OoT Navi.png

Hey! Listen!

This wiki contains spoilers! Read at your own risk!

Community:The Midna Art Debate

From Zelda Wiki, the Zelda encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Note: This is an actual debate that happened from May 29th, 2008 to May 31st, 2008. The normal page (without this debate) can be found here.
A second round of this debate happened from May 31st, 2008 to June 2nd, 2008. The normal version (without this debate) can be found here
A third round of this debate happened on June 19th, 2008 to June 20th, 2008. It can be found here

Round One

The culprit image

The Issue

Should fan art and altered official images be allowed on the wiki? Or should we only allow official art that is not altered and not fan-art?

The Image

The image in question was uploaded on May 28th, 2008 by TwilightPrincess TP. The controversy started because it came from DeviantArt, a site well known for fan-art. The image itself was created by DarklordIIID.

The Debate

This image... Is it official art or fan-made by someone on DeviantArt? If it's fan-made it needs to not be on Midna's gallery page. --Ando 18:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just went to DeviantArt, and it is, in fact, fan-art. Removing from gallery page (although it IS a nice picture!). --Ando 18:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind again, I'm behind on the times. Adam's already done it. Man, I need to look at all the edits before I say something. :P --Ando 18:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
O noes. This is awesome! Don't take it off! Make a fan art gallery! Just. Don't. Take. It. Off. The. Page. --Seablue254 19:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's already been taken off of the gallery; it's fan art, and fan art is unacceptable for articles and galleries. Fan art only has a place on user pages, which this picture is being used on; therefore, it won't be deleted. --Ando 19:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

...fine. keep awesome fan art off awesome pages. --Seablue254 19:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Seablue, This is an awesome picture and should be on the page fan-art or not.--Toon Link 00:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This image is, in a way, semi-official. This image and others like it are of the actual model from the game. So, in a technical sense, it is official.--Matt 00:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, it's really just an edited model of Midna. It's from the game still. Heck, this is such a good picture it should be on Midna's page.--Toon Link 00:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Semi-official =/= official. If I take a piece of official art and draw something on it, it's not "official art" anymore; it has been altered by a fan in a way such that it no longer resembles an officially released image. As a result, it is not appropriate for the wiki. Again, I agree that it is a great looking image (incredibly hi-res, to boot), but does not belong on any article or gallery. --Ando 15:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Your reasoning is flawed. According to what you said, we can't use any images that have had their background made transparent. And we can't use images that were blurry and have been cleared up. There is no difference between this model and a screenshot of a game. If we can't use this, then logic follows that we can't use any of the screensots either. This is, of course, absurd. I know you don't mean any of this. But like it or not, that is exactly what you are saying.
I meant semi-official in that it was like a screenshot. So in that sense, my last post was consistent.--Matt 16:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Case in point...
Look guys, quit the semantics. Short answer is, Ando's right. This is a very fine line, and the level of tolerance must be zero. Otherwise where do you draw the line? I think the image to the right is pretty well done, and bar the addition of the blue swishes it's pretty much the same classification as the one we're discussing. But clearly this isn't suitable, as the pose is entirely non-canonical. Just because you take a game model and reposition it, it doesn't mean it's still acceptable. The image we're discussing could just as easily have been nearly identical, except with Midna's finger jammed up her nose. Would we allow that? --Adam 22:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Every rule has its exceptions. The world isn't black and white. A consensus should be reached on whether or not to use an image. Sometimes, to convey an intended meaning, official sources are lacking. In such cases, other sources must fill the gap. Nintendo doesn't have official art of Midna's true form for obvious spoiler reasons. The "line" is not drawn only once. It must be closely examined, and possibly redrawn, whenever something approaches it.--Matt 23:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't tell us to quit the semantics just because you can't think of a comeback. Matt is right, you made the wings on the shadow isect queen tranparent, that was changing offical art.--Toon Link 23:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

While I find it amusing that one picture can create this much turmoil, I really must intervene...

The fact of the matter is, and I think everyone here will agree with me, a picture with Midna "jamming her finger up her nose" would be perceived as an insult to the character by everyone on this site, while this picture everyone seems to love. 50% love this picture, and want to put it on Midna's page. 25% want to keep the picture, but not on Midna's page, instead only on user pages, while the last 25% want to delete it outright.

