The profile image of an article is intended to be the most appropriate and accurate depiction of the article's subject. Because of this, users cannot change the profile image of an article without first reaching community consensus after first making a proposal. This page serves as a discussion for image proposals, in order for the community to collectively decide which image is most suitable to each article.
- Users may make a proposal by uploading the image(s) they wish to propose, and clicking the "Make your proposal" button above, then filling out the fields required.
- It is preferred that all images should be in a ratio of 355x200, or 400x300 if the image has been cropped.
- Images should also be of a .png filetype to avoid a grainy thumbnail.
- The proposed image(s) will then be discussed among the community, and the image found to be most suitable will replace the current image.
- If no clear consensus has been reached, an administrator will open a vote, and each user will be allowed to vote for one image.
- The proposer must provide a valid reason that complies with the profile image standards to justify a profile image change.
- Late additions to on-going discussions are not allowed and should be halted until said discussion reaches a conclusion.
- In order to be eligible to make proposals or vote, a user must have made 50 edits to non-social namespaces or edited regularly during 2/3 of one month. Social namespaces include comments, walls and the user space.
Character profile image standards
- From the image policy:
- The image should be an accurate, dignifying representation of the character.
- The infobox image should depict the character's most recognizable likeness (Speedy vs. Red Arrow, for example), unless consensus dictates otherwise.
- The character in the infobox should be standing still, which includes all kind of absence of movement (characters should not be talking).
- If an article contains three images or more (including the infobox), an image from the character's torso is sufficient for the infobox. [...] Extreme facial closeups should be avoided.
The reasons for the change are obvious: the old image is old, and it's got an onscreen annotation. I like proposal one the best, and it only looks a bit weird cause I went and cropped out Weisman's art from the shot. Proposal two is good also, but it's got all those wanderers in the background. And proposal three is just a because. rEGULAR gUY (☎) 01:47, February 1, 2015 (UTC)
I can say for the last one, at least, that they're probably passed around. I don't even think that some of those sites even hold the rights themselves. Although the last one didn't have a notice to who did it, and usually when it's something that doesn't belong to them there will be a mention of who took it. They have a Twitter account so you could ask them and if they say they own it, then obviously you're asking them if we can have it and if they don't have permission then it's not their call, meaning it is something that's passed around. This is just something that happened to me. Worst case scenario we use proposal 3 and asked to have it removed (or any of the others) and go back to the original. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 18:44, February 11, 2015 (UTC)