FANDOM


  • Spongebob456
    Spongebob456 closed this thread because:
    Finished, will create a new conversation when the results are in.
    17:41, April 5, 2019

    Hey folks!

    I wanted to say first-off that I thought the forum games conversation went really well and I thank you all for your input.

    Given the success of that, I thought we'd do it again but on a new topic: episode galleries.

    Now to begin with, I want to address that this is just about episode, movie and short galleries, not character galleries, as they both operate differently.

    So why have a conversation about this?

    Episode galleries should be a place to showcase key moments from an episode. Readers will come to the wiki before or after watching an episode to read up on it. For those coming before, a reader shouldn’t be able to watch an entire episode through images effectively as surely that puts legality of our galleries in question. They also just went to get a flavour of the episode before viewing it. Those who come after have already seen the episode, they don’t need to see it repeated.

    Furthermore, in “Band Geeks”, say a reader wants to find the image with Patrick asking if mayonnaise is an instrument. Do they want to trawl through 170 images to find that? Very likely not and the chances are they’re looking for a key moment, all the other images will be ignored. Over 100 images become noise, not giving the reader a clean reading experience. I’ve seen an argument that if images are removed they’re wasted, I’d argue many are wasted now as readers’ eyes are just skimming over them.

    Here are a couple of examples of what I'm talking about where needless images can be cut:

    GalleryEdit1 Grandpappy the Pirate/gallery

    Here, we only need to see Mr. Krabs and his Grandad had a chat. One image tells us that.

    GalleryEdit2

    You Don't Know Sponge/gallery
    Here, we see Gary got wet and Sandy had a conversation with SpongeBob. You can tell that from the images that were kept.

    So really I wanted to ask some questions to kick off the conversation:

    1. What do you use our episode galleries for (if at all)?
    2. What difference is there between what this gallery offers compared to this one?
    3. If they were reduced, what should the maximum number of images be?

    As per usual, let’s keep this conversation nice and civil. Thanks!


    Edit: Important thing to consider.

    Don't forget those EU laws passed that added strict measures on copyright. Furthermore, they switch the onus from the users of a site to the site itself (if you remember, memes may be banned on Twitter rip). This means the EU law may force Fandom's hand to make these changes in future. I'd rather make the change on our own terms, in a way we want. Chances are, as a result, we wouldn't have ages to make the change and the website may even have to be taken down while the change is made. Nobody wants that.

      Loading editor
    • Spongebob456
      Spongebob456 removed this reply because:
      off-topic
      19:18, March 30, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • The test article gallery is too short.

        Loading editor
    • Can you elaborate on why?

        Loading editor
    • As long as there are no repeating frames, a gallery should be able to have as many images as people want. This seems like you are trying to restrict the wiki unnecessarily. Also, your message uses words that don't indicate that these are your opinions, but instead facts, which they are not.

        Loading editor
    • People have worked very hard to create these galleries. I agree with 120d.

        Loading editor
    • I think it's important to set a limit in order to keep galleries under control. 171 images for an 11 minute episode really isn't good.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:
      As long as there are no repeating frames, a gallery should be able to have as many images as people want. This seems like you are trying to restrict the wiki unnecessarily. Also, your message uses words that don't indicate that these are your opinions, but instead facts, which they are not.

      We can have as many photos as we want and remove "needless" images (whatever they're called), but the "maximum photo" part I disagree with, as if we have one, we won't be able to upload anything anymore.

      Furthermore, the test article gallery is not even a full gallery and I disagree with it. The actual gallery is better.

        Loading editor
    • Happy2432 wrote: Furthermore, the test article gallery is not even a full gallery and I disagree with it. The actual gallery is better.

      Why?

        Loading editor
    • In your diagram, you showed gary, slimed covered, walking away, sandy talking, and sandy standing with no spongebob Xd out. I feel as if one image from those scenes should stay. this way we don't clog the galleries, and we still have pictures for each scene.

        Loading editor
    • I also think all the Xd images from grandpappy the pirate should stay. 

