Forgotten Realms Wiki talk:Fan Art

Support
I support this proposal. I think there is some fan art on this page that fills a need where canon material is insufficient. The art is consistent with canon descriptions and is of high-enough quality that it does not detract from the scope of the wiki, illuminates certain subjects and in fact inspires the imagination of our readers. Ruf (talk) 13:09, January 9, 2019 (UTC)

Rejection
After seeing many great editors getting involved in the wiki, I think it is the perfect time to reraise this discussion and draw in community contribution. First of all, I wish to explicitly define fan art as is relevant to the Forgotten Realms Wiki:

Defining fan art (or unofficial art):

Fan art is any art that is unofficial, whether made from scratch, or even content-modified official images.

What exactly is content-modification? Content-modification is changing of the content of the image. Take for example, a picture of Cadderly Bonaduce that does not fit the actual canon description:

"Danica teased, grabbing a handful of Cadderly's thick, curly brown hair."

- excerpt from the The Chaos Curse

It is clear from the text that Cadderly has curled, brown locks. However, a piece of official art draws the young scholar with short, straight blonde hair. As source text contradicts this, the art is clearly an oversight, and is wrong. However, that does not mean that we should draw over the image of Cadderly with brown, curly hair, or even replace it. Doing so is content-modifying the image. Instead, it is better to refer to the text, or find official art describing Cadderly correctly.

What about imagemaps and cropping — don't they modify the image? They do. However, they do not at all change the content. Imagemaps form a separate layer, so the art is unaffected, and is not at all modified. Cropping is also not fan art, as it only changes the dimensions of the image, and not the actual content. Highlighting map regions also falls under the case of not modifying content, as their purpose is purely to provide mapping (the location itself is not changed, and thus, neither is the content), not to provide a physical description.

In the case of images made from scratch without any official publication, they are clearly classed as fan art.

Fan art: Should it be allowed on a canon wiki?

Whilst there are pros and cons of having fan art, I believe it 100% should not be allowed on a canon wiki, which we fully aim to be. If we do allow fan art, we should explicitly state that we are a non-canon wiki, which conflicts with existing policies. The only logical argument for fan art on a canon wiki appears to be:

Fan art better represents the true description of the topic than official art.

Yes, that is often true. However...
 * This can easily be countered by making it clear in our canon policy that descriptive text always trumps official art. Thus, there is no actual conflict between descriptions and official art in the first place!
 * If fan art is accepted, then we should also allow stories / quotes that represent the true description of the topic better than the official stories / quotes.

Some other pros are given above by the previous poster, but they all point back to the above argument. For example, "canon material is insufficient; we should use fan-made images to expand the content". You could say the same for quotes and stories. There are not many quotes and stories about mastodons in the Realms, but that doesn't mean I should make some up, that would be explicitly non-canon! The same applies to the rest of the arguments for fan art.

Taking the above into account, it seems clear that fan art should be completely removed from the wiki.

tl;dr A canon wiki should only use official content, and with its respective place in the canon hierarchy. If fan art is accepted, the wiki should do away with its canon policy. Whilst fan art is often beautiful, it has no place in a wiki of this nature.

~ Possessed Priest (talk) 18:38, November 5, 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree completely with all Possessed Priest's points. I won't repeat, but would add a few. Of course, I'd already said all this last year at Forum:Fan Art.


 * As I recall, the acceptance of fan art only came about because, when most of us current editors came on board from 2011 onward, the wiki was already rife with unofficial images from the chaotic past: art from Magic: The Gathering and other settings, generic fantasy art stolen from artists without attribution or permission, Realms fan-art, and maps from Mark Taylor/Markustay, on the basis of a fairly offhand and generously interpreted remark ("Most of my maps I consider 'public domain'"), and other fan map-makers. We cleaned up the non-D&D and stolen art (usually after artists' very-justified complains), and against that mess it was easier to just accept the existing situation and the usefulness of MT's maps. There hasn't really been a deliberately made policy of accepting fan-art, only one of shrugging and accepting what we're already saddled with.


 * But now we're finding regularly that MT's maps have too many homebrew locations and liberties with geography. That's fine for him and some others' fanon, but not for us; "Spire Flow" tripped Lhynard up recently, I've removed maps with homebrew sites. In view of this, there's not a lot of the original basis left for keeping fan art and fan maps.