This is what I think (bear with me): If a picture of Fanart is applied to a page (non-user), it should be of quality like this one, and should be labelled as much. eg:

Fanart of Midna

As reasonable as this sounds, I can already tell people are going to blow this solution away. But, truthully, the world isn't just black or white. If you ask me where I stand, I'd have this on the page. But I don't think I'll get involved in this arguement any more than this. --Yuvorias, 31 May 2008 (EST)

Actually, no one wants it deleted. After all it's being used on your userpage. I agree 100%, only high-quality fan-art should be on an article (this isn't even entirely fan-art). If a litle kid scrribled a picture of Midna, it shouldn't be on the article because it's a bad picture. And, Midna with her finger up her nose wouldn't look all that professional.--Toon Link 02:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

But then, where do you draw the line of what is considered "high-quality"? High-quality can be subjective: some may consider it just extremely high-resolution pictures, while others may consider high-quality "as high as I could capture from the YouTube video". Others still will have differing opinions.
Regardless, though, I'm just gonna say this once: we don't make the rules, we just enforce them. This isn't just personal opinion (although it is an opinion that I hold). If it went along with the Wiki guidelines I'd allow it, but it doesn't, so... I won't. --Ando 05:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I've heard this rule quoted often, but where is it written down. Unwritten rules are not enforcible. As are rules that are not clearly spelled out to all involved. I've just looked at the guidelines and there is no mention for it. I think that there was a small page created recently that gave reasons for deletion of images. Where did those rules come from?
Keep in mind that all rules have one thing in common, they tend to require revision from time to time. We all know who the owner of the Zelda Wiki domain is. But it has been made abundantly clear that the users that edit it are the owners of the site itself. Therefore, overriding a rule is a simple matter of a community consensus. Remember, it is not black and white. There are many shades of gray in between.--Matt 05:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I can't find the rule either; I'll give you that one. :P It's something that I hear quite often though (especially from Adam, who's been here longer than the both of us combined), so I figure that it's a rule to enforce.
Still, where do you draw the line? I have yet to see that answered. :/ As I've said, "high-quality" is relative. So... yeah, I'm agreeing with Yuvorias: I'm leaving this conversation as I see it degrading into nothing more than sheer argument and anger, and that's not cool. --Ando 05:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Would a formal vote be possible? That would be a more professional way of doing it. Also, I'm not angry at all. I perfectly understand what is being said. I'm simply trying to open doors to alternate sources. The decision for fan-made image to be used in an article should not be taken lightly. This image would convey a meaning with which there is no comparable alternative from an official source. Therefore, it is important that the possibility of using this image be carefully considered.--Matt 05:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Aw shit. You guys battled through the whole night. *facepalm*. Time to fix this. --Seablue254 12:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Now, please LEAVE IT. --Seablue254 12:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You people are petty and silly. It's a model ripped from the game, posed in a manner that makes the character's distinguishing features most visible. It's mildly altered (the texture resolution was increased for neatness), but otherwise it's a solid picture that represents Midna's true form. It's from the game, I consider it official in the way I would a screenshot. The creator did NOT take any creative license in altering this image as someone's "case in point" example did. Therefore, it cannot possibly be defined as fan art. A fan rip, possibly - but it's altered so little that you cannot possibly group it in with some idiot that made Midna dance for fun. The lack of creative license taken in this model rip signifies that it is not only safe to use on the wiki, but its use should be encouraged over the blurry screenshots of Midna's true form we've had up until this image.
In addition - what the heck is a "canonical pose"? How can a POSE possibly be called canonical? It has nothing to do with the story. A pose is a pose. Are the poses from Twilight Princess's official site also non-canonical? --Jason 13:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Mrenh. But again, a line will have to be drawn at some point (such as, where is the line between mildly altering the pose and dramatically altering it to the point where it can't be used?). I propose that any future instances of such a discussion utilize the voting system proposed by Mjr, just so we can avoid having this discussion again. :P --Ando 13:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Num 1. If it's been altered, use my template, god damn it!
Num 2. Sure, lets use the voting system. --Seablue254 13:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with a vote. I think this is the biggest talk page for a picture I've ever seen.--Toon Link 16:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a legendary battle that should be remembered for all time. Well, no one got hurt and the outcome was constructive. Maybe we could archive this sometime for all future users to see. As far as I can tell, no one got all angry. No one resorted to insults. Everyone stayed professional. Quite a clean debate — debate, not argument. Debate sounds better. Someone come up catchy name for this debate. The something something debate, or something ^_^.--Matt 16:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The Fan-Art/Altered Art vs. Official Art Debate. I likes it. --Seablue254 16:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Could shorten it up to FAVO debate, short for Fan-Art/Altered Art Vs. Official Art debate. I really like that. —Matt 17:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, "FAVO" Sounds kinda corny --Seablue254 17:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I GOT IT!!! I GOT IT!!!It is sooooo simple!!!
...
...
The Midna Debate. Simple, effective, and elegant right? —Matt 17:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Make it The Midna Fan-art Debate or The Midna Art Debate. The Midna debate sounds like it has something to do explicitly with Midna, which is not the case. --Seablue254 17:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Now we're on to something. Make it The Midna Art Debate. That's the shorter one. It also include altered art and official art in the title. That's it! —Matt 18:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, i shall move this to the page The Midna Art Debate. It was good working with you people! --Seablue254 18:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The Participants

Major Participants:


Partial Participants


Minor Participants

The Outcome

The debate would most likely have kept on going if were not for Jason's intervention. It is no secret that many users place a great deal of trust in Jason. A voting was made, where it was decided by Seablue254 (Who, according to him, had actually paid no attention to the voting and could care less about it) that the image should be in Midna's Gallery anyway. At the moment, the image has a template, is in a category for fan art, and is in the gallery.

