Forums: Index > The Wizengamot > Epilogue pictures

From the epilogue pictures leaking onto the internet, I think that when the actual pictures come out, it should be the infobox picture? Thoughts?--L.V.K.T.V.J.Hogwarts(Send an owl!) 18:46, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean Harry, Ron, Hermione and Draco? If so, then yes. I think we should definately show them at their oldest (most recent). Currently I don't think any of the leaked ones are of sufficent quality to go in the infoboxes, except maybe Draco's (minus the watermark). When we have decent ones though, then definately, yes. Jayce DarkmarkAvada KedavraCrucioImperio 14:10, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. I understand the 'most recent rule' would point to using the 2017 epilogue images, but I believe that the infoboxes should use 1998 images (when they are released) as this would be more relevant to the character/characters portrayed across the seven books/films. 08:24, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
But the characters aren't eighteen throughout the whole series, are they? They get older and older with each chapter in the story, leading up to the epilogue. The wiki is written from an in-universe point of view, so it's common practice to use the most chronologically recent images available. The Snatcher 09:40, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it is common practise to use the most chronologically recent image available; but changing four character images to those which are seen for barely five minutes does not seem correct. We obviosly have guidlines on this, but when you go onto Harry Potter, do you want to see Harry 1998 (who we have been following onscreen since 1991) or Harry 2017 (19 year time jump)? I believe this shopuld be looked into with great detail before we make any rash decisions. 10:04, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
But that's my point. We haven't been following "Harry 1998" since 1991. We've been following Harry full stop, as he get's older and older throught the course of the story. It would be incorrect to show him as a teenager when he hasn't been one for nineteen years. It's the same reason why he as a Ministry of Magic infobox instead of a Gryffindor one. The Snatcher 10:15, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
I would agree that the epilogue image SHOULD be shown under normal circumstances. BUT think about it: Almost all character infoboxes have or will have an image of them sometime between 1991 and 1998 after the films have been released. To change five characters infoboxes (especially five important charcters) to a different era (2017) would be concidered by most to be rediculous as they do not corispond to the majority of charcters from the same 'era group'. When people go onto the character pages, I they expect to see the charcters how they are mostly seen in the latest media (in this case - DH part 2).
This debate will likely continiue to well after July 2011 - I think we shouldn't try to establish anything without more input. 10:28, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
These are normal circumstances. Do you think Draco should be shown at age seventeen, and his wife at thirty odd? I don't think it's ridiculous to show them as they currently appear rather than nineteen years in the past. The Snatcher 10:43, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
Now you put it that way, it does seem a bit silly. However, I do stand by what i have said. It's 13 months away from when the images will be available. I think we should try getting some more opinions on this and try to make a decision on the topic before we start getting edit wars in the run up to July 2011. 10:51, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
We should definately use the epilogue images. They are by far the most recent ones.--Rodolphus 12:18, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
If we do use epilogue images, could I suggest we put a 1998 image somewhere close to the the top of the articles. The 1998 images are still very important when looking at the main appearance of these charcters. 12:34, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
A 1998 image would, in my opinion, only belong to the 1998 section of the article.--Rodolphus 12:38, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. A 1998 image is no more or less important than an 1991 image. They are all important, and they all belong in their own sections, but when it comes to the infobox the only things that mater are quality and most recent appearance. The Snatcher 13:10, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to cause even more argument over this, but this is just what I think. I think that we should not be using epilogue pictures for infoboxes and be using the 1998 images for these highly important characters. I think they should be shown at the same age as all the other characters their age, because it really doesn't make any sense to have only these five different. As for Astoria, it doesn't really matter as its the only image we have and so we don't have a choice. But, the infobox images should be the shown at the same time for all important characters. Joeworthy 16:54, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
They're different because we have images of them as adults, and precedent says we should use them. The Snatcher 17:10, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
We should use pictures from the epilogue when we get better pictures. Why? The very same reason the "Harry Potter" article uses a Ministry of Magic infobox instead of a Gryffindor infobox: the characters have evolved, changed, aged. The HPW follows an in-universe policy. In-universely, Harry Potter is a 37-year-old man (in the epilogue) who works for the Ministry of Magic and NOT a seventeen-year-old Hogwarts student. That's almost as writing a biography of Queen Elisabeth II and using this image as the main picture. Proposterous, in my view. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 18:47, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
I want to offer a suggestion. What do you think to use two pictures as main pictures? One of the 17/18 year old person and one of the person of the epilogue? Would that not solve this problem? I think the supporters of both considerations have good arguments for their opinion. And there are only a few persons who will be seen in the epilogue as older adults. What do you think? Harry granger 19:13, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
Harry granger has a point - could we change our infobox rules/templates to adapt to a '1998 era image' and a 'latest chronological image' in the same box? Though crazy and radical such an idea may be, it could actually improve the wiki as visitors would see both the 'present Harry' (2017/epilogue) and the more well known '1998 Harry'. 19:23, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

Something like this maybe? 19:32, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

