For some reason this really annoys me

[TMWNN]

Hmm, about the Tyrion page there was a discussion, see here, and there people wanted MORE photos... and that is something I have heard before. Could you add your comments to the discussion page there?

As one who participated in that earlier discussion, I was glad to see more photos added to Tyrion's article. Not every paragraph needs a photo, perhaps, and photos' sizes should indeed be standardized, but I don't see any issues with relevant photos of the type in that article.

[taraboste]

I don't know why but this has been annoying me to an unreasonable degree: Using pictures from Game of Thrones on characters. Especially for Character like Renly were he is described as having long hair yet the picture on his page show him with short cut hair.

wrong:

A feast for crows // chapter 37 Brienne:

King Renly’s hair had been that same coal black, but his had always been washed and brushed and combed. Sometimes he cut it short, and sometimes he let it fall loose to his shoulders, or tied it back behind his head with a golden ribbon, but it was never tangled or matted with sweat.

[Scafloc]

There should probably be some standardization in size (width) of images used. Uniformity will give the wiki a much more pleasing and professional look. Go to a page like Aerion Targaryen and the giant picture makes the text look squished. Something like this can be done without editing the source image by using wiki code that automatically resizes the picture. Looking at the code on the linked page, it's actually already being done. It's just that it's being resized to a pretty ludicrous 500px rather than a more reasonable 300px used for header photos on Wikipedia, with 200px used for most in-article images.

Something else to avoid can be seen on Jaime Lannister's page. If we can't get permission to use pictures that don't have watermarks on them we shouldn't bother with using the image. Having a watermark stamped in the middle of a picture makes the wiki look sloppy and makes it look like we're stealing images, even if we have permission.

We also might want to set some sort of limit. Tyrion's page looks like someone had a photo party and forgot to sweep up afterward. If pages become cluttered they become less readable, and ease of readability should be a primary goal for any endeavor with the intent of sharing information.

Let's take a different approach. We have just started to load pictures on the wiki so it is not that clear what is the right amount of pictures and the size. The Tyrion page is just one effort, it is not a law or a rule to do all articles the same way.

@Bahmirion, you have a clear ideas how an article should look. Why don't you pick an article and change it they way you think it should be. When you are done everybody can see it and say what they think is better. (If you think this is a good idea) you probably want to try with an article that has enough content and few pictures. How about the Robb Stark page. It has quiet a lot of text and only one picture.

[Scafloc]

And then there was silence...

Funny how this always happens. It seems it is a easier to express you annoyance with an article then to act on it (and improve the article)

[Bahimiron]

Or perhaps I was out of town, you condescending wastrel.

Though I really probably won't bother. Reading this thread makes me not care. Every suggestion I made was based on the idea of making a cleaner, more uniform wiki. Something more professional, like the actual Wikipedia. However there are people who're all 'more pictures!' and 'background images!' and if the general consensus is that people would rather have a wiki that looks less like Wikipedia and more like the menu at Denny's, who am I to stand in the way of progress?

[Scafloc]

Bahmiron,

The way you express your criticism is pretty strong ("photo-party and forgot to clean up", "sloppy", "appearing to steal images", "ludicrous") to say the least. Still I take you suggestions serious else I would not have bothered to reply in the first place. If you then don't act on it (and this was not the first time) then you appear to do be more interested in criticism then in improving.

What I find remarkable is that you have no problem to give criticism but if some responds with some mild criticism to you you cannot stand it and the other is a condescending wastrel.

Please tell me how to qualify your ("photo-party and forgot to clean up", "sloppy", "appearing to steal images", "ludicrous") suggestions.

[TMWNN]

Or perhaps I was out of town, you condescending wastrel.

And yet you've found time to make an average of eight posts per day, every single day, since signing up for the forum.

AWoIAF, like Wikipedia, is solely the product of its editors. It's much easier to criticize harshly than contribute, and as Scafloc said, it's not right or fair for you to so strongly condemn something that you have every ability to improve. Or, to summarize: "Put up or shut up."

