I'm going to post here our points of disagreement so that we can discuss each one of them separately in an orderly fashion. If I leave any out, please include it.
The image should be of the highest quality available. DVD screen-captures are preferred, with television recordings and other formats being secondary. In the case of duplicate images, the highest quality image is kept.
When dealing with DVD screen-captures, one should not use quality as a reason to replace (swap) pictures. If the only problem with a DVD capture is a flaw, then that image should be overwritten with the same version, but without that flaw. Examples: here and here. Compression artifacts or aliasing problems should not be grounds to substitute a DVD capture with a different shot. ― Thailog 11:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Compression artifacts or aliasing problems should not be grounds to substitute a DVD capture with a different shot.
Agreed, however they are grounds for replacing with the same shot minus the artifacts and/or aliasing. --BoneGnawer 17:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The image should be an accurate, dignifying representation of the character. There are plenty of fun moments to be found throughout the DCAU, but we strive to capture moments when the character is at his or her best.
To adhere to the concept of "dignifying", infobox images should not include crude or vulgar moments. The DCAU generally consists of kids' TV shows, so these moments are rare, but a handful do exist and should be avoided unless addressing a specific point. Examples include "private parts" featured prominently in an image, panty or codpiece shots, etc.
Concerning "accuracy" the image should depict the character or item in their most consistent look in the series in question. If a character is drawn one way in the majority of appearances, but another way in a minority of appearances, the majority appearance should be used. This excludes character redesigns such as in the case of Supergirl.
In this case, the original picture must be replaced by the exact same version (with better quality).
Uncredited images should be flagged for sourcing, not replacement. A time limit should be involved to keep uncredited images from hanging around indefinitely.
Replacing with a different image should always be discussed, regardless of the reason for replacement. A minimum time period for discussion should be established to allow all interested parties to voice their opinions. At the end of the time period, the image with the most votes can be put in place.
I suggest that both time periods be set at 30 days.
The character in the infobox should be standing still.
"Standing still" includes all kind of absence of movement (characters should not be talking). ― Thailog 11:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, but I'd consider this more of a guideline than a hard and fast rule. Images should not be replaced on this basis alone. --BoneGnawer 17:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
It should show as much as possible of the character (full-body).
I don't completely oppose to this suggestion. I actually support it, but only in certain circumstances.
Per here, the amount of images destined to each article is directly dependent on the amount of text that article contains. Characters like Catwoman are likely to have more pictures than characters like Audrey. That said, if a long article has 10-20 pictures, then there's no need to include a full body shot of the character in the infobox, because that character will likely have a complete representation in other images included in the article's body. Also, an infobox should contain quick-facts about the character, without lots of details. This should apply to the image too. Readers shouldn't need to see the character from head to toe right there. They can see it in other images. Not to mention that, the higher the image is, the more space it takes from the article, and the less images we'll be able to fit in there.
Full body images should be used in articles less likely to have a long biography. Speedy for example, had one appearance and one minor role. There's not much we can write about that character's DCAU role that we will be able to illustrate with images. Therefore, that article should have a full body image because we won't be able to fit any other in the body of the article. On the other hand, articles like Darkseid don't need a full body (or waist up for that matter) shot because it can have many images that depict his full likeness down the article.
Then, we have characters that do not have any trademark or distinguished trait that warrants a full body or waist up shot. Lois Lane only wore two outfits. Do we need to see more of her in her infobox? Hers is on of those article likely to have many pictures to depict her in various situations. We shouldn't need to see "more of her" in the infobox. Same thing with Mala and Jax-Ur. Sometimes, facial expressions tell us more about a character than outfits.
Bottom line: I oppose to full body shots in the infobox because they disrupt the article and take space needed for other images. John Stewart is an example of the perfect image for an infobox. That article is very likely to have many pictures, and the infobox one not only clearly shows his face but also the most relevant/distinguished part of his uniform. Do we need to see his hands and feet right there? Faces should be as important in infoboxes as "Affiliations", "Powers" or "Relatives". Outfits can be showcased in other images, see Batman. Futher, readers should not have to enlarge infoxbox images to see the character's face. That's why we adopted a 300px standard size. That would happen if every article had full body images on the infobox. The higher the image is, the less detail we can see clearly. However, I do oppose to extreme face close-ups of, like an old one of the Question.
Closeups are bad: agreed
Full-body shots in the infobox: I prefer full-body or close to it. IMO, Image:Curaré.jpg is a perfect infobox image. It gives a complete visual reference of who the article is about. I agree in concept that the more images there are in an article, the less important it is to have a full body shot in the infobox. However, we need to come up with rules and/or guidelines that will avert or settle disputes. How many images is enough to preclude a full-body shot? Regardless of the number of images, I think infoboxes ought to show a character from at least the waist up. Image:Martianmnahunter.jpg is a perfect example of an infobox image for a large article with multiple images. As agreed above, face closeups are bad. --BoneGnawer 17:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
It should be a shot from the waist up.
See comments on the point above. --BoneGnawer 17:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)