Another result of the debate was the consideration of the possibility of using a system of formal voting, like that for featured articles, in the event of another fan-art image of high quality is uploaded. This would avoid any future debates on the issue of using fan-art.

Round Two

The Issue

Should we use no fan-art at all?

The Debate

I think making a whole article for this debate was kinda over-doing it but, I'm happy with the way things turned out. Yeah sure, I made myself rather unpopular but, I'm happy.--Toon Link 20:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

  1. This what what was decided on, b/c it will serve as an example later.
  2. Don't worry about making yourself unpopualr. I made it clear that i didn't give a damn about the voting in the article. I am probably unpopular too ;) --Seablue254 21:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This should be more open next time around. I was gone for three days and I completely miss the entire discussion. This is a bigger topic that goes far beyond just this one picture. At ZeldaWiki.org we are always looking for the most official 'canon' material. I believe that if an image is 'cleaned or cleared' for better display, than that is perfectly fine as being 'official' BUT Credit MUST be given to the person who did end up doing the editing. In this case, the image was NOT altered for simple clarification of a blurry screenshot. It was a fan made picture based on a character from the game in the style of Official Artwork. It is completely irrelevant how 'good' of an image it is or not. We need to credit more than just Deviant Art. That is like making a credit to the New York Times for a specific article... It needs to credit the author or illustrator more specifically. In addition to that, like it was decided, it needs to be separate from all official artwork. I also think that this artwork should NEVER be on the actual page, but just on the characters gallery, like it was chosen. Mases 23:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Image credited as requested. Also, please pay attention to the notices at the tops of articles from now on.--Matt 23:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that this image should be on the main character page either, but for a different, and much less opinionated, reason. It is a HUGE SPOILER, much more so than any of the images currently on the page.--Matt 23:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not worried about being disliked, I have plenty of freinds off the internet. I'm not here to be liked, I'm here to improve this wiki.--Toon Link 23:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as being open, we have Seablue254 and Jason to thank for ending it.--Matt 00:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Thanks for putting blame on me. Don't forget you could have kept it going at anytime. :eyeroll: --Seablue254 00:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I could have gone on for quite awhile. It had to be ended. The opposing arguments were the same every time. They were mostly opinion-based while mine were mostly fact-based. Sorry, but I have a habit of being brutally honest.--Matt 00:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
...so did i do good or bad? --Seablue254 00:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
In my book, good. Mases might be a little irritated though.--Matt 00:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not irritated, but this is something that is very important to me. Before Zelda Dungeon joined the Wiki, a bunch of sites were thinking about creating our own Wiki for reasons like this. Wiki's are meant to be factual, they are encyclopedias and need to be based on official information. There is no place for fan made rumors, fan theories, or fan artwork on official wiki pages (like the Midna page). The arguments FOR using this artwork were that it was so well done that it almost looked official, to the point where it looked like a manipulated version of the real Midna. What does this say... If you make fan artwork that LOOKS real, then it can be used? So if the Midna artwork was just not that good, but still based off the real Midna, why not include that as well? Why not just a fan art section for EVERY character. That is laughable and just plain wrong for a Wiki. Also, you have to remember this is a Wiki. No single person's opinion is worth more than another's. Just because Jason, Seablue254, Matt, Myself, or anybody else puts forth their opinion, doesn't mean anything. No single person opinion is final or should force other peoples to change their opinions. Let's take an image like... http://www.zeldadungeon.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/MeloraMap%7E0.jpg . The image is pretty darn amazing, based on the real overworld map, but still, its not official and shouldn't be on a FACTUAL page. Mases 03:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That's one of the reasons why we are not going to put the image on the main article. It's too close to being fan-art. But we can't get lazy and have a one-size-fits-all policy. Each image should be decided individually. As many people have clearly said, this particular image is no more fan-art than a screenshot is. The decision on this image is final. I have a lot of trust in Jason. If he says it is not fan-art, then it is not fan-art. But you are quite right in that we can't have a fan-art section for every character. It would grow to much and over-shadow the official images. Our two active sysops have been keeping a close eye on the uploaded images. I trust them to recognize normal fan-art and to take the proper action. They have gotten rid of a few of them since I joined.--Matt 03:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I really hope that the debate doesn't spawn a debate.--Matt 03:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey, just woke up. now, Mases. According to what you're saying, we can only/should only use official art. I'm afraid that we would have to get rid of many pictures, such as screenshots, because those are not official. Alas, that is not going to happen, and therefore, fan art should still be allowed. Now Matt, i'm pretty sure that we can allow fan art up to a point, considering that it would over shadow the official images. --Seablue254 12:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Uh, what? Screenshots are directly from the game with no modification to them; that counts as official. The piece in question is modified, though, and that's the issue. --Ando 13:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Screenshots are ripped straight from the game and can be used because they are not fan created pieces of work. People should be credited for taking the screenshots, for the labor involved, but not for the actual creation of the picture. Screenshots are not artwork. They represent the game, not the person that is taking the screenshot. Not sure how you came up with the idea that I was inferring that screenshots are no good. Screenshots are fine and should be allowed. Matt, lets please be a bit more reasonable. I know you put a lot of trust in Jason, but the way the Wiki is structured he has no more authority than any of the other 7 websites that are a part of the wiki. The discussion here is not what should be considered fan artwork, but rather, what should we do with fan artwork. Like I said before, it is a poor policy to accept fan artwork just because it is really good and closely resembles the game. The use of fan artwork should not be judged based on how good or accurate it is, that is not the point of fan artwork. If for some reason I am part of the minority and people want fan artwork on the Wiki, then there should not be limitations on how good or accurate artwork is. Mases 04:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As an artist myself, I feel the need to butt in. Now I realize the picture was found on DeviantArt. And the artist placed it online for anyone to view it. But ripping it and using it other places takes it out of the artist's control. Not all artists would appreciate that, tho some would. Remember that Wikis are supposed to be completely open, which means that content found here can be used at your discretion. And thusly the artist becomes a nobody. Basically it's bad form to assume the artist wants his/her work on such an open site as wiki.