        Loading editor
    • This was brought up to the crew and I personally think if we're going to HAVE to cut them down any that this is the best way we can:

      within each ten second interval of the episode, we should choose the best image for that 10 seconds, if that makes any sense. this is taking SpongeBob Captures into account here, but they easily lay out each minute of the episode by every second (for example, if an episode is exactly 11 minutes, they have 11 pages, with 60 images per page, and each picture is of 1 second in the episode), and basically we could choose from that 10 seconds (the groups of 10 pictures) what would fit best. what i mean by "fit best" is one that isn't a duplicate or a semi-similar picture to the one before or after it or the one that looks the best (as some of SBCaptures images are mid-frames). even if we don't use SBCaptures for galleries (even though i think we should've from the start, it would've saved a lot of time and work) i'm just using it as an example to portray what i'm trying to say in a more understandable way. and another point, a lot of people have worked hard on the galleries too and i don't think we should just throw away most of it. i think doing this would be better because people user the wiki to find images of episodes too, not just to read about said episodes, and only having a few dozen images will make it a lot harder for somebody to find the specific image they want. hell, i can't even find an image i want within a 200 picture gallery sometimes, and reducing it down by 3/4ths isn't going to help that at all, nor would really reducing it in any way. but i will compromise and meet in the middle and say 1 picture every 10 seconds, which would be around 110 images for a normal episode, and in my eyes this is the fairest way to reduce the episode galleries.

        Loading editor
    • Regawin wrote: In your diagram, you showed gary, slimed covered, walking away, sandy talking, and sandy standing with no spongebob Xd out. I feel as if one image from those scenes should stay. this way we don't clog the galleries, and we still have pictures for each scene.

      Sorry for repeating myself but why should they stay? What do they add?

        Loading editor
    • 456, I believe the test gallery is too short because it feels like random images from the episode. The real gallery shows the story.

        Loading editor
    • Spongebob456 wrote:

      Happy2432 wrote: Furthermore, the test article gallery is not even a full gallery and I disagree with it. The actual gallery is better.

      Why?

      Because it’s missing several important moments, the opening for example. But still, we can remove “needless” parts, for example, we only need one scene of SpongeBob at the Barg-n-mart.

        Loading editor
    • Ok, what story elements are we missing?

      From the test gallery, we see SpongeBob wakes up, exercises, runs to the Krusty Krab, talks to Patrick, talks to Mr. Krabs and Squidward and gets his shopping list, anchovies arrived, SpongeBob returned, prepared and cooked patties, gets a job, ejects Patrick out the Krusty Krab.

        Loading editor
    • Happy2432 wrote:

      Spongebob456 wrote:

      Happy2432 wrote: Furthermore, the test article gallery is not even a full gallery and I disagree with it. The actual gallery is better.

      Why?

      Because it’s missing several important moments, the opening for example. But still, we can remove “needless” parts, for example, we only need one scene of SpongeBob at the Barg-n-mart.

      In the opening we see SpongeBob wakes up which is shown?

        Loading editor
    • Spongebob456 wrote:

      Regawin wrote: In your diagram, you showed gary, slimed covered, walking away, sandy talking, and sandy standing with no spongebob Xd out. I feel as if one image from those scenes should stay. this way we don't clog the galleries, and we still have pictures for each scene.

      Sorry for repeating myself but why should they stay? What do they add?

      Gary walking away is tottaly different than him getting sprayed with slime. the images of sandy talking are needed because it shows a close up, which is different than standing with spongebob. and for the other image, see the reason of sandy talking. 

        Loading editor
    • Also the test gallery is one image per scene. we don't want that.

        Loading editor
    • Spongebob456 wrote: Ok, what story elements are we missing?

      From the test gallery, we see SpongeBob wakes up, exercises, runs to the Krusty Krab, talks to Patrick, talks to Mr. Krabs and Squidward and gets his shopping list, anchovies arrived, SpongeBob returned, prepared and cooked patties, gets a job, ejects Patrick out the Krusty Krab.

      You’re missing the whole story, particularly these scenes: The opening where the narrator introduces Bikini Bottom, the entire scene where SpongeBob wakes up and exercises, Patrick cheering SpongeBob on, spongebob having second thoughts until Patrick encourages him, Squidward noticing Spongebob, the part where spongebob gets his hat, Mr. Krabs noticing the anchovies, Spingebob at the brag-n-mart, Squidward and Mr. Krabs shocked over the hydrodynamic spatula, almost the entire sequence where Spongebob is feeding the anchovies, Spongebob getting his name tag, and Patrick entering the Krusty Krab At the end before Spongebob gets back to work and knocks Patrick out.