 * It's often said that official art has errors or doesn't properly represent the subject: it changes in each edition, firbolgs are chunky blue elves, Drizzt is an old white human! And, well, so? The text-based lore is similarly full of inconsistencies and errors, we don't use that as a basis for accepting fanon and homebrew, so why use it to accept fan art? This gets to PP's third point. Fan art is no worse and no better a representation of the setting than official art. Most are inherently speculative; there is not a word what Alascartha Vyperwood looks like, her age, her hair and skin colour, her clothes style, her weapon choice. Accepting fan art for firbolgs would mean a lot of chunky blue elves, and I think Lhynard would be the first to tell us that it's wrong. :)


 * What's left is the idea that we would judge the fan art on offer, accept what best fits the lore, is accurate, and is needed, and reject what doesn't. Except, well, we don't. Passersby upload their images then ask about it (e.g., User_talk:BadCatMan), or don't ask at all (e.g., File:Nalkara.jpg). An admin, usually me, is left to go "Eh..." and fob them off until the matter's forgotten. All the uploads are still here. It is very hard to tell fellow fans, who may have good artistic talent or 3D modelling skill, that we don't think their work is good enough and delete it, to say we accept this but not that. It's subjective and a natural inclination to be nice and tolerant, or ignore it, greases the slippery slope to accepting everything. A blanket restriction is the only polite, sensible limit. As for need, fan art tends to give us art of popular characters we already have official options for, and a few pics of naked Eilistraee. That's not fulfilling any need for art. As for accuracy, most are highly speculative, while something like this File:WhatsApp_Image_2019-01-06_at_12.16.35.jpeg, a 3D rendering of the map of Wheloon might be entirely accurate but is by no means appealing or useful.


 * The only fan art I can accept are the created symbols and insignia of various groups and cities, which are less invention and more recreation from text or obscured images. For example, at Tantras.


 * tl;dr Fan art is speculative, prone to error or bias, unnecessary, or just bad. It relies on subjective judgement and is difficult to police. It's non-canon and homebrew, just like non-canon and homebrew textual lore. It's an artefact of the old, bad times, and removing it is the last thing we need to do to make a clean break and be a canonical, high-standards wiki. — BadCatMan (talk) 11:35, November 6, 2019 (UTC)


 * I regularly modify canon maps to
 * make them more legible
 * make them smaller and/or more compact for web presentation
 * add the approximate location of a feature based on the text description
 * illustrate a concept that is difficult to visualize from text only
 * By the above definition, these would be considered fan art. I strongly disagree with a 100% exclusion policy. If this were implemented, then over half the images on my Lost Princess Road article would be removed, and the article would suffer greatly for it, in my opinion. That is just one example. Either we come up with a different definition of fan art, or we make exceptions based on our best judgement, like we always do.
 * There is no glory in rigidly adhering to a policy of purity and I think it is foolish to even try to go to that extreme. We'd be setting ourselves up on a pedestal and become a target for folks who want to knock us off. It would definitely frustrate good-faith contributors, me included. There is nothing wrong with having high standards (and I think ours are already very high), but I want the wiki to be welcoming and friendly, not the voice of Ao. The policy proposed above is like an edict from Nirvana, whereas I believe we need a little flexibility from Arcadia or even Bytopia (lawful neutral vs shades of lawful good and neutral good, respectively). &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 14:27, November 6, 2019 (UTC)
 * Could the definition of fan art be modified to specifically allow for minor modifications to maps, as described above by Moviesign? To prevent highly speculative location placements (ala Markustay) we could add a documentation criterion (the image file would need a note justifying the placement with references). --Ir&#39;revrykal (talk) 13:49, November 8, 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've taken into account the raised points about maps. I applied a redefinition to the terms used before:


 * Definition of fan art / unofficial art:
 * Any image that is made from scratch, or an official image that has had its content modified (i.e., warped).


