Thanks everyone! Lots to look over here.
PowerLord23: I might have said this earlier, but if we do end up using fanart we should always add a caption telling readers it is fanart.
I fully agree with this, @PowerLord23.
Off Screen: After "Does it pass the fanart test?" I would also add "Do we have the artist's consent to use it?"
Yes, I agree that's important, @Off Screen. I figured it would be part of the yet-to-be-defined Fanart Test, but we can put the condition wherever works best.
Off Screen: For example, let's say I'm editing the Stone burner page. I think it would be acceptable to have an image from the miniseries as a flavor image somewhere on the page, as long as it's not trying to claim it as a "definitive" representation, and the caption indicates which canon it's from.
So basically, if there's any canon image, use it as the main infobox instead of fanart, even if the canon adaptation has a separate page?
I like the infobox images on Paul's page as well. The main infobox image isn't from another canon though, so it's clear that the other images are from adaptations.
My hesitation regarding infobox images is for reader experience, since I wouldn't want to confuse those new to the fandom. If someone is looking for information from a film canon character, they might end up reading a book canon page without realizing there's another page for the film version, because the main image in the infobox is from the film canon.
Additionally, an adaptation might look nothing like how a book topic is described, so a fanart image might be a better indicator, even though it's unofficial.
The limitation I was thinking of would only apply if the other version has its own page.
I certainly think images from adaptations can be somewhere on the page, especially if there's a section for adaptations.
Off Screen: Or if these need to be moved out of the infobox, "Portrayal in adaptations" could be made into a sub-section within the page?
I would love to have a section like that on all pages where there's an adaptation.
Off Screen: It might not be a bad idea to come up with a "fan art" icon that appears on images tagged as such.
What did you have in mind? I'd prefer to not directly add an icon to a fanart image, since it would seem like a watermark, which I think would be overstepping. I'm fine using CSS to mark them if we come up with a clean way to do so.
Zeddik Abdallat: I really don't see how removal of fan-art sets a higher standard, especially if applied to pages that have no official illustrations anyway.
Thank you for sharing your position on this, @Zeddik Abdallat. I personally think we can both raise our standards and continue to include fanart where it's needed, especially on pages that don't have images. To ensure we don't misrepresent canon, I think we should have some standards for the fanart that we do use, and fanart should be clearly marked as such.
I also agree that using images from adaptations on book pages can create a streamlined illusion of canoncity, as you put it.
Discussions like this will help us find the right balance.