        Loading editor
    • For a gallery, it's important to show key story beats from the episode. I understand what you mean by the close-up, but what does it add to the story the gallery is telling?

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote: 456, I believe the test gallery is too short because it feels like random images from the episode. The real gallery shows the story.

      Yes, I agree with this.

        Loading editor
    • Happy2432 wrote:

      Spongebob456 wrote: Ok, what story elements are we missing?

      From the test gallery, we see SpongeBob wakes up, exercises, runs to the Krusty Krab, talks to Patrick, talks to Mr. Krabs and Squidward and gets his shopping list, anchovies arrived, SpongeBob returned, prepared and cooked patties, gets a job, ejects Patrick out the Krusty Krab.

      You’re missing the whole story, particularly these scenes: The opening where the narrator introduces Bikini Bottom, the entire scene where SpongeBob wakes up and exercises, Patrick cheering SpongeBob on, spongebob having second thoughts until Patrick encourages him, Squidward noticing Spongebob, the part where spongebob gets his hat, Mr. Krabs noticing the anchovies, Spingebob at the brag-n-mart, Squidward and Mr. Krabs shocked over the hydrodynamic spatula, almost the entire sequence where Spongebob is feeding the anchovies, Spongebob getting his name tag, and Patrick entering the Krusty Krab At the end before Spongebob gets back to work and knocks Patrick out.

      some of the things you said are included, but it is missing a lot.

        Loading editor
    • You’re missing the whole story, particularly these scenes: The opening where the narrator introduces Bikini Bottom, the entire scene where SpongeBob wakes up and exercises, Patrick cheering SpongeBob on, spongebob having second thoughts until Patrick encourages him, Squidward noticing Spongebob, the part where spongebob gets his hat, Mr. Krabs noticing the anchovies, Spingebob at the brag-n-mart, Squidward and Mr. Krabs shocked over the hydrodynamic spatula, almost the entire sequence where Spongebob is feeding the anchovies, Spongebob getting his name tag, and Patrick entering the Krusty Krab At the end before Spongebob gets back to work and knocks Patrick out.

      I think an important aspect here is that the gallery compliments the text, not the other way round. Say we have an image where the narrator talks, we can't see him talking in the image. Similarly, we see SpongeBob exercising in that image, that part of the story is told. If you want to see more, the episode tells you that. We don't need the article replaying the episode in image form.

        Loading editor
    • Spongebob456 wrote: For a gallery, it's important to show key story beats from the episode. I understand what you mean by the close-up, but what does it add to the story the gallery is telling?

      This is completely your opinion. There is no reason to restrict the number of images. You are, once again, making a problem out of something that isn't one. I have no evidence that suggests that people go to this wiki before or after an episode to look at the images. Even if they currently see the whole story in images, other than the obvious fact that images alone don't convey animation, with your restriction plan, you are already giving them the key elements of the episode, so if they see the episode's images before, they are already getting the whole episode.

        Loading editor
    • Spongebob456 wrote:

      You’re missing the whole story, particularly these scenes: The opening where the narrator introduces Bikini Bottom, the entire scene where SpongeBob wakes up and exercises, Patrick cheering SpongeBob on, spongebob having second thoughts until Patrick encourages him, Squidward noticing Spongebob, the part where spongebob gets his hat, Mr. Krabs noticing the anchovies, Spingebob at the brag-n-mart, Squidward and Mr. Krabs shocked over the hydrodynamic spatula, almost the entire sequence where Spongebob is feeding the anchovies, Spongebob getting his name tag, and Patrick entering the Krusty Krab At the end before Spongebob gets back to work and knocks Patrick out.

      I think an important aspect here is that the gallery compliments the text, not the other way round. Say we have an image where the narrator talks, we can't see him talking in the image. Similarly, we see SpongeBob exercising in that image, that part of the story is told. If you want to see more, the episode tells you that. We don't need the article replaying the episode in image form.