 * Content modification: unallowed:
 * Content modification applies to the descriptive aspect of art. Descriptive art portrays the description of something to the viewer: a sketch of a character, painting of a building etc.
 * Example:
 * If one takes an official sketch of a character and modifies its description, such as changing the color of the character's hair, this is classed as unofficial art, and not allowed. Filling in old black-and-white art, such as in regards to heraldry, that completely matches the canon description would be allowed, as it doesn't actually modify (warp) the content. Content modification can also apply to maps. If one takes a map, and explicitly changes the location of the landmarks, this is also not allowed, as the content is modified (warped).


 * Non-content modification: allowed:
 * Other types of modification are allowed, as long as the content is not changed. Maps, for example, can be modified without changing the content of the original art. Annotated maps are extremely useful for showing the locations of roads, city wards, etc. Imagemaps, cropping (changing dimensions), highlighting (a region, a road, etc), coloring an image to canon specifications, etc, are allowed. Any type of labelling, adding arrows, and adding physical locations, to maps or diagrams, are also allowed.
 * Example:
 * One wishes to describe where a series of portals connect across Faerûn. One then takes a section of an existing map, and draws the connections between the portals. This does not modify the content of the existing map, it has simply been modified to illustrate the connections; its content is not altered.


 * An image that doesn't modify the content must also:
 * be sourced: the original image needs to be sourced and the modified image must state who modified it.
 * be clear and justifiably correct: a modified map showing that Auckney is close to Luskan is correct, but showing it east of Luskan is not. Use official, canon sources and text to backup your claim.
 * have permission to be used: you must have the permission from those who modified the image.
 * not replicate something that already exists if it doesn't add anything extra.
 * be useful and relevant: a map of the Neverwinter region with an arrow pointing to Neverwinter stating "the location of the Neverwinter Nine" is not useful.
 * follow all other rules that apply to official images.


 * This revised proposal aims to ensure that we remain a canon wiki, whilst allowing useful labelling to maps and diagrams, whereby the content itself is not changed.


 * ~ Possessed Priest (talk) 15:39, November 11, 2019 (UTC)


 * @Possessed Priest: I too would reject the original proposal, and would mostly be in favor of your modified proposal, though I have a suggested modification of my own: I'd say that "non-content modification" is allowed to the extent that it matches what's stated in canon/official sources. For instance, if you edit a map to add a physical location to it, some canon information must already exist indicating that that's where the thing is located (otherwise, you're effectively making it up yourself). --V2Blast (talk) 12:25, August 12, 2020 (UTC)


 * @V2Blast: I agree with your point. It is essentially included above by a combination of "use sources and text to backup your claim" and "follow all other rules that apply to official images". I slightly changed the description above to make this clearer. Thanks! ~ Possessed Priest (talk) 14:20, August 12, 2020 (UTC)


 * @Possessed Priest: Looks good to me now! --V2Blast (talk) 20:16, August 13, 2020 (UTC)


 * "Fan art is speculative, prone to error or bias, unnecessary, or just bad."


 * The exact same thing is true for official art, so I find it irrelevant.


 * "It relies on subjective judgement and is difficult to police."


 * I have been here for many years, and I can only count a very few times that this has been an issue. We have far greater problems with other things, so I do not think this holds as an argument against occasional fan art. Those of us who support limited amounts of fan art are more than happy to do the job of "policing", which we already have. I have deleted a bunch of fan art over the years; I in no way accept it all. My policy was very strict for what fan art would be allowed, more strict than for official art.


 * "It's non-canon...."


 * So is official art.


 * "...and homebrew, just like non-canon and homebrew textual lore."


 * I disagree. Homebrew text is creation of new lore. The only kind of fan art that my policy would allow would be that that does not conflict with the canon lore.


 * If the canon text describes only "a female with long blond hair" and I draw that long blond hair braided, you may argue that that this is adding homebrew to the wiki. I disagree. This is no different than an official artist doing the same thing. Neither implies that the character actually has braided hair. The character only has braided hair if the text says she does. All illustrative art, official or otherwise, is simply a recommendation for how to picture something and provides no canon information. (Maps are not purely illustrative art; those are inherently informational.)


 * "It's an artefact of the old, bad times, and removing it is the last thing we need to do to make a clean break and be a canonical, high-standards wiki."


 * Almost all of the fan art has long ago been removed. (What remains now are photographs of real-world items. I'd also prefer that these be replaced with official art.) As far as what would make us a canonical, high-standards wiki, I feel that getting rid of plagiarism, crunch, and unsourced text are vastly bigger problems right now. The biggest fan art problem that we currently have is still fan-made maps from Markustay. I am 100% for removing any that simply replace official maps and especially for any with added homebrew locations!