Opposed! That's totally pointless! An image of 1998-Harry would be present in the suitable section of the article. Not to mention the fact it doesn't look great. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 19:36, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
It's only a mock-up. If it were done for real the images would be resized and cropped to fit perfectly. 19:40, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
Woah! I didn't expect this to be such a big debate! Anyway, why would it make sense to have a picture of an eleven-year-old Albus Potter as the main image, while a seventeen-year-old Harry as the main image? Policy says we have to use the most recent image, as The Snatcher said, Harry never stays eleven forever. He gradually gets older up until the epilogue when he is thirty-seven. Using two images in the infobox doesn't make sense either, because it will only confuse the reader of the article, and it looks really awkward, anyway.--L.V.K.T.V.J.Hogwarts(Send an owl!) 20:28, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
Anyways, adding two pictures is very unnecessary and innapropriate. If we were to do that, why not to add a picture of Harry in each year? After all, Harry's (and all the other characters', for that matter) physical appearance changes every movie. And that's what it's all about, right? A change of physical appearance. Also, what would be the point of using two pictures as the main image? Images of the younger him would better complement the article in their respective sections. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 20:48, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
No way hosay. Two infobox images would be utterly self defeating. The purpose of the profile image is to show a clear, accurate, and recent physical depiction of the character, and I daresay, that's what we'll have. The Snatcher 08:34, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
Look, It's obvious we should follow policy. I like the idea of using 1998 image somewhere in the infobox/near the top, but the policy clearly says to use most recent chronological images. This means using 2017 epilogue images. HallowsProductions (talk) 09:27, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
Can we look at theis HYPOTHETICALLY for a minute (This means ignoring policy while you imagine this).
Imagine you are an ordinary person visiting the Harry Potter wiki (This means not a complete Harry Potter nut). You want to find out more about your favourite character, so you type 'Harry Potter' into the search box. The page that comes up has an infobox with an image on. You expect to see 1998-Harry (The latest version of Harry in the 'mostly seen' chronological era), yet you look at the image and see some 37 year old. You would get confused, and would possibly start changing the article so that it had a 1998 image in the infobox. Or you would leave the wiki and look elsewhere - I know for a fact Wikipedia has a 1995 image, which most ordinary people would recognise imediatly.
I understand we have a policy that says we should use the 2017 version, but surly the 1998 Harry would be more recognisable to an ordinary person visiting this wiki? 14:33, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
In addition, there are many areas of the policy which say the most commonly used in the series is the correct usage. For example: The aticle naming section of the policy says "An article's title should contain the last name used through out the Harry Potter series, regardless of marriage. For example: Use Ginevra Weasley instead of Ginevra Potter" Sort of self contradictory don't you think, if we use commonly used name, but not the commonly used image (which would be 1998 as it is the last of that commonly seen era)? 14:45, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
You make a partly interesting debate, but still, this wiki is not Wikipedia. They use infobox images to show a person (or character) in a time where they are most recognizable (Michael Jackson, for example). We are not Wikipedia, though. We have different policies than Wikipedia. We use the most recent images in the infobox, and it would be bad to show a 37-year-old as a 17-year-old unless we don't have a picture of them as an adult (like probably Neville Longbottom or Luna Lovegood).--L.V.K.T.V.J.Hogwarts(Send an owl!) 17:34, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
A 1998 image of Harry would not be "most commonly seen" as he's a year older (and looks it) than the preivious installment of the series. You talk about the so and so "version" of Harry as though he's suddenly transformed into a different character just because he's older. The truth is, he hasn't, he's the same character he was in Philosopher's Stone. With each chapter of the story he get's physically older, just like any other person. We as an encyclopedia will be showing him at his oldest, most recent, for the same reason Wikipedia would not show a famous person as a child in their infobox. Jayden Matthews 18:01, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
Just my two cents: stick with the "17-year old" pictures from DH: Part 1 and DH: Part 2 until Part 2 actually gets released theatrically, then switch to the epilogue pictures. - Nick O'Demus 11:25, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

However, here's the thing; quality of image should matter as well. At the moment, there's not guarantee that a good quality infobox-worthy shot of an older Harry and co will be released. In that case, I would much prefer to use a more "recognisable" image from earlier in his life. - Cavalier OneGryffindorcrest(Wizarding Wireless Network) 13:34, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we do what Memory Alpha do and place two images on the infobox, one at the top, and one at the bottom. On Memory Alpha they place the most recognisable image at the top, and the most recent chronilogical image at the bottom (See Spock and James T. Kirk for example). For this Wiki, we can decide which one we'd want as the image at the top, and which one on the bottom. This is my idea anyway. Opinions? --Ima Wiz Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 15:50, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
I like this idea of Imagine Wizard. So all users would be satisfied. The ones who like the continuity and the ones who like to see all possibilities. Harry granger 18:06, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
I also agree with Ima Wiz, two images makes more sense so you can recognise the character the article is about. If we were to go with this, how would we do it? Would it be like Memory Alpha (one under another) or like my render above (side by side - images edited to fit)? (I'm actually, I'm just using a different PC) 17:36, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
Do note though that at Memory Alpha, two pictures are use i) due to time travel, and ii) due to the fact Star Trek spans a number of time periods. (I'm actually, I'm just using a different PC) 17:36, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
I still think we should use only one (and the most in-universely recent, as long as it's good quality) image. Why? There's no need to use two! It's the same character! Whether 30 or 17, Harry is still Harry. --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 17:43, August 4, 2010 (UTC)