      It still makes sense to include the opening image. 

        Loading editor
    • Spongebob456 wrote: So really I wanted to ask some questions to kick off the conversation:

      1. What do you use our episode galleries for (if at all)?
      2. What difference is there between what this gallery offers compared to this one?
      3. If they were reduced, what should the maximum number of images be?

      As per usual, let’s keep this conversation nice and civil. Thanks!

      • From a reader viewpoint (as opposed to an editing one), I rarely use the galleries here. I typically use them every once in a while when I want to see a certain funny moment from an episode or refresh myself upon a certain episode.
      • While this seems to be an unpopular opinion, I think the test gallery is a lot better than the actual Help Wanted gallery. It keeps things short and simple while getting the point of the episode across. We don't need to visually document every second of an episode. It's just excessive and kind of leans into piracy territory.
      • If gallery images were to be reduced, I think 25-30 images per episode should be ideal. I'm really not sure how much we should reduce shorts and movie galleries down to, hopefully, great suggestions will come in from this conversation.
        Loading editor
    • Spongebob456 wrote:
      For a gallery, it's important to show key story beats from the episode. I understand what you mean by the close-up, but what does it add to the story the gallery is telling?

      Let's say the trivia says: 

      When blah blah blah happens you can see a blah blah blah

      Let's say that scene is one that dosen't make the cut. now what? 

        Loading editor
    • 456, have you even considered the ramifications on character/location/object subgalleries? You can't say that this is about that because it is exactly about that. If you take out the images in the episode gallery, then you have to also take them out of the subgalleries.

        Loading editor
    • You can put that scene in the trivia section, as we often do.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote: 456, have you even considered the ramifications on character/location/object subgalleries? You can't say that this is about that because it is exactly about that. If you take out the images in the episode gallery, then you have to also take them out of the subgalleries.

      Why do we have to take them out of the subgalleries?

        Loading editor
    • Spongebob456 wrote:
      You can put that scene in the trivia section, as we often do.

      But we don't want to turn the episode page into a gallery. 

        Loading editor
    • Spongebob456 wrote: You can put that scene in the trivia section, as we often do.

      Why not have that image in the gallery, then? We have it on the wiki, shouldn't it be in the gallery with the episode? (This is, of course, assuming it doesn't have markings indicating the error or reference or whatever.)

        Loading editor
    • Put the image with the relevant trivia text. The reader can read the text and have an image right beside it to see the context. Good for user-friendliness.

        Loading editor
    • Spongebob456 wrote:

      120d wrote: 456, have you even considered the ramifications on character/location/object subgalleries? You can't say that this is about that because it is exactly about that. If you take out the images in the episode gallery, then you have to also take them out of the subgalleries.

      Why do we have to take them out of the subgalleries?

      Other than the previously mentioned, we might as well have them in the gallery point, there is also the fact that the subgalleries were created to show the images from the episode, but only the ones that contain the character/location/object. It looks weird if we had the essential images in the gallery and the non-essential images in the subgalleries. It is just uneven.

        Loading editor
    • If a user goes to an episode, say, about Snail-Po (as an example), they expect to go to that article to find out more about it, including more images.

        Loading editor
    • Spongebob456 wrote: Put the image with the relevant trivia text. The reader can read the text and have an image right beside it to see the context. Good for user-friendliness.

      I'm not saying you shouldn't have it in the trivia section, I'm saying that if we have the image in the trivia section, we might as well have it in the gallery too. That's the point of the gallery to show images of the episode. That's it. It's not that difficult. You don't need to have ridiculous restrictions for this. While I don't think we should have every frame, one image per scene (or less) seems too restrictive.

        Loading editor
    • Why is it too restrictive though? You get a sense of the story which is what a wiki article is for.

        Loading editor
    • Imagine it...

      When patrick orders a pizza, you can see a picture of squidward with a mustache

      • picture*

      When the pizza man arrives, the brand is called Mario and luigi's

      • picture*

      when he eats the pizza, the box says "so good you'll cry out a millon billon tears!"

      • picture*

      and on and on...

        Loading editor
    • Spongebob456 wrote: If a user goes to an episode, say, about Snail-Po (as an example), they expect to go to that article to find out more about it, including more images.