 * (As for actual numbers, we have 135 fan art images now of 13,555, less than 1%. The vast majority of those are maps. 7 are iconography. A few are planets. Many of these images are currently only on user pages. I count only 22 images being used to illustrate buildings and characters of the Realms. Of those 22 images, I would vote to keep about 18 of them. We have nearly 33,000 pages. 0.07% of our pages having fan art is hardly a serious problem for our wiki.)


 * I should also note that my policy was also about labeling any such art, including maps, so that it is easier for us to deal with such matters. Until recently, things were labeled terribly with image tags. Labeling fan art was at least, I should hope, a first step that all of us could agree on.


 * "If we do allow fan art, we should explicitly state that we are a non-canon wiki, which conflicts with existing policies."


 * Again, I disagree about there being any conflict. Illustrative art does not communicate canon. It is an aid to imagination.


 * "The only logical argument for fan art on a canon wiki appears to be: Fan art better represents the true description of the topic than official art."


 * I hardly think it fair to call that the "only logical argument."


 * The main reason I support limited fan art is for illustrative purposes. Not all people can visualize text descriptions. Illustrative art helps with that.


 * This is, in fact, similar to how we re-write descriptions in our own words. The fact that we do that could be argued to be introducing content. This can indeed happen if we are not careful, but we strive to make sure that we fairly blend multiple and sometimes conflicting sources into a single description. We reject re-writing that introduces changes to lore, as we should reject fan art that introduces changes to lore.


 * If, for example, I have an article describing a ballista with no image, that is not very helpful to a reader who has never seen a ballista or cannot picture one in the mind's eye. I think that it is completely appropriate and helpful to include an image of a ballista from a "non-official" source, because it helps our readers understand. If, however, we then find an image of one from an official source, I absolutely think that the fan art one should be replaced with the official one.


 * I see no illogic in this argument, nor is it an argument for "better representing the true description"; no, it is a missing visual representation of canon content for illustrative purposes, not informational purposes. Ruf's comment at the top of the page uses terms like "illuminate" and "inspires the imagination". Yes, that is what I am talking about here.


 * Fan art that I find wonderful is the kind that we have on Athkatla or Moonbridge. I also strongly favor things like we include on Tantras or all of the awesome work that Moviesign has done on heraldry. I agree with Ir'revrykal that artists should be specificying where they get there information.


 * "If fan art is accepted, the wiki should do away with its canon policy."


 * This simply does not logically follow.


 * In any case, I think that a policy describing what is allowed for modified maps, symbols, etc. is helpful. I can agree with most of what Possessed Priest has suggested for content modification policy, but I should note that, as written, it would still ban Movie's colorization of heraldry or my creation of the word Loross written in Iokharic or some of the heraldry done by Thomaslove.


 * ~ Lhynard (talk) 19:24, August 15, 2020 (UTC)


 * >"If fan art is accepted, the wiki should do away with its canon policy."
 * >This simply does not logically follow.


 * It does logically follow. Art isn't just communicated via pictures. I know many great story writers that help write additional content just to illustrate things about a character. Yet, we'd reject those immediately. Same with quotes, etc. Would you like to see the wiki littered with "fan quotes" if they helped "illuminate" or "inspire the imagination"? Fan art is not official nor is it licensed, and it isn't part of our canon policy.


 * >Homebrew text is creation of new lore. The only kind of fan art that my policy would allow would be that that does not conflict with the canon lore.


 * >If the canon text describes only "a female with long blond hair" and I draw that long blond hair braided, you may argue that that this is adding homebrew to the wiki. I disagree.


 * A picture paints a thousand words. You argue that "homebrew text is creation of new lore", then in the next sentence, you say that you would only allow that which does not conflict with canon lore. So a drawing of "a female with long blond hair" that is braided is allowed, but writing it isn't? Respectfully, I don't see why you have this odd infatuation with how information is presented. Why does visual art gain this much higher precedence over written words? This simply does not logically follow.


 * I would re-read what I have suggested about content modification. Coloring something doesn't modify the original content. If Moviesign were to have altered the actual heraldry, like physically warped its shape, then that would be modifying the content.


