policy once-more.

To be more precise, I think it would make complete sense for the Wiki to cover promotional images from DWM previews, slideshow-y BF video trailers, and so on, which are essentially illustrations that happen to be released separately from the story they illustrate. Sure, they're not exactly "part" of the audio story, but neither are images cropped the cover, or illustrations from the booklet, and we already allow these without trouble, considering them an accessory to the story.

Tabbed galleries in infoboxes
Since we are now adapting the use of Tabbed galleries in multi-incarnation characters like The Master or The Doctor.

It's been suggested by User:Scrooge MacDuck that we could also use this for other uses, such as non-regeneration recasts. The obvious example is that First Doctor could have a main image for William Hartnell, then you click on the other tabs and there's also images for Richard Hurndall and David Bradley.

I can think of a ton of uses for this right away. Maybe Oswin Oswald could have a tab featuring her as a human, and another as her as a chained-up Dalek. Maybe Hob could have a pre/post Erdrich horror tab system. etc.

Galleries
Since this already covers a lot, I thought I'd thrown in another quick recommendation we have in TARDIS:Temporary forums that is quite popular.

By User:MrThermomanPreacher and with 13 supporters: "The usage of galleries on in-universe articles in the same vein as Memory Alpha (example). MrThermomanPreacher ☎"

- TARDIS:Temporary forums

I'm old enough to remember that we did use to do this. I don't really go one way or the other about this, but I do think this would make the site a lot more appealing and approachable to more casual fans.

One suggestion I've heard just today is that we could have a /Gallery subpage system. Similar to how we have things like Ninth Doctor/Appearances and Death's Head/Appearances. This could be a really cool way to bring in newer editors who love to contribute but don't want to just write essays all day.

File Size limit
Finally, comes the big one. File size limit. This has long been a struggle on this wiki, as we are requested to stick to a file size limit of 100kb, while also being asked to post images above 250px wide. Having to use third party software to compress images is a major pain and is not user-friendly.

At the end of the day, Fandom has a file size limit of 10MB. So if the company investing money into us don't have a 100kb file size limit, neither should we.

Conclusions
I believe that A) we should probably start our image guides from scratch, B) we should consider new sensibilities based on what's best for fresh-faced readers, and C) many of the rule changes above should be taken.

OS25🤙☎️ 22:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
Largely uninterested in this, don't do much with images. Will read what's going on though. With that said, my opening positions are this: Najawin ☎  23:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I slightly prefer images looking towards the main body of the page but don't think it should be mandated if the other image is better. List it in the policy as something explicitly to be considered as a reason to choose an image but not disqualifying? imo.
 * Don't really care about the IU/OOU issue, but I think it's a bit silly that the issue came about given that Rafe Wallbank intended his unedited picture to be used. (I also think that 1 month blocks are, in general, excessive unless repeated after the user has recently been blocked. But that's a larger concern I have with blocking policy here.)
 * Unsure about promo images for audio, slightly lean towards? Complicated feelings.
 * I'd like to see examples of galleries before I comment, the examples linked at MA don't have clear analogues here.
 * File size limit absolutely needs to be upped, but idk if going all the way to the fandom limit is the best idea. (Of course, given how many ads they stick here, we could make sure we drain em for all they're worth.)


 * I support this proposal, but I would add an addendum regarding filetypes. Promotional photographs and screengrabs should be exclusively .JPEG files and illustrations can be either .PNG or .JPEG. If we're implementing galleries, we ought to have a standard of some sort. NoNotTheMemes ☎  23:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Brilliant work OttselSpy. I completely agree with all of this. It’s something that needs to be changed. The sooner the better. The wiki will be all the better for it. Although, one thing you did not mention was the rule of strictly JPGs. While we should not go crazy and wildly just allow any file type, I think it would do nicely if we’d allow PNGs to be used as well. It is a pain to have to go through a third party just to change what is arguably a completely fine file type, the PNG, to a JPG just because the wiki rules require it. It’s an outdated system. Danniesen ☎  23:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Contrary to what Memes said, this should ofcourse go for all images, illustrations and photographs alike. Danniesen ☎  23:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

