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.
(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
•Avada Kedavra•Crucio•Imperio• 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. 86.25.168.130 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.
- 86.25.168.130 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. 86.25.168.130 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. 86.25.168.130 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. 80.0.210.0 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 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)
- 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)
- A 1998 image would, in my opinion, only belong to the 1998 section of the article.--Rodolphus 12:38, 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. 80.0.210.0 12:34, 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)
- 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. 86.25.168.130 10:51, 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)
- This debate will likely continiue to well after July 2011 - I think we shouldn't try to establish anything without more input. 86.25.168.130 10:28, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
- 86.25.168.130 10:04, June 3, 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. 86.25.168.130 08:24, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