 * Clearly, the panel here at the wiki do not and will not agree. ~ Possessed Priest (talk) 22:53, August 15, 2020 (UTC)


 * Let me try to clarify my point about "homebrew text" versus fan art. Currently, all of us agree that it is okay, even desired, to have official artwork showing a given monster. Let's use the same long-haired blonde. We say that it is a canonical fact that said character has long blond hair. Let's say that there is an official image drawn of her where her hair is in a bun. Does this mean that she canonically has a bun? No, it does not. Let's say now that there is a fan art image drawn of her where her hair is braided. Does this mean that she canonically has braided hair. No, it does not. There is no difference at all between these two cases. If you say that the fan art is adding lore, than you would also have to say that the official art is adding lore, but neither is adding lore, because we state that images are only interpretations of presented lore; they are not meant to communicate lore themselves.


 * Now, let's say that some official art draws her with black hair. Does she have black hair now? No, the official image is wrong. We note that with a note in the appendix. Now, let's say that some fan art draws her with black hair. Does she have black hair now? Of course, the fan art is wrong, and we do not allow it on the wiki.


 * You say: "Art isn't just communicated via pictures. I know many great story writers that help write additional content just to illustrate things about a character. Yet, we'd reject those immediately. Same with quotes, etc. Would you like to see the wiki littered with 'fan quotes' if they helped 'illuminate' or 'inspire the imagination'? Fan art is not official nor is it licensed, and it isn't part of our canon policy."


 * I was never arguing about anything other than visual art. I apologize if this was not clear. You are of course correct that the word "art" is not limited to pictures, but that was all that I thought we were talking about by the phrase "fan art". Yes, if we allow "fan art" quotes, we would logically be throwing out the canon policy, but that was not at all what I was suggesting. I am speaking about illustrative images.


 * If you wish to make this policy go beyond that, than we also have issues with all of the pronunciations that Sirwhiteout and I have made or the tones that he made for the tuning forks. (Or are these not "art" because they were not creative?)


 * "A picture paints a thousand words."


 * That is only a quaint saying. If we explicitly state on our wiki that we do not consider illustrative art as canonical when not supported by textual descriptions&mdash;something that I strongly think that we should do&mdash;than this need not be a concern. In no way do I think that we should be doing things like writing, "So and so wears a green cape and a red belt and a hat with two feathers in it," just because one artist drew him that way. We have never done this for the most part, nor do I think that we should begin to.


 * "I don't see why you have this odd infatuation with how information is presented."


 * Because I think that it is crucial to any policy on canon. We care very much that information is source-able, as another example. I, personally, also care very much that information is in published text or diagrams, not, say, in a private conversation with a game designer. How information is presented matters very much.


 * "Why does visual art gain this much higher precedence over written words? This simply does not logically follow."


 * I am saying that visual art should have lower precedence over written words. But besides that, the point is that, by a policy, we can give written words and visual art whatever weight we want to, just like any other form of content in our hierarchy. It is not a matter of logic; it is a matter of deciding what we want to do with it and how we want to treat it. We could, if we chose to, make this a game focused wiki, where video games are higher in the canon hierarchy. Or we could do the same with novels. We have chosen to put sourcebooks with the most weight. All of these are logical, just different.


 * "Coloring something doesn't modify the original content."


 * Okay, good to know, but that was not obvious to me at all in your text, which I did just re-read. I would have interpreted coloring a black and white image as a form of modification, since it is changing something white or black into another color. We are in agreement on this then, at least. :)


 * "Clearly, the panel here at the wiki do not and will not agree."


 * May I suggest that we at least try to find something that we all agree on and starting there?


 * For example, is there fan art that we all agree should be forbidden? I listed several examples in my original policy:


 * Images from other settings or gaming systems is not permitted. All art must be related to the Forgotten Realms.
 * Fan art in the form of animated  files or videos is not permitted, except through special agreement with this community, (e.g., Faerûn History on YouTube.)
 * If the text of an article is already "broken up" by official art, fan art should be displayed in a "Gallery" section in the appendix of an article. It may not be featured in an infobox unless no officially published artwork is available.