My art for example is LoZ related puzzles. Yes, I post them on forums and it doesn't cost anything to see them or try to solve them. But I draw the line at it ever turning up on a page here. The reason is bc I'd lose control over what happens to my work.Axiomist 05:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

A couple things. Mases, hold off on your comments please. You have made your opinion abundantly clear. We don't need it repeated another three times. Second, has anyone thought of actually contacting the author? Too late. I just did. I have a DeviantArt account. It won't be long now.--Matt 08:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I have a policy that I am going to adhere to from now on. There is no changing my mind here. First, a little background info:
My dad is a teacher at the local school. He is the FFA teacher (if you don't know what that is just look here). He orders shirts for the class every year. A year ago, we had some with my new policy.
Quote1.png We don't follow the standards. We SET the standards! Quote2.png
— My new policy
It is time for us to be leaders, not followers. We need to be progressive. If we tighten our grip, we will only strangle ourselves. No more petty arguments over fan-art. Times change. Accept it.
PS: Our FFA chapter is one of the best in the nation. We have more proficiency finalists than any other chapter in the United States. So yes, we DO set the standards. A proficiency (or SAE) is a three to four year project where we aim to better ourselves. I was state winner in Aquaculture. With all of this, I am not afraid to take on set standards. I welcome the challenge. Don't believe that I was a state winner? Then see this. I'm at the top. See what school had a lot of winners that year?--Matt 09:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a really good philosophy, I think I'm gonna have to adopt that one as well. Anyhow, that's cool that you contacted the artist/author of the picture. I think it would be a good protocol to attach "Used with permission from _____......" to the information page of the image. And that when someone uses fan art in the future, they should follow your example and contact the artist for permission. I think fan art should be avoided when possible. But Nintendo really doesn't release as much official art as we'd like. It was Midna today, but I'm sure something else will come along with the next 3D LoZ title.Axiomist 15:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Participants

Major Participants:


Minor Participants

The Outcome

The use of fan-art will be allowed, but only when there are no comparable official alternatives. However, the images will be used responsibly. All future fan-art images must have permission from the creator before using in a main article.

Unlike round one, round two was ended by Matt. He made it very clear that ZeldaWiki.org should take on a leadership role. Both Matt and Axiomist agreed that permission should always be obtained from the creator of a work of fan-art.

The Clarification

Matt was asked to clarify the result, and he did so.