[Bahimiron]

And yet you've found time to make an average of eight posts per day, every single day, since signing up for the forum.

...and?

I was on vacation for four days. Not every day since starting on this forum. So my average number of posts over the last two months don't really mean a whole lot. I mean, I'm sure it seemed like a hardcore burn, but my average number of posts from last Thursday 'til last night when I got home is like 1 a day, all made from my phone.

AWoIAF, like Wikipedia, is solely the product of its editors. It's much easier to criticize harshly than contribute, and as Scafloc said, it's not right or fair for you to so strongly condemn something that you have every ability to improve.

It's also a wiki, so if it is the position of 99 people that every page should have a fun fact about cheese on it and 1 person that maybe cheese doesn't have much to do with the subject at hand, the 99 people create the reality and the 1 person gets to live in it. This was a thread starting by someone who didn't like an aspect of the wiki and in the end it was decided he was wrong. I offered up some suggestions. If you don't like them, I'm not going to go in and make a bunch of changes just to watch them revised by people who feel like lots of pictures of varying sizes makes for a better reading experience. I'm not Sisyphus and this is not my big round rock.

You are correct in one aspect, though. I do have the ability to improve my reading experience. The noscript plugin, for instance, makes it very easy to remove every picture.

Please tell me how to qualify your ("photo-party and forgot to clean up"' date=' "sloppy", "appearing to steal images", "ludicrous") suggestions.[/quote']

First of all, you're seeing more offense there than was really intended with perhaps the overly jocular "photo-party and forgot to clean up". However, photo-party and sloppy are both used in reference to use of photos in a situation where you end up with more pagespace being used for photos than for text. This is a wiki, not tumblr, and the focus should be on the words, not on the pictures. Pictures should be there to add to the experience of reading the encyclopedia, not to dominate it.

Sloppy also refers to non-uniform picture size. In some instances there are pictures that are nearly half the page width, squishing the text into a row with only a few words per line, leading to a disjointed reading experience. The wiki has a style that is followed in the case of people and locations, with a table that brings up specific information that is uniform for all people (when the information is available, of course) and this is good. It means the experience of reading every page is even and the reader knows what to expect and where to find information. When pictures are different sizes from one page to another, however, that makes for a disruptive transition from one page to another.

All of these problems could be solved by doing what Wikipedia does, creating and adhering to a style guide. It doesn't even need to be nearly as stringent as Wikipedia's. Just a gentle group of suggestions to new posters as to how to make a wiki that offers an easy, streamlined reading experience, grants efficient access to information and gives an impression of having been designed by fans that are both passionate about the subject and dedicated to creating a professional looking source for information.

I'm not sure what offense you find in the fact that posting someone else's watermarked images never looks good. They may have given permission to use them, but if they can't do that without removing the watermarks, they should probably just stay on the creator's page. You're not going to find a bunch of watermarked images on any of the other really well-known, well-regarded fan wikis. Nor on Wikipedia. Except probably in the article about digital watermarking.

The net is full of catastrophic fan wikis. Thanks to wikia and wikidot, everyone and their mom can make a wiki. AWOIAF is already ahead of the game in a lot of ways. The Star Wars wiki (not the official one, the Wikia) is fantastically laid out, has an enormous amount of information and holds to a great deal of uniformity in design between pages, but it's slathered in ads from top to bottom. AWOIAF has only a few ads and they're generally unobtrusive. Memory Alpha, the Star Trek wiki, is an amazing fan resource for information that even the writers access, but our layout is better and design is (usually) less cluttered.

Like I said above, it's obvious that people really disagree with me. That's fine. I was floating ideas and having seen the response to them, I now know there's no reason to try and go through. You and TMWNN say 'put up or shut up', but if everyone disagrees there's no reason to put up. It'll just get reverted back.