 * Are these all things that you agree with? If so, we at least have common ground where we can start, because currently, we do not have a policy that bans the above things from occurring, and I would think that you would find that worse of a problem.


 * In other words, I say, "Some fan art is okay." You say, "All fan art is bad." The current policy, technically, is "Fan art is fine." We both agree that the current policy needs to be changed. Even if my "some is okay" is not what you want, it is definitely closer to where you want to be than we currently are, correct?


 * ~ Lhynard (talk) 00:02, August 16, 2020 (UTC)


 * My first point was about homebrew text vs art, not official art vs fan art. These are clearly different cases. One is an official interpretation of canon information, one is a completely homebrew interpretation of canon information. One is 100% official and printed in official books, the other is neither of these, and aren't even licensed. This fundamentally goes against the purpose of the wiki, which I will display here:


 * The wiki "aims to provide a complete and thorough reference work of the wealth of canon and licensed information, or "Realmslore", released in the decades since the setting's creation by Ed Greenwood. It covers official sourcebooks and novels and other media, as well as officially licensed sources such as video games and so on."


 * >Yes, if we allow "fan art" quotes, we would logically be throwing out the canon policy, but that was not at all what I was suggesting. I am speaking about illustrative images.


 * Exactly this. I am saying that if we allow homebrew art, we should also allow homebrew text. See the points below, which are related.


 * >If you wish to make this policy go beyond that, than we also have issues with all of the pronunciations that Sirwhiteout and I have made or the tones that he made for the tuning forks. (Or are these not "art" because they were not creative?)


 * No, this is not correct. The official source states that "pitch is the note struck that guides the spell to a particular plane". Even our own page agrees and says "Pitch is the single note to which an individual fork was tuned". These definitions (and recordings) clearly refer to the mathematical definition of pitch and note, i.e., there is no "creative" interpretation here. If I play a note that lies a diatonic semitone above G and a chromatic semitone below A on a copper tuning fork, then I would get to the Quasi-Elemental Plane of Ash. Your uploads entirely adhere to the mathematical definition, and thus are totally allowed. If you or Sirwhiteout were to have made a creative song with these recordings, then yes, it would be the same as fan art, and would be rejected. As it is purely mathematical, then it is not.


 * >I am saying that visual art should have lower precedence over written words.


 * You won't get a complaint from me with that statement on a wiki that presents official and licensed canon content; the words in such sources will always trump the art. However, If we allow the fan picture, we should allow the fan quote or description. We should, in that case, have a note: "Fan quote by UserX", or "fan description by UserY". Just because words have higher precedence over pictures does not mean that descriptive visual fan art has a lesser impact than written fan descriptions, and thus should be allowed. What I'm trying to say is that a homebrew picture of a woman with braids is not different enough from a homebrew passage about a woman with braids, and thus one should not be allowed if the other is.


 * >>"Coloring something doesn't modify the original content."
 * >Okay, good to know, but that was not obvious to me at all in your text, which I did just re-read. I would have interpreted coloring a black and white image as a form of modification.


 * It is a tough policy to fully define, whilst being both concise and explicitly clear. In this case, the coloured heraldry is a form of modification, but it doesn't actually change (warp) the original content itself. This would be allowed in the proposed modification. I've changed the policy above to try and make this clearer.


 * > With reference to the list "Are these all things that you agree with? If so, we at least have common ground where we can start.


 * I agree with the first point, as it isn't really relevant to fan art. The second point assumes that I am ok with any form of fan art (which by my definition above, I am not). The third also assumes that I'm ok with fan art being displayed in articles, in which I am not.


 * > Currently, we do not have a policy that bans the above things from occurring, and I would think that you would find that worse of a problem.


 * Thing is, we do have a policy that bans these things from occuring. It's called the canon policy. Indeed, "the Canon policy outlines what lore and sources may be accepted on the Forgotten Realms Wiki". Clearly, the aim of this official policy states what is accepted on the wiki and what is not. At zero point in this policy does it include fan art. Thus, by the definition of the policy, it isn't allowed. The fan art policy and its modifications are only proposed policies.


 * Conclusively, I don't say "all fan art is bad", I say that fan art (by my definition) should not be allowed on a wiki that adheres to strict canonicity. ~ Possessed Priest (talk) 01:13, August 16, 2020 (UTC)