Yeah, uh, quick question here: How does allowing the Wiki to use fan art show that Zelda Wiki is "taking a leadership role"? The discussion was moved before I was able to ask there. (Or if I totally just misinterpreted it.) --Ando 03:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Saying no to fan-art would not be good thing. Most other wikis avoid using it just because everyone does. By using high quality fan art to fill in the position of official art,where this official art is, well, a total piece of crap. We are aiming for excellence. Do we shun talented artists only because they did not help make the game? No we don't. There will definitely be fan artists out there that are just as talented or more so than the game artists. By letting their work in we are taking the lead on road to excellence. But it is important that the wiki does not become a repository of fan art. This is what everyone has on their mind when they say they don't want fan art on the wiki. Well, people, when did you forget that WE ARE NOT AN IMAGE HOSTING SERVICE. That will never be tolerated. With so many responsible people at the helm, this will NEVER HAPPEN. So there is no need to fear it. So we must take the brave first steps into the bright future. Yes we have more responsibility to handle. But, if you are like me, you should all welcome the challenge!--Matt 04:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Gosh, you sound like some kind of radical "SAY 'YES' TO FAN ART" person. :P But whatever; I may still not agree with new "policy" (I'm stubborn like that), but obviously majority rules, and in this case it seems to be the overwhelming majority (or maybe you just seem like ten people? ;). So... thanks for the clarification. --Ando 04:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it really comes from the lack quality official materials. There really is no other source. So I think that using material from talented artists is preferable to just sitting on our butts and leaving crap, or nothing at all, there instead.--Matt 04:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Round Three

The Issue

Is the Image official?

The Debate

I've just had a breakthrough. We have identified exactly what this image is. It is a model ripped directly from the game that was set in a generic pose that accents the features. But we're still not using in on the page. We're still labeling it as fan-art. Well what would you all say if I told you that we are already using images identical in design to this one? Well, we are using them. A lot of them. Here they are:

That is about every major character and boss in Twilight Princess. They all are models ripped directly from the game and set in a generic pose! Every single one. Now recall what this image of Minda is: A model ripped directly from the game and set in a generic pose. They are all exactly the same thing, even the Midna one! If we don't let the Midna image on its character page, then we would have to remove every single image listed above. That would make the quality of our Twilight Princess character pages plummet. Use the Minda image on the Midna page. It is not fan-art. No "if"s, "or"s, "and"s, or "but"s about. It is just a game model just like the thirty-four images above.--Matt 22:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Midna falsely accused imgae is in Gallery. All fix'd. --Seablue254 23:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Hah, good spotting! I think I speak for everyone here, when I say I'd rather one picture to be allowed onto a page, rather than have to rip off the amount you've listed. --Yuvorias, 12:11, 20 June 2008 (EST)

what the crap dude
We all knew that it was a model ripped from the game, as are all of the pictures you listed. There's one fundamental difference between the Midna picture and all of those others: The Midna picture was altered significantly by a fan. The other pictures are all officially-released art like you'd find in a press pack. The Midna picture was altered in a way beyond just clearing up the image (such as making it transparent or less blurry). --Ando 02:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought Jason had clearly explained that the alterations did not make it fall under fan-art. Try going and carefully reading his post. I'm reasonably sure that the images were not released from Nintendo. Nintendo doesn't do that. They are all fan-made. All the images are in a pose that accentuates the character's features. See Ralis's, that is not a in-game pose, actually just about all of them aren't. All that was done to the Midna image was rip, pose, take picture. That's it. I've seen it done before. There is no need to "alter" the image any further.--Matt 03:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, here we go. The next debate involving this image.

If Midna is given this treatment, then it must be fairly executed onto each and every picture that falls under the same category, eg. every picture link above. I mean, not one person had a problem with these other pictures, as far as I know.

The Midna picture is just as good as these linked here, and deserves the same treatment. But seriously, why do we have to spend an entire month arguing over one picture? This is getting ridiculous. --Yuvorias, 13:58, 20 June 2008 (EST)