I'd further add that saying I should go edit the Robb Stark page isn't a great way to demonstrate what I'm saying, since I actually find the Robb Stark page to be perfectly fine. I'd reduce the photo to 300px, but other than that it's a good looking page. And uniformity of design isn't found by changing one page, but by changing several. Given the responses a wholesale changing of a bunch of pages doesn't seem like it'd be a popular move.

Then again, continuing this line of discussion doesn't seem like it'd be a popular move either, so I'll probably move on at this juncture. You and TMWNN can continue to land hells of sick burns, though. PM me when you get one that's totally rad and I'll come in to +1 you.

[Scafloc]

I took you suggestion serious else I would not have bothered to replay. This regardless of whether I agree or disagree with the suggestions.

But what amazes me is that it is OK for you to strongly criticize my contributions but it is not OK for me to point out that you don't contribute.

Having said that back to the pictures.

I think that at this moment uniformity is not yet possible because at this moment we don't know what is the best. As pointed out in another discussion the Tyrion-photo-party-page was a first effort. The approach was partly based on the Hermione page of the Harry Potter wikia (which has a lot of image).

In my opinion a picture can say more then a thousands words so I would like to include some picture that capture the most important moments or persons. And if it is hard to find the best then I would go for the next best. I also think that some added pictures would make the wiki more attractive for visitors.

Applying that to the Tyrion page I would say that the Tyrion page should loose the Amoka picture (too large and not needed). I like the Tyrion and Tywin picture because Tywin is looking solemn and commanding to Tyrion and Tyrion is not looking back and thus it says something about their relation. But it would probably still have that effect if the picture was reduced.

Then my opinion on the Robb Stark page. I think a picture of the Grey Wind would fit, maybe another of Robb with a crown (a defining moment) AND a picture of the Red Wedding (if there is a good one) because this is certainly a defining moment.

[The Pale Griffin]

Here's a compromise. Bahimiron, how about you edit one page we all agree not to touch until you're finished with your edits. A page with a lot of photos so you can show us how you would like the article. That way you can show the group exactly what you mean instead of this war of words where everyone is being insulted. I agree we need a style guide. I agree with you that articles should have a uniformity, I've been trying to implement that as I go along. I've been breaking it down into books because people are afraid of spoilers, especially with the TV show so far behind the books. However not all articles are written that way and there are some, like Jaime Lannister that are so well written I actually won't touch it beyond adding in sources. I also agree with Scafloc that pictures tell a thousand words and they definitely augment the articles.

I would also like to add that those pics up now, the Amokas and some of the other terrific ones that Scafloc found are important in a different way. They are how people pictured these characters before the advent of the tv show. I guarantee you now that more people will remember Yoren as he resembles in the tv show now than how he is depicted in the books. Those pics, watermarks and all, are, and I do apologise if I sound a little pompous here, historical artefacts in the fandom of ASoIaF.

Take Harry Potter for example. The actual way you say Hermione is written out in the books. After the advent of the movies, everyone pronounced it the way they heard Robbie Coltrane and the rest of the cast say it. That kind of shift will take place in this series too as the tv audience will be astronomically larger than the novel audience. Hence, even with the watermarks, those images become important. It's too bad we don't have some kind of images page so as details emerge about each character you can almost see its progression...but I'm getting waaay ahead of myself there.

[Talleyrand]

wrong:

A feast for crows // chapter 37 Brienne:

Well according to the TotH from the Sansa chapter

"He is tall and handsome with jet-black hair to his shoulders and laughing green eyes"

Your quote shows that at some times he had his hair short now unless he has super hair growing skills there's very little chance that his hair changed from since we first saw him until his death seeing as its described the same way in both meetings

[mor2]

I am with the guy in the OP, I too prefer art on the character pages over HBO printscreens. I didnt read through all the discussion but from the looks of many char pages I know how it ended.

Anyway, char pages aside. there are already quite few char sets around in difrent styles, do we have a favorite one that fits well in style with our wiki ?

if no, I'll go with one posted on the privous page http://en.amokanet.ru/gallery/martin/

[Scafloc]

Again: artist or actor booth are impressions. So one does not automatically take precedence over the other.

