Can a work be used "too often" in page images?

The subject came to my attention here. But it wouldn't be the first time I saw people claim too many page images come from The Simpsons.

There are two ways to interpret this.

A: That if a show, or comic, or game, etc... is popular, this might distort people's perception of its usefulness in providing page images, compared to other works, since it isn't said usefulness that made it popular in the first place.

B: That even if a work is better for providing images, this should be weighed against giving less-popular works more representation on this wiki.

One problem I have with part A is that it assumes the show's popularity is why we're using it, even if it's often first brought up not by those proposing the image, but by those opposing it, as seen above.

For comparison, I often use Archie!Sonic comics, despite resenting the numerous ways in which they fly in the face of the namesake games to an extent bordering on false advertising. I do this partly because it's a comic book, hence having the speech balloons in the comics which are... slightly harder to fake than subtitles, (and in a way less circular than the "Internet website uses content from other Internet websites" element in using webcomics) but also because it has a nice drawing style; something more valuable to its use as a source of page images (who doesn't want the trope represented in a way that's fun to look at?) than as a source of extra Sonic content for Sonic fans.

Part B is a bit more interesting an idea, even if it isn't central to this wiki's mission. I sometimes wonder if a desire to offset such gaps in attention brought to a particular work might've been part of why I posted what I did, including in regards to the aforementioned Sonic comics. (I actually developed this habit before my several-year hiatus that started about 8 and a half years ago, so I no longer recall whether it was intentionally or unconsciously so.)

So what say you? Can a work be used "too often" in page images? Or is a work's tendency to be used so often a genuine reflection of its usefulness to them?

I tend to think in terms of Part B, if I make a quote/image suggestion for a trope page. I like to encourage diversity of media/works. Between two works, if the image is about as representative, I prefer the one that is used on fewer trope pages. Same thing goes for the quotes. I will campaign to change a quote/image if they are from the same work, depending on which one is easier to change.

Popularity on this website is a reason against using that work to represent a trope, because it can cross into Fan Myopia, but only if there are other works that can also be used that same way. See how The Nth Doctor uses an image from Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles instead of Doctor Who. If we could find a good quote for the page, it should replace the current page quote because the trope name already comes from Doctor Who.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Yeah, my issue with The Simpsons in page images is because they seem over represented on the wiki compared to other works. Being a fan of some very obscure and under-loved works, I always love to see other less-noticed works get the Quote and Image spot because it adds some diversity to the site.

There's nothing inherently wrong with The Simpsons being on a lot of pages- it's a popular show with a lot of good visual humor. It's just a personal preference of mine to have a lot of diversity on the wiki whenever we can, so if it comes down to a good Simpsons image and a good non-Simpsons image, I'll choose the latter (assuming all else is equal).

Same with page-quotes, but to a lesser extent; it actually bugs me a lot when the page quote and image are from the same source.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Do you mean "image and pic from the same source" as in an image and a pic that are from the same work, but are otherwise unrelated? Or an image and pic from back-to-back scenes from the same work? (Eg. Page quotation providing the context for the page image and/or vice versa?)

I remember I used to try to do the latter, but I don't bother as much now that I've noticed how often page quotations and/or page images get changed.

From the same source.

Take Evil Laugh, for example- both are Simpsons.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Speaking for myself, I strongly prefer that a page quote and pic be from different sources if at all possible.

Hmm... in that particular case, would it be worthwhile to change the image to one of the same scene referred to in the page quotation? (Possibility of either being changed again in the future notwithstanding?) If not, would it be better to change the quotation or the page image? Either way, should I make a thread about that one?

Edited by neoYTPism on Feb 10th 2020 at 8:32:58 AM

The quote was actually taken here.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I did say.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

I see no issue with one particular work somehow being over-represented on the wiki. Foremost, how much is "too often"? The foundation of the wiki is built on the examples, we shouldn't get too skittish about one show becoming Trope Overdosed.

That said, as mentioned there is a stylistic preference to showing some diversity when it comes to the trope descriptions. We don't want to have a Trope Namer also dominate the page image, page quote and be the premiere example in the description (beyond explaining why it is the trope namer).

I'm personally against using a work or a series too much in images or quotes. I have nothing against something appearing a lot in tropes, indexes or videos as the amount of them is theoretically unlimited, but since there can be only one trope quote or image with possible second chances in sub-pages, it should definitely not be overpopulated (unless we come up with some kind of gallery system, with arrows going from one pic to the next). Of course, Quotes/ and ImageLinks/ exist, but those don't get the work a place on the Image Source / Quote Source index or popularity.