A quick correction to what's in my post. I say above that the minimum width of an on-site image is 250px, but I forgot that it's actually 420 now! Which is even worse considering the file size limit. OS25🤙☎️ 23:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Eh, it’s fine. No one can keep up with everything going on here. Danniesen ☎  00:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I think I support all the proposed changes. I admit that I'm not as enthusiastic about some as I am about others, but I have no objection to any of them.Time God Eon ☎  00:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I support all of these proposed changes. Quite frankly, our image policies are a mess, and are in desperate need of modernization. Pluto2 ☎ 02:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I too support all of the proposed changes, including the filetype loosening and especially the cropping and widescreen and  subpages and colour comics and ... well, and all of it! Great opening post OttselSpy, can't wait to see this omnibus of much-needed fixes pass through! – n8 (☎) 02:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I just want to chime in with a bit of technical insight and say that the images that get uploaded are technically not the same ones that end up on articles anymore (they would have been when these rules were first made). When you include an image and give it a specific width of, say, 120px, the server will actually resize the image and load that instead of the full-sized version. It will also convert the image into a format called WebP, which is just a super-optimised format for images online, and so the file size is going to be a fraction of what you upload it as. This means there's not really a technical reason to have any limitations on width (at upload-time), nor on the file size or even file format, because all of those have changed when the image actually ends up on a page. guyus24 (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I support all of the proposed changes, especially including tabbed galleries on non-overview pages, like First Doctor having all his TV actors, and Oswin Oswald having human and Dalek appearance. Additionally, I think this could maybe allow us to show a doctor's two main outfits, like blue and brown coat for the Tenth Doctor, and normal and purple for the Eleventh. although I understand if this is "too far", and am happy sticking with just everything outlined in the post. 82.132.245.154talk to me 07:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I also support everything that is being proposed. It's been a long time coming. Dmitriy Volfson ☎  09:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I hugely support everything being suggested in this thread. The wiki has a few outdated rules and regulations, and I think - like with the new tabbed galleries on various pages - overhauling the current guidelines would help freshen up the wiki.

My biggest bugbears as a reader of the wiki have been the insanely cropped close-up widescreen images, and the notion that every subject has to be facing left. I would say the "facing inwards/left" thing should still be a guideline but if there's a better image where the subject is facing a different direction, then that should be allowed and not instantly dismissed. An example of where these new changes would help is on Ian Chesterton's page. There's an ongoing discussion about the best image to use, but current guidelines are far too restrictive and result in us using (imo) a terrible image for him. If we could make it so images don't have to be cropped and zoomed into a face, and if there's at least an option to allow use of an image where the subject faces any direction, suddenly so many more image options become available for suggestion.

I also agree that out of universe pages should be handled differently, on a case by case basis.

All in all, I fully support everything in the OP. Just wanted to put forward a couple of thoughts on particular parts of it. Fractal Doctor ☎  11:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Don't forget the file type thing just below that the OP didn’t feature. Danniesen ☎  12:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I support op in all of their points especially the suggestion for a Gallery, which I believe is one of the biggest things this wiki is missing.Anastasia Cousins ☎  12:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I also support the suggestion of changing policy so we can upload other file types too. Fractal Doctor ☎  13:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding tabbed galleries in infoboxes, I'd also like to add that not only would it be great for recasts, but it would also be good for pages such as DWM 433 which had various different covers. It would arguably be tidier than a gallery on the page, and would let readers tab through the different covers with ease at the top of the page. Fractal Doctor ☎  16:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * That is an excellent point Fractal. I didn’t even think of that. While I was doing my overhaul of the DWM images (first issue to latest), it annoyed me that we didn’t have a system for adding multiple images (beyond "|image" and "|image2") to the infoboxes. To be honest this would be a better system than "|image" and "|image2" as it would make the infobox look normal sized rather than currently, which has one image on top of the other, making the infobox look like a tower. Danniesen ☎  16:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

