Two users on The Sims Wiki have engaged in an edit war regarding the addition of certain images to canon articles on the wiki. This thread is intended to settle the underlying issue in the disagreement between these two users. No "punishments" will be issued to either user for actions that have already taken place; this discussion should be as open and non-hostile as possible.
Mate1234 uploaded several images to the wiki and added them to Darleen Dreamer, Skip Broke and Michael Bachelor. Random Ranaun removed the images on the ground that they appeared to be fanon images, not canon. Mate and RR went back and forth afterwards, adding and removing the images.
This thread is intended to hear both users opinions, and to reach a mutually-acceptable solution, or else to build a community consensus towards a solution to this issue.
I encourage Mate1234 and Random Ranaun to weigh in with their sides of this issue. - LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 22:02, July 11, 2013 (UTC)
Discussion[]
Generally, I don't support non-canon images being added to the articles for deceased Sims. However, if it's an image of the Sim after actually being resurrected and not just remade by the player then I think it's okay. For this case specifically, I don't know how I feel. In 2 out of 3 of the photos the Sims aren't facing the camera so it's difficult to tell who they are anyway. --Bleeh(talk) (blog) 23:20, July 11, 2013 (UTC)
Initially I hadn't followed this issue extensively and in fact I abstained from any involvement when RR bought it up to me on IRC on the basis of this being a personal issue that really wasn't worth the time or effort to deal with. Having now looked over all of this I have to say that I'm quite disappointed that something like this has come far enough to warrant this thread when it could have been dealt with easily via other means.
As for the images in question, it's hard to judge whether they're legitimate or not, per what Bleeh said above. I could personally go for less Gaussian blur as that obstructs the image anyway (and a possible violation of the Image and file policy/Manual of Style but that's debatable). The images are licensed as fanon images though I'll give Mate1234 the benefit of the doubt in thinking that they were meant to be licensed as canon screenshots.
The images themselves aren't on a "life or death" level of necessity but keeping them around doesn't hurt either, so on the condition all the blur and colour saturation is removed I'm okay with them staying. I'll again give Mate1234 the benefit of the doubt that his initial edits to add the images to the wiki were only made with good intentions and that this was somewhat of a misunderstanding on RR's part. I'm interested in the viewpoints of both of the involved parties in this issue so we can try to reach an agreement. Lost Labyrinth 
• (c) • (b) 00:15, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
- I had no problem with the images. They reminded me of the files added by TheXmas. TheXmas added several "non-canon" images but these files have managed to stay on the wiki for well over three years now. Some of his images were even featured media. In all honesty, I don't see the difference between the two users and the images they added. I told Mate he could add them because I did really like them. However, I'm not going to vehemently argue for the images to stay simply because it's not worth arguing about. Ѧüя◎ґ (talk) 00:33, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't disagree with that, Auror. I like them too. However, there's a real difference between TheXmas' and Mate's images. Mate couldn't follow TheXmas' style of making such image. He did it poorly, which is why I don't like his images. Examples of TheXmas' images are here: 1, 2, 3. Most of his images are random, bad-angled, and poorly blurred. Mate is kind of a person who persists his own edit and will keep his edits if it's changed, so I'd say a discussion like this is vital. Nikel Talk – Vote! 02:53, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
- I removed the images for a number of reasons. One of them, as LiR said before, was that the images appeared to be very fanon-like. There was no consistency, the angles were all over the place instead of being head-on, and the Sims were shown doing something completely unremarkable and unrelated to their character, unlike TheXmas' images. Secondly, the quality of the images wasn't great. I agree with what Nikel stated above. The images look like half-finished Photoshop experiments, to be quite honest, not to mention the awkward angles and positioning of the Sims. I also found the images to be very unnecessary. Each of the Sims featured in the images Mate uploaded already have headshots and various storytelling images if we want to show their full appearances, uploading anything more when the desired effect can be easily achieved with current images feels like overkill. I'll accept whatever the community decides on this matter, but my opinion is that the images in question aren't really worth keeping. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 04:14, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
- Random Ranaun says that they are unneeded and that they are fanon. However, I have licensed them as Sim from TS2 because they are supposed to be that. However, TheXmas licensed them as fanon and posted them on canon article, and they were never removed. Then Nikel said that I did it poorly. For some images, that´s true because I have no idea which tool TheXmas used for his images.