I myself see a work/franchise showing up a lot in page pics as equivalent to having a man on billboards advertise different services. Seeing him for 5, 10, maybe even 20 different services is okay. But would you really want to see him on 200 billboards all over the city? I wouldn't. I'd add a hard limit of 50 or even 30 for works/franchises as page images, it would definitely lead to more variety and representation for unused works/franchises like Police Quest, Déjà Vu, Anti-Idle: The Game, Versus Umbra, etc.

Edited by Piterpicher on Feb 11th 2020 at 9:59:52 PM

Currently mostly inactive. An incremental game I tested: https://galaxy.click/play/176 (Gods of Incremental)

Yeah, that's kind of my issue too.

It has nothing to do with how often the work appears on the wiki; in fact I think most works need to appear more, via crosswicking. If every work on the wiki was represented on 1,000+ pages, I wouldn't care. But I do care if a work is represented a lopsided amount of times in images and quotes, simply because there's a lack of variety there, and Fan Myopia is also a valid concern with these images and quotes as well.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Sometimes it just hammers out that way due to a series being especially good at illustrating a trope example, like The Simpsons. We do try to avoid repeated images, but I don't think "This show is used too much for page images" is a good excuse to remove or replace an image.

Edited by KJMackley on Feb 11th 2020 at 2:17:30 AM

It's not; but if I had a choice between The Simpsons and something more obscure, I'd pick the more obscure work every time, assuming all else is equal.

It's really just personal preference to have as much diversity as possible.

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I generally view this as a matter of representing a variety of works on the wiki as well as a matter of stopping agenda-based troping. That is, the same troper ("Alice") suggesting images from the same work ("X") every time a thread comes up is suspicious and a bit off-putting. It comes off as obsessive, especially when "Alice" argues that images from X are better to use despite images from other works being more illustrative.

I mean, when every thread in the span of a week ends up with images from the same work, that's certainly "too often." At least in my opinion.

If I understand what you mean here... I've never considered a work to be "useful" in that way and usefulness, unless you mean whether an image is illustrative, doesn't typically play a role in my decision making.

I agree. That said, I think it's a good reason to choose a different image, before the page image is chosen by a given IP thread.

---

We do have Image Source, by the way. The Simpsons is on so many pages it has its own subpage.

Look at all that shiny stuff ain't they pretty

The wiki should have images from a variety of works across a variety of mediums and genres. This helps build a sense that we encourage a diversity of fandoms and give people a chance to explore things that may be outside their normal zones.

This doesn't mean a hard limit, but common sense should prevail. Special care should be taken if a particular user wants to replace images with ones from their favorite work. That's a serious red flag.

Edited by Fighteer on Feb 14th 2020 at 6:10:06 AM

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I think this whole conversation is a hypothetical anyway. Even the most popular works like The Simpsons or Star Wars probably only have 20-30 images to them. So the opposition to excessive images is only to a handful of works anyway.

I don't understand why you claim this is hypothetical when you literally saw action taken to change an image/quote occur in this thread.

---

Preventing a handful of works from being over-represented on trope pages is exactly the purpose behind prioritizing representation for less-popular works on this wiki. We currently have 79,755 work pages and 29,090 trope pages, so even one image link is a huge bump in visibility for a work page.

---

At the current numbers, at least 63% of the work pages cannot be used as the page image for a trope, even if we made a rule about only using one trope per work. I'm not advocating such a rule, just pointing out that The Simpsons prevents at least 19 other works that also illustrate a trope and aren't used to illustrate any other tropes from being used as the trope image.

---

We can cut the above fraction in half by making sure that the page quote and the page image come from different works. That's why I do advocate a change in those circumstances.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Also, check out ImageSource.The Simpsons: There's way more than 20 pages listed. There's way more than 30 pages listed. There's a lot of pages listed, and that's assuming every Simpsons image is properly linked.

This isn't an argument against using The Simpsons, but it is proof that the situation isn't exaggerated.

Edited by WarJay77 on Feb 14th 2020 at 12:50:11 PM

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

I haven't added many images (or quotes), but I definitely believe popular works should be avoided if possible. Like, even if there'd be no tropes at all using popular work images, that's not going to harm the popular work because it's already popular. It's better to give smaller works and works from cultures with a smaller international media influence preferential treatment. I also think having a wider representation range makes the website look more professional/dedicated.

I'm personally not sure if I would want to delete images from works if they're overused, but I definitely think they should be replaced. I still think an image limit should be added as there are 200+ Simpsons pics and we have 70000+ works that could be used (now you at least know the situation isn't exaggerated, Mackley). Maybe we could make a hard limit per work/franchise, but do it in small steps? Like 180->150->120->100->.... Because I can come up with replacement if necessary. How about Hitler's exploding head from Bionic Commando on Your Head Asplode, for instance? Here's◊ how it looks like (it had to pass NES censors, so I don't think it's too gory). That's only ONE pic from an unused work I have, I think there were a couple more that are currently used by the Simpsons and I had concrete suggestions.