First of all, I wanted to thanks OS25 for this really good proposal. This is a subject very close to my heart, and I fully support this proposal. For the aspect ratio, cropping, and facing left issues, I frankly have nothing more to add. I think changing or even fully removing those would only make the wiki better. Honestly, I also think that not allowing official colorisation for comics is really a senseless policy, so I'll also be glad to see it go. As I view it, the wiki is also a place to gather visual information on Doctor Who, and well. Having a good quality, colored image to represent those comics seems like worthwhile information to have on a data base after all.

I don't have much of an opinion about an IU/OOU split, however I wouldn't be against having different rules. That Rafe Wallbank image really should not be cropped. Also, I think a general rule of one image per paragraph, plus allowing some leeway for a case by case decision if a page gets to bloated is a good idea, because we've introduced tabs, we've split the worst of the massive pages, and overall, having a few images on a page isn't going to slow down your browser, we're not in the early 2000s anymore.

Now!! I really, really want us to approve promotional images. It's incredibly difficult to find some older promotional material, and the entire point of view of "They're not stories, so they don't count" is really outdated, and I think, missing the point about what the wiki is. Having a place to see and collect promotional material would be nice. Same goes for tabbed galleries for infobox, it just is so incredibly useful, user friendly, and a good way to cover different incarnation.

The galleries, now that's the one subject I am rooting the most for. Tabbed galleries would be hugely beneficial to any users. Personally, I'm an artist who enjoys fanart, and the wiki is currently literally useless to gather reference for any character, unlike. Literally every single other wiki out there. It's a shame, but we can genuinely work on fixing that! As an example, picking a subject close to my heart, let's say we made a gallery page for Bernice Summerfield. It would be a tabbed page, and we coud organize it to cover her appearances in the various media she's been in. So let's say, one covering audios, featuring the audio covers she's one, one about book covers and illustration, one about comics, and one section about promotional material, that could cover both some photoshoot released by Big Finish when her ranged launched, some Vortex pictures, etc.

Of course, not every character would even get such a gallery page, and only the more major ones, like Benny, would have a more lengthy one. However, I genuinely feel this is an area where we are incredibly lacking, and one I've personally been annoyed about for years. I think making such galleries will become so much easier once we introduce this new policy too.

I also fully agree when it comes to file sizes, the limit we currently have might have made sense a decade ago, but it's rather ridiculous in 2023.

Overall, out of all the proposals we've had so far thanks to these forums, this is the one I'm the most excited for. I really hope we can makke this work! Liria10 ☎  19:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * The only part here I'm not too keen on is the idea of doing tabbed images for different actors on in-universe character pages. Recasts that aren't regeneration-related are supposed to be ignored. Everything else I'm game for. WaltK ☎  00:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * While I was doing work for another proposal I did find this. So that's our current policy on galleries. Hard to tell when it was made due to how FANDOM has been messing with our help pages. Najawin ☎  01:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Eh, I like the idea of the different actors to have portrayed a single character each having an image in the character infoboxes. In a way it feels like we’re acknowledging them all. Danniesen ☎  19:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the First Doctor wasn't the GREATEST example, since putting anyone but Hartnell in the infobox will be controversial. But that case specifically could go on a talk page. This is more about if the tabs should be allowed outside of regenerations as a base policy.