Um, I read what Jason said. I respect Jason, but his word isn't law. Anyway, I never said that the poses for the above images were all found in-game, just that they were officially-released images from Nintendo. The Midna image is not. --Ando 04:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel I must burst your bubble here.
  1. Did Nintendo make this wiki?
    • No.
  2. Who did?
    • We did.
  3. What are we?
    • Fans.
  4. Was this particular image made by Nintendo?
    • No.
  5. Who did make it?
    • A fan.
  6. How is this similar to the wiki?
    • They both contain content with official origins.
  7. How is that image different from a wiki?
    • It isn't. They are one and the same.
I know your stubborn Ando. We'd be hard-pressed to find someone who isn't. But I've got to be blunt. Let it go. It just isn't worth it. The majority of the people that talked here are with me on this. It is not worth us wasting all of our time here. Just let the image be treated like the others (Images have rights too you know. :P). Then we can move on to actually do something useful. That Fierce Deity Mask page needs a rewrite. Why don't you work on that when your not working on the help section. I've got a whole bunch links I want to fix tomorr... uh... I mean later today. I still need to add more to the analysis. This bickering here has got to end. It is not fan-art. It just is not worth debating about anymore. We're wasting too much space here on this. Let's keep our focus on the parts of this wiki that really need improving. It is a never-ending job. Let's stick to it.--Matt 05:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. Is it getting hot in here, or is it me? Okay, let's get our points straight. Midna art is not fanart, the rest have been made like this one, but this one is altered. Fine. Ando, delete the image, stop bickering, and just get back to editing. Its just one picture. I'm trying to be fair, but this is getting out of hand. --Seablue254 14:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I refuse to allow fan art to be treated as official art, Matt. I've already said that I'm tolerating the picture being on the Midna gallery at all. I figured that that would be enough, and that's why I basically dropped the argument before. But trying to claim that the image is just as official as Nintendo's images just crosses the line and I will not tolerate it. I won't delete the image because I think that that would just cause more problems and probably get everyone on this site to hate me, but I also don't want to see the image grouped with official images.
I agree that we seem to have run out of arguments and that neither one of us is ever going to be swayed to one side or the other, but can we at least compromise and keep the image in its own separate "Altered Models" section (or whatever the section could be called; "Unofficial Images", whatever)? That seems to be the best medium between counting the image as official and deleting it. --Ando 17:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

whatever makes everyone happy. --Seablue254 17:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
fix'd--Seablue254 17:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad I stepped back from this debate when I did. Whatever my views, or anyone else's, one thing is certain; it's time this discussion stopped. I've protected the Midna gallery and the image itself - the usage and placement of the image will remain as it is currently, and it will not be included in any additional locations. Perhaps after some time has passed, this issue can be revisited with the advantages of perspective and hindsight. --Adam 17:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Well thats just great. Apparantaly, the sysops win using their "[edit:sysop;move:sysop]" code. Typical. --Seablue254 17:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


If there's a way to stop this divisive and damaging debate over such a trivial matter, I'll do it. If that means I need to resort to locking this talk page down, I'll do that too (joking.... kind of ;) --Adam 17:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course. Why? Because you have all the power in your hands to do whatever you feel like. No one can stop you, meaning you'll do whatever you please. enjoy locking all the pages down and most likely banning me. --Seablue254 17:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

...what the crap, Sea? Over-reacting much? No one's going to ban you (unless you continue assaulting people, that is). We're not locking down all the pages, either. Protecting the page and the image is the only way to prevent anyone from making any more edits that would be controversial. And while I can delete the image, I'm not going to because too many people want the image on the site. So please don't accuse us of abusing our power. --Ando 17:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparantly I did over-react. I just hate it when people get to do stuff like lock me out of editing, apparantly. --Seablue254 17:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Time for some much needed brutal honesty here. Adam & Ando, we have already proven you two wrong. Using your sysop powers to further your own opinion is abusing them. Just accept the truth and end this. It is over. There is no argument for what you two are saying. It is only your opinion. Yes I have an opinion, but I have presented facts to back it up. This will get ugly if you two keep doing this. Others won't be as nice about it. We are wasting too much time and effort here.--Matt 17:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
O noes. --Seablue254 17:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Uh, just out of curiosity, here... what were these facts? :/ --Ando 17:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
What exactly the image was. What all those other images are. How it is no different than this wiki. Both Jason and I have tried to tell you how the pose is chosen for models, although you didn't seem to listen. Does that clarify?--Matt 17:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

And what are these "assaults"? Examples, plz. --Seablue254 17:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

@Matt: I know what I want to say. I just need to figure out how to word it. Give me a bit.
@Seablue: "Apparantaly, the sysops win using their "[edit:sysop;move:sysop]" code. Typical." "Because you have all the power in your hands to do whatever you feel like. No one can stop you, meaning you'll do whatever you please. enjoy locking all the pages down and most likely banning me." --Ando 18:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe i should stop editing. I always seem to tun out the bad guy somewhere. :/ --Seablue254 18:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

?! What?! Just because someone disagrees with you, you're not the "bad guy". You've made some significant good edits, which certainly outweigh the "bad" edits. A disagreement is no reason to leave altogether. --Ando 18:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess. --Seablue254 18:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay guys. Oath to Order agrees with me. Protecting those pages was a big no-no. Undo it. Here are his exact words:
Quote1.png Then yes, it is a blatant abuse of power. An admin's power is to be used for maintainence. Deleting articles, blocking rifraff, ect. To use ones power in that manner is a misuse. He should of waited for confirmation (which he got) and ended the issue. I would also assume that that kind of behavior would disqualify him from being an admin. Quote2.png
— Oath to Order
I don't think that it warrants Adam losing his admin rights. Just don't do it again.--Matt 19:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