And sometimes, pics seem to win just because they're popular. I'm still pissed about one discussion that happened - the Knightly Sword and Shield discussion here. Someone suggested a Mickey Mouse pic, I said it has poor quality and gave something from Epic Battle Fantasy, a series that hardly has pics, then Eroock gave a HQ version of it and everyone gave it upvotes. I don't know why, other than popularity. Like, my suggestion got no reason for why it's worse, but I think it's on the same level plus it's from something more obscure. I do have a reputation of being disregarded while Eroock often wins these threads, which might also be a problem because I lack charisma. This is partially why I think an image limit should be added, so people would consider less popular works in voting.

As for making sure the page quote and the page image come from different works, that would be a small step forward, but I'm not sure by how much. After all, quotes and images can still be used as much as wanted on pages, so that might undermine the idea.

Edited by Piterpicher on Feb 15th 2020 at 10:57:12 AM

Currently mostly inactive. An incremental game I tested: https://galaxy.click/play/176 (Gods of Incremental)

I mean, there's also a bit of a bandwagon effect on IP where people are just happy to upvote something everyone else is upvoting if they think it's non-offensive and want the thread to close; it's also possible the transparent background had something to do with it, or maybe just the timing of the image posting swept yours under the rug. There are a lot of factors beyond popularity, is all.

Of course, the main thing we need to keep in mind is that illustrativeness should trump what the work is, and recently we have gotten better at getting images from lesser known works; I don't think a hard limit is necessary, but I do like the idea generally of getting more recognition for more obscure works. Most of my favorite works are pretty obscure, though I have better luck getting them represented through quotes, rather than through images, though I'm still kind of amazed I managed to get a The Stanley Parable image up on Multiple Endings.

We also need to remember that this is a problem in reverse, and people shouldn't pitch images from obscure works just because they're more obscure, even if they may be less illustrative; in general, people shouldn't prioritize getting specific works to have images more than they should just picking a good image. That's why I keep saying that, if all things are equal, then that's when it counts.

Edited by WarJay77 on Feb 15th 2020 at 4:57:42 AM

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Well, I don't think my Exploding Hitler Head◊ is less illustrative than what's currently on Your Head A-Splode, and it's from a work that has zero pictures, plus it's not that gory as it was on the family-friendly NES. What do you think? It's equal?

I also kinda want the hard limit added because it seems like Image Pickin' is simmering down lately. We only have 64 threads, 60 non-stickies. I can see why, as more and more pages have their images solified, the less threads need to be made. I think adding a new goal to IP (try to reduce overuse) would help the forum get more threads. Such a limit would hopefully start new discussions for pages illustrated by pics with OU works/franchises and we would have always have something to talk about and improve, as I am afraid we may eventually stagnate. Although I do agree that threads that are made because of obscure images should have suggestion that are equally or more illustrative, or at least, 90% as illustrative.

Edited by Piterpicher on Feb 15th 2020 at 11:05:39 AM

Currently mostly inactive. An incremental game I tested: https://galaxy.click/play/176 (Gods of Incremental)

It's a good image- the problem is that it might be a lateral change, or slightly worse if only because people are turned off more by gorier images. It's not that gory, it's just gorier than the current.

The only real point I want to touch on is the "90% as illustrative" thing, which is personally not good enough IMO. If there's an image up that is perfectly illustrative, super representative, with the only issue being that it's from a super well-known work, the replacement suggestion better be just as good, if not better. If it's less illustrative, it simply won't get picked, no matter how fair it may be for the one work to have so many images.

Edited by WarJay77 on Feb 15th 2020 at 5:10:37 AM

Currently Working On: Incorruptible Pure Pureness

Admittedly I didn't double check the image source, didn't realize they had that many. Still, there are only three works with dedicated subpages: Star Wars, The Simpsons and the entire Disney Animated Canon (which is honestly a large number of different movies unified by a studio rather than just one franchise like the others). Even still, a lot of the images are compilation collages, photoshopped for better illustration, an obscure image you really had to search for in the first place (like Carcass Sleeping Bag) or even some identical pictures that shouldn't be there in the first place.

Point is, every example should be addressed individually on its own merits. If a decent image for a trope page comes from The Simpsons, it should not be rejected and the page left without a picture just because The Simpsons is mainstream. If a replacement image is weaker than a picture from The Simpsons, that's doing the trope page a disservice. All things being equal you should aim for more diversity, but it's a guideline rather than something that should be stigmatized.