 * A better example might be, say, Dave Oswald. OS25🤙☎️ 05:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

My feelings:
 * Widescreen-Agreed
 * Back Up-Agreed
 * Turn Left-I agree with others that it's decent to have as a preference, but it definitely shouldn't be a major decision factor
 * Color Comics-Agreed
 * Separate Rules-No opinion
 * One Image-I'm a bit hesitant about this, because paragraphs can be pretty small
 * Promotional-Agreed in full, no mixed feelings
 * Tabbed Galleries-Agreed, no hesitancy about in-universe concerns
 * Gallery Subpages-Agreed
 * Size Limit-I have no objection to just following Fandom's limits Schreibenheimer ☎  12:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * To all of you in this discussion, please don’t forget the restrictions on file types. We currently are required to only use .JPG (also .JPEG) type. Whereas we should be able to also use .PNG, and at a stretch, .WEBP Danniesen ☎  12:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * In general we would need to figure out what to change about these restrictions that you will see in these images. Danniesen ☎  12:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I support almost every proposed change in the opening post. The only thing I don't agree with is having different rules for in-universe and out-of-universe images. I feel that it is much simpler and more consistent to only have 1 set of rules for both. If we're already going to be changing the cropping policy to allow images to be cropped to whatever suits the subject best, I see no reason to have different rules for real and fictional people. Their respective images can just be cropped in accordance with this rule.


 * 1 image per section is something that I'd particuarly like to be changed. To address Schreibenheimer's hesitance, 1 image per paragraph would be a maximum, not a minimum requirement for every paragraph. I feel that editors should be able to use their common sense here.


 * /Gallery subpages are another thing that, out of everything else, is something I'd really like to see. This would make the wiki a so much more valuable resource for research, archival, presevertation and reference.


 * Outside of the opening post, I also agree with allowing .png images for images that aren't transparent, although I think .webp images should be avoided. I also feel that we should be allowed to upload images at any width as the width will always be changed when the file is actually added to the page. Bongo50   ☎  13:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh… I almost forgot… can we also please go through the list of different licenses and remove those the wiki doesn’t need, as I believe that there may be some we don’t even use/some we can’t even use due to them being faded out. Danniesen ☎  13:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

There are also some licenses we need that we don't have. Najawin ☎  18:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies if this makes things messy, but there's an additional idea/note I thought of after I wrote this OP that I think is worth quickly debating.


 * Since we're talking about using promotional images for stories that don't have regular visuals, I'd like to make a suggestion. I think we should also set a precedent for using some promotional images for lost Doctor Who serials from the 1960s. This would be especially helpful for TV: Mission to the Unknown and The Massacre, which have no telesnaps. But there are also other episodes that don't have enough telesnaps for our purposes. Let's say, there's a character who appears in a lost story who doesn't have a surviving telesnap but does have an in-character promo image.


