File talk:Elongatedman.png

Following the note of "lets not get off on the wrong foot again", I'd like to amicably dispute this change:

• Was it at all necessary (or justified)? It was uploaded with the claim: More recent appearance, shows more of the character. However, I don't think it invalidates its predecessor. For one, this character had the same design all over Justice League Unlimited, so point #4 of DCAU:MOS#Info_boxes is not applicable. Both pictures depict its recent design.

• This picture adhered to our consensual guidelines, while the new one not entirely.
  • The former is of higher quality than the new one. I'm not questioning yours is a DVD capture, but even those can show different quality depending on the software used to capture them. Compare this with this.
  • Nowhere does it say in our policy that the infobox images should show "as most of the character as possible". It was suggested by you in the talk page, but that's the extent of the conversation. I'll admit that the current guideline "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" is very ambiguous. If you are a proponent of this tenant, then lets discuss it there before enforcing it. I have some issues with it. The only thing that the new picture shows, comparing to the previous one, is the character's hands. So we have to ask, does the article really benefit from this change? If not, then the change is highly unnecessary and unjustified.

• In the past, we used to propose changes of this nature (when the used pictures were properly credited and sourced) in the article's talk page. I still did it while you were awol, so I'm curious to know what prompted this departure from our previous conduct. Consistency is necessary to maintain an orderly community, and editors tend to follow our example. If you don't want to propose a change everytime you think an article can be improved, then we need a detailed policy in which we can base such edits. We shouldn't make changes under the auspices of unwritten guidelines. That should avoid these time consuming arguments. I'm sure you'll agree with that. ― Thailog 19:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Consistency is necessary. If the need for consistency is what your objection is based upon, then I expect you will agree that Image:Circe.jpg must be replaced with "the exact same version" as the one you removed. According to our written guidelines, it should have been replaced with the same image. Further, the current image certainly doesn't qualify as a "dignifying representation of the character".

Reasons for changing the Elongated Man image:

1. In Image:Elongatedman.jpg, Ralph is suffering from "triangle chest", the DCAU's penchant for making all male characters have very broad shoulders and very tiny waists. This image is truer to his thinner DC comics look, which is the look he has throughout his other appearances on the show. Image:Elongatedman.jpg shows an atypical representation of the character.
2. It is from his final non-cameo appearance.
3. This image does show more of the character. It shows his gloves and pants.

My comment that you referenced above (DC_Animated_Universe_talk:Images#Quality) was in support of your statements immediately prior. If you disagreed, you haven't mentioned it in the past 7 months.

By what standard are you supporting your claim that Image:Elongatedman.jpg is of higher quality than this one? The only difference in image quality I can discern is the fact that there are noticeable compression artifacts in Image:Elongatedman.jpg, especially in his face. The .png has no such artifacts.

--BoneGnawer 20:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Our current Image guidelines succeeded that Circe argument. In fact, it was that argument that prompted that policy. Having said that, if you remember, the image I replaced (overwrote) was a random, unsourced and unlicensed image from WF. There was no rule saying we should replace those with "the exact same version". There were/are many uncredited images here, so it's preferable if we overwrite them with sourced images, even if they're different, than to incur copyright infringements. So, I replaced it with a sourced, licensed and carefully selected image, different than the original one, which was basically the best one you could grab from WF. Mine was the same version currently in place, though a low res screencap, and not the DVD capture in place now, as seen here. The whole argument began when you overwrote my sourced and licensed screenshot with a different picture (DVD capture).

Further, the current image certainly doesn't qualify as a "dignifying representation of the character".

That's POV dispute, which should be resolved with a proposal for replacement, and not a request for overwriting. If you have a suggestion go ahead and make it; don't flag a picture you find offensive when it adheres to our guidelines. Granted, if "dignifying" is an ambiguous term and should rouse disputes, then lets strike it from the policy to avoid judgment calls.

In Image:Elongatedman.jpg, Ralph is suffering from "triangle chest", the DCAU's penchant for making all male characters have very broad shoulders and very tiny waists. This image is truer to his thinner DC comics look, which is the look he has throughout his other appearances on the show. Image:Elongatedman.jpg shows an atypical representation of the character.

I don't disagree with that. Notice I never said this was a bad picture, but since we had done this in the past, why didn't you simply propose the change and posted this reason on the talk page?

It is from his final non-cameo appearance.

That's irrelevant. It could be from his first cameo appearance as long as the design was consistent throughout the show.

This image does show more of the character. It shows his gloves and pants.

I never said otherwise, I'm simply asking, how does the article benefit from that?

My comment that you referenced above (DC_Animated_Universe_talk:Images#Quality) was in support of your statements immediately prior. If you disagreed, you haven't mentioned it in the past 7 months.

There's a big difference from "close up from waist up" (my suggestion) and "include as much of the character as possible" (yours). I think that seeing as I didn't include neither in the update, I didn't agree with you, and waited for further debate, but that one died away, which happens a lot here.

By what standard are you supporting your claim that Image:Elongatedman.jpg is of higher quality than this one? The only difference in image quality I can discern is the fact that there are noticeable compression artifacts in Image:Elongatedman.jpg, especially in his face. The .png has no such artifacts.

I see no "noticeable compression". Maybe its your screen. I see, however, and dimmer .png and a vivid and brighter .jpg. ― Thailog 22:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

---

the image I replaced (overwrote) was a random, unsourced and unlicensed image from WF.

That's an incorrect accusation. In fact, the image you linked to when you originally made this accusation at Image talk:Circe.jpg is nothing like the one I originally posted.

There was no rule saying we should replace those with "the exact same version".

The rule, which you wrote yourself, is right here.

The whole argument began when you overwrote my sourced and licensed screenshot with a different picture (DVD capture).

To be more accurate, I overwrote your image with a properly licensed DVD capture of the original image you overwrote previously without discussion. I did not commit a discourtesy. I corrected yours.

Further, the current image certainly doesn't qualify as a "dignifying representation of the character".

That's POV dispute...

Its not a POV dispute. Dignified is a word with a clear definition - showing or expressing dignity. Dignity is defined as formal reserve or seriousness of manner, appearance, or language. Boobs popping out of a bustier is clearly not showing formal reserve or seriousness of manner, appearance, or language.

This image does show more of the character. It shows his gloves and pants.

I never said otherwise, I'm simply asking, how does the article benefit from that?

It benefits, because it is a more complete representation of the character.

I see no "noticeable compression". Maybe its your screen.

Look closely at his face. The compression artifacts are there. Perhaps it is my monitor. After all, I am using a 30" screen at 2560 x 1600 resolution. Its entirely possible that you can't see the compression artifacts depending on your equipment.

I see, however, and dimmer .png and a vivid and brighter .jpg.

The scene is dimmer. Stating that "brighter is better" is a POV issue.

since we had done this in the past, why didn't you simply propose the change and posted this reason on the talk page?

Because, as I've shown, according to the guidelines and measurable standards of quality (as opposed to subjective standards of preference), this is a superior image.

--BoneGnawer 03:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)