The same goes for the styles. I like some of Amoka's portraits very much but not all. For instance the picture of Daenerys by Carry Best is definitely superior to Amoka's impression. So I would suggest that we choose the best pictures and instead of choosing one because similarity of style.

[mor2]

I see your point, I have my preference as well (for example I hate Amoka's Tyrion) but the reason I a, looking at collections is because I am trying to build a Character portal.

At the moment I am entertaining the idea of placing several Icons on that page, in which case consistent style is very important. as well there is the copyright Issue, I have a very nice collection of art pieces, on my HD for personal use, which would be perfect but each belongs to a diffrent artist and it's not nessary that we will be able to contact and get premission to use them all, thus I prefer collections even with their short commings.

Btw, I am also checking this collection,Again amazing work but maybe the page as whole will look a bit to pale... I dont know it's kind harf to imagine it all, this why I am looking for suggestion on collections/layuot/contnet/everything !

[Scafloc]

Yes for icons some similarity in style is a good idea.

My point was more for the portrait that is used in the Character template. There I would like to show the best picture.

I have seen the collection in your link. Looks nice but not as portraits I think, too pale like you said and too similar to the HBO series. Also on devaint there is a great picture of Lyanna. It is the best I have seen, but again too pale for the wiki.

[Greenblood]

Hi guys,

I'm fairly new to ASOIAF world, having arrived here thanks to the TV Show, however I have read the books and I can proudly say I'm now a fan! :)

During my reading I have been using the wiki on this site and in my opinion its much better to use the artist fan-art than the actors pictures, since the character will be slightly different to each person who reads the book, and the depictions of the artist can be closer to what we all agree on than a picture, because the artist can draw what he wants but the actor is born with his features (OK yes, there is makeup and hairdressing but its not always enough)

With artist depictions we can choose between different ones for each page to find one we all, or most of us agree on. With the tv actor picture there is only one version.

Also, the TV show makes its own creative changes to better suit a TV audience, and the wiki should reflect the books since ASOIAF are a series of books with a TV show that is BASED on it, not equivalent to it.

Plus, its not always good to identify the book character as the actor, as happens with many movies based on books. It may be that in the future there will be movies based on ASOIAF, or one of the TV show actors will leave the show for whatever reason and has to be replaced. This could cause some problems.

However, the tv show depiction is also important and should be reflected. Those who are Harry Potter fans like I may be familiar with the Harry Potter Lexicon, here they do a very nice thing on the character page which is use a drawing as the "main picture" and add a section at the end titled "movie interpretation" or something similar and put a picture of the actor, sometimes linking to a page about the actor himself. As an example I leave this link

http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/draco.html

[Scafloc]

Welcome Greenblood!

Not every wiki makes the same choices. The wikia of Harry Potter and of the Lord the Rings use the films as well as different artistic impressions. I approached a few artists myself for permission to show their art so I am definitely not against using pictures.

Some of them are so good (to my taste) that I feel that the artist really capture the person (Daenerys by Carrie Best for example). Still it is an impression.

The TV series is another impression and one that will stay in the mind in a lot of people just like the Daenerys picture I just mentioned. I think for example that Eddard as played by Sean Bean will be one of those impression that will remain. So I like to show that one too. For me it is more important what the quality is then what the source is.

[Linda]

Having considered this issue further, Ran and I would strongly prefer that any primary image used (be it a photo or an artistic depiction) is one that does not deviate too much from how the character is described. I think we'd also say that we prefer a good artistic depiction over a photo when one is available.

Photos as the primary image are not really appropriate when the character looks completely different from what is described in the books. In those cases, a photo showing what the character looks like in other media would be fine, but the primary focus of the wiki is on the books, with the TV show being "other media".

To take some examples from the first season, photos would not be appropriate for Shae, Renly and Tyrion, but they'd be fine for Arya and Jaime. Just to mention a few. Obviously, its a sliding scale, but hair colour, skin tone and build should be more or less right.