 * So the idea is basically that if a promotional image for a lost episode of Who was clearly intended to be in-universe or consistent with the story, then we'll allow use on pages where they are needed. Hope this makes sense. OS25🤙☎️ 19:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I fully support this. In my opinion, every article on the wiki should have an image on it, of any kind, where possible. And we shouldn’t shun away non-in-universe images. Otherwise an article just looks "naked" in my opinion. Danniesen ☎  19:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * This seems like a good idea to me. Bongo50   ☎  20:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Me as well. In my mind, pictures are pretty much always better than no pictures, as long as they have some degree of officiality. Schreibenheimer ☎  21:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. I don't believe that out of universe reference images for things that are referred to in prose should be placed on articles. This is similar to articles where someone has placed an out of universe definition, which blatantly violates T:NO RW and I constantly find violations of that I have to remove. We do not know that something looks the same in-universe as it does out of universe. It's a violation of T:NO RW to suggest otherwise. Strongly, strongly oppose. Najawin ☎  21:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear, this is in reference to "In my opinion, every article on the wiki should have an image on it, of any kind, where possible." Not the idea of promo pictures being used. Mixed feelings on that. Najawin ☎  21:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I realise that my message was a little unclear in that regard. I only support the use and inclusion of production and promotional pictures (and any other picture that has some form of official capacity and is directly connected to a work we cover). I do not support the use of real world images where they are disconected from a work we cover (apart from, perhaps, in behind the scenes sections). If you want general images for that, you can go to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. Bongo50   ☎  21:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I also was only intending to refer to in-universe concepts, not real world ones. I was interpreting "And we shouldn’t shun away non-in-universe images," to refer to things like promotional shoots. Schreibenheimer ☎  01:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Najawin, please don’t take my messages so literal. 😂 At no point did I say take any picture you can find anywhere on the web. When I said “of any kind” I meant any picture of any kind related in any way to said subject. Within the Doctor Who franchise. Danniesen ☎  02:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal made by OS25🤙☎️ regarding 1960s stories with barely any surviving material. The example of the pic from "The Massacre" (Hartnell as Dr Who, Purves as Steven) in the tavern is representative of a scene from the serial and would work well. It's also a widely 'known' promo pic outside of this Wiki, and I think that's another reason why we should make some allowances. (What I would be against, however, is using imagery that strays too far - ie. just a publicity shot of Hartnell. The pic of Hartnell and Purves is arguably in-character, taken on one of the serial's sets, etc. so should be eligible for use in place of what would ordinarily be used if the serial existed. I would also say 'no' to any photoshopped photos, or mock-ups eg. a pic from the UCLAN recreation of 'Mission to the Unknown'.) Fractal Doctor ☎  19:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Just relaying Epsilon's request that this discussion be kept open until after his block ends. In the old days of the forums discussions would go on for months, and with the switch to 3 week discussion periods, it's entirely possible to have a thread take place in span of what's generally the minimum block for a user. He's particularly interested in this topic and would like to offer his input.
 * I don't think this request is unreasonable, but, then again, I think both the 3 week period is too short, and the 1 month usual minimum is too long. Najawin ☎  22:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I would support a one-week extension so that Epsilon can participate. On another note, while the subject of tabbed galleries is under discussion, can we please remove the wikilinks to incarnation pages in tabbed galleries for Time Lord pages? It is quite literally impossible to switch between images on the Doctor or the Master on my Kindle currently because every time I tap on a different incarnation name it sends me to the page for that incarnation, which is extremely unhelpful. Pluto2 ☎ 22:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd say a week is a bit long, I'd say the thread could be extended until the day he returns. But yes, I think removing tab links is a reasonable suggestion OS25🤙☎️ 01:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly support everything in the original post. This wiki has a lot more potential in the images department and we are limiting it. The requirements on filesize and cropping are also laughable to say the least. I think many of us can also agree that finding, compressing, and choosing images to fit these requirements has caused a lot of unnecessary headache.

I also think promotional images should be allowed where they depict a character, thing or situation in-universe, which is usually the case, because that's usually what they're meant to do. For an example, look at Wikipedia's pages for and, and then look at our Ace and Vislor Turlough. Which do a better job at depicting the character in an informational way? I don't see how ours do at all. They prioritize a close crop and looking left more than actually being useful. Even if we didn't use their promo photos there must be literally hundreds of better possible images just from the TV show. And that's not to say we shouldn't use them either- story images are useful in their own right for depicting a character in action, so it really depends on the character and the available images. After all, the purpose of images on a wiki is to best illustrate the subject of the article to the reader. Using images that do that based on the article should eliminate the need to have requirements about what it must look like or depict. Plus, galleries would let us do that even more, without relegating unchosen but still good infobox images to never be used, and they would serve as a useful resource and record as well. This website is meant to be a resource on Doctor Who...

