Per our previous discussion on allowing fanart, consensus is in favor for allowing fanart on the wiki in certain situations.

This post is to discuss requirements and standards for the fanart itself. I've been calling this so-far-undefined list a Fanart Test as shorthand.

Here is a proposal for the Fanart Test / requirements and standards, in no particular order, based on our previous discussion:

• Permission - The wiki has permission from the creator. This permission should be documented on the file page.

• Caption - Fanart captions will always include "(fanart)".

• Description - There is enough description from the books to adequately represent the topic visually. (If there's not much of a description, then there's not enough for a useful visual representation.)

• Representation - The image adequately represents the topic as it's described in the books.

• For characters: Any notable physical features are represented, and their clothing is what they would typically wear. They should have a neutral expression, or an expression that they often have, e.g. a character who is often smiling or scowling is shown that way.

• Quality - Realistic(-ish) art style, i.e. not cutesy or cartoony or low-quality doodles.

• Alternatives - There is no alternative image from an adaptation that shows the topic as it's described in the books. (Adaptations take liberties -- which is fine, but sometimes they don't represent the book canon description. (ETA) It's still fine to display such images elsewhere on the page.)

• Canon distinction - For pages that have a separate page for an adaptation (such as a subpage for a film's version of a character), there's some effort to use a different image in the book canon's infobox. This is to avoid confusion between different canon pages on the same topic.

• Should fanart be considered? - The wiki page itself needs to pass a "should fanart be considered" test. See image for a suggestion:

• Thinking Machine Ban? - Something else that hasn't come up: the use of AI images. I suspect that the general consensus is similar to AI-generated text, which is that it should not be allowed. The Thinking Machine Ban can be extended to images with community consensus.

• Vector art - High quality vectors (such as for house sigils) can be used with community consensus, even if there are canon images available.

• Community discussion - Many image decisions may still come down to the community to decide what's best for an individual page. This may especially be necessary to begin with as we figure out what will work best for the wiki and we better define our policies. Alternatively, this could be an approval process, if enough members are interested.

• Unknown sources - As we enact whatever guidelines we decide, we will need to go through existing images that may not be adequately sourced, so we won't know if it's fanart or from an adaptation. In these cases, we can add "(source unknown, possibly fan art)" to the captions until we get confirmation or find a better image with a source.

• Fanart or fan art? Space or no space?

There may still be plenty of subjectivity for this, and further discussion will probably be necessary even after we come to some consensus on this topic.

Please comment on this post stating which parts you support or oppose, if any. Feel free to also suggest any additions, removals, or changes, or raise any questions or concerns. We touched on a lot in the previous discussion, so my apologies if I've missed anything -- but feel free to bring it up again.

Thank you, everyone! This is a group discussion for wiki standards and your input will help us decide how the wiki handles fanart going forward.

For editors who upload images to the wiki, Special:Upload now has the option to use a form field to help fill in information!

It's (hopefully) pretty easy to use, and use is encouraged -- although not required.

Feel free to go check it out! You don't need to upload an image to play around with it. If you're unsure what to put, leaving a field blank is fine. And if you don't want to use it, you can switch to "Summary" for the standard text box.

At some point, the template will be updated to automatically add categories to the images based on the options selected. So the template (along with the upload form) will be a key tool in helping the wiki get its images organized.

Just thought I’d let the admins know that the template at the bottom of the expanded dune pages links to ‘sands of dune’ which is a page about the sands of Arrakis rather than ‘sands of dune (book)’ which is about the Brian Herbert/Kevin J Anderson novella collection. Page didn’t exist before but I just made it 👍

The Encyclopedia is written from an in universe perspective, so contains many purposeful inaccuracies. The book mentions that it is unknown whether The Preacher was actually Paul because it is is uncertain in universe. My question is, If I was to write a dune encylopedia canon article about the Preacher, would it be written as if it was Paul (which we know to be true) or that he was potentially not Paul (like the in-universe author of the encylopedia believes)?

It's based entirely on the film, which doesn't respect the book's lore at all. First, Alia is literaly four years old (yup, you don't escape your pursuers and become a living messiah in less than seven months, weiiiiird??) and was captured by the harkonnens during the raid which killed paul's first son, and it is her who kills the baron with a gom jabbar; then, several more atomics are fired than that, at least five or six; also, all of the scenes where chani's mad are absolute bullshit. Probably more stuff is wrong but that page should def be corrected.