- Only thing I wanted to do is improve the articles the best I can, and all users are supposed to do so. And only Maxis made Sims are on those images, so I will say that they are not full fanon. Mate1234 (talk) 06:44, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, to be honest I don't like Mate1234's pictures for reasons said above me. However, fan made canon images are apparently accepted. So in that case I would suggest this: tell Mate1234 the guidelines he needs to follow to create and add fan canon images (e.g. set TheXmas ones as example). And Mate1234 (and others) simple needs to follow these. Tiezel (talk) curious? 12:54, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
- I will have to take a moderate position: Fanon images of canon sims shouldn't be prohibited from canon articles, although I shall take a bit of RR's argument that quality should matter. I don't know what quality Mate's image was, but I generally will favor most of the non-canon images, although I may find the photoshop elements a bit doubtful. MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES (user talk:Mathetesalexandrou) 18:13, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
- MILK FOR THE UNYUUFEX, FLAT CHEST FOR THE CUTENESS THRONE, SKULLS FOR THE SKULL PROBES is right. They shouldn't be prohibited. And SOME of those images are very bad because they're first I made. I'd like to create images of better quality, at least those of deceased Sims. Mate1234 (talk) 18:47, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
- Fanon images may not have to be prohibited, but that doesn't mean they're really needed. As I said before, for the Sims in the images Mate uploaded, we already have headshots, storytelling photos, and other canon images that already show their in-game appearances. We should always use canon images over non-canon when given the chance, in my opinion. Also, Mate, you keep defending the images, but you're not backing up your arguments with any real facts. Why do you think your images are necessary? —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 19:41, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
- Why do you think your images are essential to improving the articles when we already have canon images that can serve the same purpose? —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 19:55, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
- You didn't answer my question. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 20:10, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
- That's the same argument you've given throughout this whole thread with no facts to back it up. I'll ask you again, why do you think your images are essential to improving the articles when we already have canon images that can serve the same purpose? —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 20:22, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
- TheXmas' images weren't deleted because they were very high in quality, though quite a few of them were removed from canon articles, it seems. I'd also forgotten about TheXmas' images until Auror mentioned them, I'd be completely willing to remove them as well. And why do the images added articles to give them a better look have to be ones you've created and uploaded yourself? We already have several canon images that could be used instead, as I've mentioned before. It all seems very unnecessary. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me!) 21:18, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
- I have never said that only my images can improve the articles. Anyone can upload image to improve it. And images that i have uploaded weren´t in high quality because they are my first ones. I will make high quality images, but please stop doing this to me. Mate1234 (talk) 21:29, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
It appears as if this thread has diverged, and so we now have two questions which need answering. One, should any image about a Sim be fair-game to be added to a canon article or should there be restrictions on which pictures are allowed and which aren't, and if so, what should those restrictions be?
The second question deals primarily with whether the images added by Mate1234 should be kept or deleted. Some users have found Mate's images worthy of being kept, some users have stated that they shouldn't be kept (either due to low quality or a general hesitation towards non-canon images), and some users are unsure or did not state their positions above.
Since we're ultimately looking for a solution to both these questions, the rational approach would appear to be settling the first question first, in deciding under what circumstances non-canon images should be included, if any. After we decide that, we can apply those criteria to answer the second question. -- LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 21:48, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, you should to allow users to upload images of canon Sims, but only if the images show canon Sim/s, with no fanon Sim/s in the background. Mate1234 (talk) 17:39, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
The only reason I can see why non-canon images are restricted is because of family photo albums in The Sims 2. Most premade families in The Sims 2 have their own photo albums, and those are what's been used in the family pages in this wiki. Inserting non-canon images to the photo album makes it inconsistent with the rest of The Sims 2 families. However, this incident only occurs to The Sims 2, and even, only to the families. This is no longer necessary, I suppose.
I'm supporting non-canon images, but maybe limiting it to The Sims 2 families. Meaning that we can add it to Sim articles, for example, or non-The Sims 2 family articles, as long as it doesn't violate the file and image policy and the Sims are not fully given makeover. I don't see why we can't add Sims images.
I opposed Mate's original Sim appearance images, but it's just personal matter. I don't really like them compared to Xmas' images, no offense. However, Mate can surely take a picture of them normally. There's no need to follow Xmas' style completely. Nikel Talk – Vote! 08:23, July 17, 2013 (UTC)
I actually agree that some images I made aren´t made well, but they are first I made. I´ll try to make them better. Mate1234 (talk) 08:27, July 17, 2013 (UTC)
It´s unnecessary to start edit war because of few images (which are fanon images of canon Sims). I´ll try to make better images if the others agree. Is this image (example only) good enough? Mate1234 (talk) 14:34, July 17, 2013 (UTC)
Then? Mate1234 (talk) 07:37, July 19, 2013 (UTC)
Can you answer me please? Mate1234 (talk) 14:49, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
Resolution[]
It appears that we've reached a conclusion to this thread. The general guideline agreed to here is that images can be added to article galleries so long as the images are of good quality and don't show fanon Sims. Regarding Mate1234's images specifically, they are not of good quality under the above agreement, so they will be removed from the articles (if they are still present).
As it was stated above, there will be no outcome to the edit war that took place, so long as it is not repeated. This matter is resolved. -- LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 22:46, July 29, 2013 (UTC)