Further on the topic of promo images, we already use images from book and audio covers to depict in-universe things. I think this is fine (in fact often necessary) to depict what a character, species, etc looks like, but something that should be taken with a grain of salt is using these to depict in-universe events. For example, I recently noticed Kotturuh crisis using several images, including in the infobox, of audio covers to depict this event. It's fine to say these images depict the Tenth Doctor during the crisis, or what Brian the Ood looks like, but I think it's odd to use these as if this is what it actually looked like and cite it to the story. I don't know if we should go so far as to disallow this, but I would encourage clarification like the caption saying "Depiction of the Doctors and Daleks during the crisis" rather than just "The Doctors and Daleks during the crisis." (Actually on that note, captions for infobox images are woefully underutilised. Because this conversation reminded me, I added one to Time (mythology), but consider what that would be like without it to someone who hasn't seen The Vanquishers. Chubby Potato ☎  04:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I mostly agree, particularly with regards to cropping. I studied graphic design, so tend to be a bit of a perfectionist about how I crop my images. I can't tell you the amount of images I've uploaded to character pages - zoomed in just enough so that they fit policy - only to have them be re-cropped so that they just show the persons eyes. I think they should obviously focus on the character's head, rather than be too zoomed out, but not zoomed in to the point that everybody looks like Cassandra O'Brien.Δ17. However, I do like the facing left rule; it just makes it look better if images are facing towards the text, especially when it come to character profile pictures. I do, however, think that there are times when that isn't needed, and the way images are cropped/presented should always depend on the subject. Perhaps the facing left rule should just be a guideline. 66 Seconds ☎  13:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I would agree with the facing left images. And I actually prefer that characters look toward the text. However, I would not have it be a strict rule. I would say the policy should be changed to say something like "left-looking is preferred if there is a good image, but should not a strict rule if not”. Danniesen ☎  15:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree the 'left facing profile' for photos should be more of a guideline than a rule. If no good photos exist, only then should other options be put on the table. Fractal Doctor ☎  15:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The funny thing is that having the image be left-facing already is just a guideline, and not a rule. However it's been taken as so important (especially because of how it's formatted similar to an actual rule in the policy) that images which look right have been mostly ignored because of it, where among candidates for an image one is dismissed because of it despite whatever other redeeming aspects it may have. Honestly I think there are some cases where a bad left-facing image has been chosen over a good right-facing one. I recall a discussion facetiously referring to "the cardinal sin of not looking left", but that we reached a point where that joke had to be made says something to me. I think left-looking is good, but even as just a guideline it is taken a bit too seriously. To kind of reiterate my point, it should be part of a more holistic view— where we don't say "no, we can't use that image because it doesn't face left", but rather "this image doesn't face left so it's not perfect, but let's see about the other things." Chubby Potato ☎  00:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Portrait/square-sized images?
I agree with pretty much everything that's suggested here. Insisting on these "extreme close up" images, or limiting the file size in this extreme manner, strikes me as rather arbitrary. On Stranger Things Wiki, we generally use images with greater height than width, to create a portrait-like effect, while showing something like 25 to 70% of the character's clothing, figure, posture, body, etc. Here are some examples: Eleven, Brenner, Vecna.

I will say, that at their best, the horizontal close-ups can create an interesting aesthetic all of their own (but only when the images are of good quality). Infobox size also ought to be discussed/decided upon - using portrait-style images in turn make the infoboxes much, much larger; they make a greater visual impact. Whether that would be a welcome or unwanted change, that'd be up for the community to decide. TheGreatGabester ☎  20:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Interesting points raised about using taller/more portrait-leaning images by TheGreatGabester . A lot of infoboxes on this Wiki are incredibly detailed and therefore pretty tall/long already, so not sure what people would make of it... but I wouldn't be against it, especially if it allowed us to (a) have a more visual impact and (b) showcase a character's main look/costume too. In Doctor Who, whilst it's often the case that regular characters change their clothing, this doesn't always happen and there are lots of characters with iconic/definitive looks, which could be showcased if we allowed for taller image sizes. Fractal Doctor ☎  21:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)