But if it prevents people from making possibly-controversial edits in the midst of the discussion on what to do, it seems pretty necessary to me. Granted, the only person who really seems to make those types of edits on the Gallery page was Sea, so if he can agree not to do it, I might unlock the pages. --Ando 19:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Seriously guys, get a grip on reality. Controversial pages are blocked every day at wikipedia, in order to prevent edit wars. I just pre-empted that possibility. I was also just putting into practice the consensus that you'd all pretty much reached above; to leave things as they are. I would point out that I made no actual changes myself. How much longer do you all plan on spending flogging the life out of this issue - it's stopped even being about the image and taken on a life of it's own. This is ugly and demeaning, and I quit. Ando, do what you deem best to put an end to the saga. --Adam 19:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Question: Why the hell am i always blamed?! --Seablue254 19:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I hate that I have to do this. But here it goes:
It is only controversial because you two choose to make it that way. You still won't pay attention to the evidence. I don't even know why you bother with this debate if your only going to ignore evidence and hold steadfast to your opinions. We respect your opinions, but quite frankly, they are just wrong. Nintendo never released those model images. Fans made them. A fan made this image. That's it. If this one can't be put up, then none of them can. End of story. Do you really want to take down all those images and put up poor screen shots in their place? I highly doubt that you would.
I'm sorry if that seemed offensive. But it was not to offend. I have warned you. You mess up, and I'll tell you. I don't lie to people to spare their feelings. The truth is always better.--Matt 19:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Matt, most of the artwork you listed is official artwork that was released prior to the game by Nintendo as 'official artwork' or 'concept art'. Other then that, I think every other piece of artwork you have there has been released somewhere on Zelda.com, The Game Manual, Nintendo Power, or the Nintendo Power Guide. They also appear all over the place on the Prima Games Guide as well. They were all made by Nintendo or somebody that has Nintendo's seal of approval. They aren't fan made. The Midna artwork was clearly fan made. I disagree that it should be here at all, but since the Wiki really can't make up its mind on how 'official' it wants to be, I've just let it go the way the argument went... Meaning it's still on the Wiki, but within a fan gallery section of the Midna page. Mases 20:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Which is more or less what I've been saying. Believe you me, I kept up with a lot of the pre-release Twilight Princess stuff (as did Mases, I'm sure, being a Zelda site owner), and I saw a lot of this art during the pre-release hype. Kind of hard for a fan to modify a model when the game isn't even out. :P Though I'd like to say that if proof were given that any or all of those were fan-made, I'd be more than happy to remove each and every one myself. Yup yup. --Ando 20:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you know how long I searched for those images to find them elsewhere? Very long. Where did I find them. Third-party sites, fan sites, wikis. Where did I not find them? On Zelda.com, Nintendo.com, or any other official sites. I have the very same Prima Guide you speak of sitting on my monitor five inches from my face. These images aren't in there. I spent days compiling that list of images before I posted it. For every image I put in the list, there was about ten others that where on Zelda.com, Nintendo.com, or in the guides. I can remember last year there where no decent pics of the TP characters for a long time, just an incomplete collection of art released with the game by Nintendo. Then about same time as now last year, all the fan sites started putting up high quality images of the characters. Not at once though. If it was official, then it would have been at once. Not a peep from Nintendo about it. All they were talking about, Zelda-related anyway, was Phantom Hourglass. I do admit that I could be wrong about Nintendo releasing it, it is just not that likely that they would do something like that. They didn't do it for any of the other Zelda games before that. Not of the actual models anyway. Just art.
Jason told you guys, I told you guys. All the artist did was put the model in a pose and took an image. That is exactly what we do when we take a screen shot. We go to the part of the game where we want the shot and take it. I know about the process. I use to do it with "The Sims" all the time. I guarantee you that if Nintendo did release those images, then they did exactly the same thing. No more and no less. I've asked the creator if he'll tell us exactly what he did. If he agrees, then you'll see that he did exactly what Jason and I told you he did.--Matt 21:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No one ever denied that the image is an in-game model modified by a fan. It's that second part that I have trouble with. "Modified by a fan". Yup.
Anyway, I'd say that most of the reason for not finding the images on Nintendo's sites is that, well, Twilight Princess has been out for a while now. Another Zelda game has even come out in that timespan. Not to mention that Nintendo.com isn't the best source for finding images; it's the packets that they give to press members that are. Those come chock-full of all kinds of artwork and press releases and such; I've seen several of these types of things myself. Granted, it's harder to get access to them unless you're a press member, which means that you have to pull the images off of press sites or do some serious hunting, which would account for the time delay you speak of. Nintendo didn't just poop out a bunch of images one day and email them to every Zelda site saying "'sup heres some pictures". They were released to the press then gradually found by other people. They're not easy to find, either. D:< I don't know how many hours I've wasted trying to find some of these exact pictures. CRAZY STUFF, YO. --Ando 23:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, the reason that Nintendo didn't release model images for the previous 3D Zelda games is (I assume) that for Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask, the models didn't look anywhere near as good as hand-drawn art due to the obvious graphical limitations. In The Wind Waker's case... I honestly don't know. Maybe they thought that cel-shaded model images would look weird? Then again, we've got the Pigs on Link picture... Who's to say? Also, I think that I said the same thing twice in my above paragraph, but I'm too tired to re-write it.

