Community talk:The Midna Art Debate

The debate that was on this talk page has been moved to the main page of this article (The Midna Art Debate).--Matt 05:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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 artist 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)


 * I was thinking that I was about... 10.17221968 people. :P Someone remind me to join the debate team at college this year. ^_^ --Matt 04:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ha! Ha! Ohh, I made a big funny without trying. "preferable to just sitting on our butts and leaving crap". Hahaha. That was unintentional. But my side really hurts now. :P:P^_^:P:P!!! Sorry about that one. :)--Matt 04:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

XD I didn't even notice that until you mentioned it. I had just read it as it was intended, but now that you say that... ohhh man, that's hilarious! :D HOORAY FOR SLEEP DEPRIVATION --Ando 05:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Crap. My hand was hurting from all the template sorting. Now my side is going to hurt for the rest of the week. I'm still laughing.XD--Matt 05:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The comments above really clarify the issue. I'll copy them over, leaving the originals here. PS: My side still hurts, alot! XD--Matt 05:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Use the Image
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)
 * File:TP Ganondorf Render.png
 * File:TP Ganon Render.png
 * File:TPZelda.jpg
 * File:Agitha.jpg
 * File:TP Auru.jpg
 * File:HairyFalbi.jpg
 * File:Fyer.jpg
 * File:Renado01.jpg
 * File:Telma.jpg
 * File:LouiseCat.jpg
 * File:TP cg Midna01.jpg
 * File:Ilia.jpg
 * File:Yetono.jpg
 * File:Yeta.jpg
 * File:Talo2.jpg
 * File:Malo 2.jpg
 * File:TPRalis.jpg
 * File:TPPostman.jpg
 * File:Doc.jpg
 * File:TP Chudley.png
 * File:Darbus.jpg
 * File:Hena.jpg
 * File:Iza.jpg
 * File:TP Twilit Bloat Render.png
 * File:TP Darkhammer Render.png
 * File:Airalfos.jpg
 * File:Twilit Parasite -Diababa-.jpg
 * File:Pyrus.jpg
 * File:TP Morpheel Render.png
 * File:Armogohma-2-.jpg
 * File:Argorok.jpg


 * 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?
 * 2) *No.
 * 3) Who did?
 * 4) *We did.
 * 5) What are we?''
 * 6) *Fans.
 * 7) Was this particular image made by Nintendo?
 * 8) *No.
 * 9) Who did make it?
 * 10) *A fan.
 * 11) How is this similar to the wiki?
 * 12) *They both contain content with official origins.
 * 13) How is that image different from a wiki?
 * 14) *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:

"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."

- 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)

Extra comments
I really don't like this picture. There tons of other more realistic Midna pictures. I just feel that this picture is just not as realistic as it is supposed to be. --Akki 17:42, 17 June 2008 (EST)

You guys really went crazy there, didn't 'ya? Wish I could've had a part... I can't believe I read through both pages. 23:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)