 * On Russian Doctor Who Wiki we also use portrait-like images whenever possible, and promotional ones too, because we feel they better represent the characters - they were created exactly for this purpose. For real world people portrait-like images are also the norm, here's some examples: First Doctor, Turlough, Jenna Coleman, John Cleese. This sort of thing would be most welcome on this Wiki, making it more accessible. Dmitriy Volfson ☎  07:00, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Maybe a good middle ground would be allowing the use of square images? Those wouldn't look so out of place, but making a shift to full-on portraits might be too much, as far as this wiki is concerned. I don't think using promotional images are the way to go, personally, better to keep it in-universe when possible. TheGreatGabester ☎  09:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * As much as I like the portrait images, I think we would struggle to maintain that style due to the type of show that Doctor Who is. Stranger Things has a regular cast across multiple episodes, hence most characters will usually have a promotional image or a screengrab of reasonable quality. Doctor Who changes its cast episode-by-episode, and has been running since 1963, so a lot of characters won't have promotional images; many are also on screen for too little time to obtain a decent screengrab of the size/quality that we would need. Plus we also have the comics/audios/games to consider. Having portrait images on some pages and landscape images on others might look a little chaotic. With this in mind, I would be against using both portrait and promotional images (unless in such cases where promo images are the only images available). However, as TheGreatGabester says, square images might be a good way to go. 66 Seconds ☎  11:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Another benefit that would come with shifting to square images: it’s much simpler to remember. I can’t remember if there’s a rule, about there being a preferred aspect ratio, or anything - that’s partly on me, to be fair - but if you shift the default to square, that’s much simpler to communicate. Everyone knows what square means. TheGreatGabester ☎  13:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Whilst I'd love portrait-style images, I hear the points raised above and I agree with them. I would be very much in favour of squared-shaped/sized photos. Easy for everyone to remember and make, and it would allow for some more detail to be glimpsed (ie. costume/headwear/etc) Fractal Doctor ☎  15:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * A shift to 4:3 images, or "square images", is certainly something one of the core changes I would like to see, along with an understanding that a character's outfit and hair can be more important than just their face. OS25🤙☎️ 06:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)


 * For anyone potentially doubting the use/size of square images, it's worth noting we use them on Big Finish stories pages for their respective square covers. It takes up a little more room, but most (if not all) pages are filled enough for this not to have any negative impact. In fact, arguably bigger pictures - and square ones - may have more impact. I hope this gets implemented. Fractal Doctor ☎  11:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Another thing I like about square images: they work pretty well as icons (there's a reason why profile pictures are usually square). So that's a nice bonus - if there's an in-flux of square images, those same images can also be re-used in templates, tables, family trees, etc - any kind of visual overview, basically, and it'll probably look good. TheGreatGabester ☎  14:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above. I might be going a little off topic here, but thinking about promotional images, what are peoples thoughts on the use of images like logos and flags?


 * As stated above, I'm against the wider use of promotional images, except in such cases where promo images are the only images available. I would argue that this is the case with regards to logos. Images we have of logos on the wiki are poor quality screengrabs. I would personally like it if we could use promotional images for the logos of organisations such as UNIT and Cybus Industries, along with companies such as Magpie Electricals. Notice how much better the page for the Torchwood Institute looks because it uses an image of a Big Finish cover.


 * With regards to flags, I can see that on Stranger Things Wiki you have flags on pages such as United States of America and Soviet Union. However, on Doctor Who Wiki we don't have a united approach to dealing with countries, making everything appear a bit disjointed. United States of America uses a screengrab of a flag, while United Kingdom shows the country from space and Norway just shows a screengrab of a forest. I personally think that if a flag is shown in narrative, we should be able to use a high-quality image of that flag - similar to Stranger Things Wiki. Not sure if this would break rules with regards to T:NO RW. 66 Seconds ☎  14:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, on ST Wiki, we have looser rules surrounding images + keeping everything strictly in-universe. I personally thought: if a flag appears blowing in the wind in an episode, it's about 2% less canonical to just use the official graphic for the infobox. That said, Tardis Wiki's approach is valid too, it's really just a matter of preference. But this wiki's country articles are definitely a bit inconsistent, in terms of images. I think the Wikipedia route is the best way to go: put a flag and an aerial image/map. TheGreatGabester ☎  14:56, 14 March 2023 (UTC)