It was two things in TWW. Cel-shaded and the ridiculously tiny feet. ^_^
Well we know now why this model of Minda wasn't included with the others. Remember what I said it before. It would be a big spoiler. I just looked it up. The word in not fan-art or fanart. It is fan art. That is two words. It is "Fan art is artwork that is based on a character, costume, item, or story that was created by someone other than the artist." It is a technicality. Our image maker took the image. He did not create the model. So that would be what? Fan photography? Typically fan-art is something drawn by another artist either by hand or with an imaging program like Photoshop.
Ando, you hit a key point. Game models have never been this good before. So images of these models are a new concept. Rather than filtering it in fan art, we should classify it as a screenshot. That is actually what it is. It is just that the other models and backgrounds aren't loaded with it. You can almost do the same thing with Link in MM using glitches. Any thoughts to this idea?--Matt 23:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Since this image is only a snapshot of Nintendo's model and the artist did not make it, it isn't fan art. Because this image comes from something another (graphic) artist made, it is a derivative work I believe. --Matt 00:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Derivative work (according to Wikipedia): "In copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major, basic copyrighted aspects of an original, previously created first work." The example they give is an image collage featuring copy-and-pasted images from various copyrighted works.
So yeah, I'd say that this is a derivative work, as it uses official material to create something new, as opposed to creating it all from scratch. So perhaps its section on the gallery could be titled just that? "Altered Art" strikes me as a title that some uninitiated person might look at and think "Hey, so my huge picture of a cucco that I copied Link's head onto should be totally cool, right", thus starting a whole 'nother round of this. D: --Ando 02:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't we all be focusing on stuff that actually needs work? Frankly, this is just getting embarrasing... --Mr. Mystery, 12:35, 21 June 2008 (EST)

Honestly? This needs to be settled (although I think we just did that?), because if the situation arises again in the future and we still don't have a solution, then all of this will just start over. --Ando 02:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you want a solution, then take this one:

Keep it as it is. As long as it's on the gallery, it's good enough. And yes, it's altered, so just...leave it alone.

If another picture like this comes along...stick it in an "altered art" section. --Mr. Mystery, 12:43, 21 June 2008 (EST)

Which... is what I've been saying we should use as a compromise. :P Can we all agree that this works, and that no more... controversial edits shall be made? If so, the pages shall be unlocked. --Ando 02:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I will go with this solution. Hopefully, this can put this arguement to bed once and for all. --Mr. Mystery, 13:03, 21 June 2008 (EST)

On one condition. Put up a spoiler warning at the top of the gallery.
Saying of which I think we need to do something. Well you the that and I'll go on my idea right now. We will also want to remove the fan-art template from the image page. There's official art, altered art, fan art. This image doesn't deserve to be downgraded. "To work I must go." :P--Matt 03:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

WHAT THE HECK IS WITH YOU AND YODA TODAY
Anyway, it seems that we're cool with this, so... I'm unlocking the pages. And I'm still gonna be leaving a note on the picture stating that it's a derivative work, which I assume will be cool with everyone. --Ando 03:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

That is good. It is just a short term impulse with Yoda.--Matt 04:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The Participants

Major Participants


Minor Participants


The Outcome

The image is labeled a "derivative work". A spoiler warning was added to the gallery page.

The Permission

The request for the permission to use the image that is the cause of this debate was sent by Matt. It has since been approved.

The following is a copy of the message:

I don't have any problem with it, as long as I get credit for the original image. :)

Michael

----------
mjr162006 said the following:

<I put this message on your page. But I think that you should reply through a note.
I'll put the message down again.

"I would like to tell you that a user, who should have asked first, has uploaded your
image "Twilight Goddess Midna" to ZeldaWiki.org. Currently, it is being used under
fair use guidelines and you are credited as the creator. However, we would like to
have your formal permission to use it. We think that it is an excellent piece of
work and that it is far better than any of our screenshots. Right now, we have
asked our users not to use the image on their own personal sites without your
permission. We await your response. Thanks!"

The site is at [link] The user uploaded the image under another name, since
the word "goddess" is not exactly the best to use in this manner for a wiki.
The uploaded image is at [link]

I am under the same username on ZeldaWiki. This image is really great and
we would like your formal permission. Thanks again

That concludes the message.