      Sure, but it feels weird saying, "These images are alright for these galleries, but not those galleries." for no reason.

        Loading editor
    • For Snail-Po, do we have all the detail on it in the corresponding episode article(s)? Nope. We add that extra detail to a separate article where you can expect to find more images too.

        Loading editor
    • Spongebob456 wrote: Why is it too restrictive though? You get a sense of the story which is what a wiki article is for.

      The point of the wiki is to document things relating to SpongeBob. It's not about telling the story in the way that best fits Nickelodeon's agenda. Images are an excellent way to convey. Even if it is a few images per scene. That's still important to the documentation of the series. As Views06 brought up, people have worked hard to make the galleries the way they are now, there is no reason to destroy that work.

        Loading editor
    • Spongebob456 wrote: For Snail-Po, do we have all the detail on it in the corresponding episode article(s)? Nope. We add that extra detail to a separate article where you can expect to find more images too.

      Why should you expect to find more images in the Snail-Po gallery than in the episode gallery? You know, the ones where Snail-Po appears.

        Loading editor
    • Images are excellent for the wiki, not disagreeing with you. But having too many and cluttering galleries with 150+ images is a bad user experience and harms SEO. Also, while I sympathise, we need to consider the benefits of the 100s of thousands of views we get a week first.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:

      Spongebob456 wrote: For Snail-Po, do we have all the detail on it in the corresponding episode article(s)? Nope. We add that extra detail to a separate article where you can expect to find more images too.

      Why should you expect to find more images in the Snail-Po gallery than in the episode gallery? You know, the ones where Snail-Po appears.

      Because it's a separate page where you're going to find more detail anyway?

        Loading editor
    • It's fine to cut down on images, but only a few should leave.

        Loading editor
    • Regawin wrote: It's fine to cut down on images, but only a few should leave.

      What would your maximum limit be?

        Loading editor
    • Spongebob456 wrote: Images are excellent for the wiki, not disagreeing with you. But having too many and cluttering galleries with 150+ images is a bad user experience and harms SEO. Also, while I sympathise, we need to consider the benefits of the 100s of thousands of views we get a week first.

      I should have guessed that, once again, you don't care about the actual wiki, but the numbers. It doesn't matter if there is 150+ images on a gallery page. The point of a gallery page is the images. There could be 1000 images and it wouldn't matter. The point of a gallery page is images. That's. Nothing more. Nothing less.

        Loading editor
    • Spongebob456 wrote:

      Regawin wrote: It's fine to cut down on images, but only a few should leave.

      What would your maximum limit be?

      Well, looking at the good krabby name gallery, maybe 17.

        Loading editor
    • Spongebob456 wrote:

      120d wrote:

      Spongebob456 wrote: For Snail-Po, do we have all the detail on it in the corresponding episode article(s)? Nope. We add that extra detail to a separate article where you can expect to find more images too.

      Why should you expect to find more images in the Snail-Po gallery than in the episode gallery? You know, the ones where Snail-Po appears.

      Because it's a separate page where you're going to find more detail anyway?

      You don't go to a subgallery for more detail on the subject, but instead to see all the images of the subject.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:

      Spongebob456 wrote: Images are excellent for the wiki, not disagreeing with you. But having too many and cluttering galleries with 150+ images is a bad user experience and harms SEO. Also, while I sympathise, we need to consider the benefits of the 100s of thousands of views we get a week first.

      I should have guessed that, once again, you don't care about the actual wiki, but the numbers. It doesn't matter if there is 150+ images on a gallery page. The point of a gallery page is the images. There could be 1000 images and it wouldn't matter. The point of a gallery page is images. That's. Nothing more. Nothing less.

      Surely we edit this wiki for our viewers... would've thought making the experience easier for them and attracting more would be a priority.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:

      Spongebob456 wrote:

      120d wrote:

      Spongebob456 wrote: For Snail-Po, do we have all the detail on it in the corresponding episode article(s)? Nope. We add that extra detail to a separate article where you can expect to find more images too.

      Why should you expect to find more images in the Snail-Po gallery than in the episode gallery? You know, the ones where Snail-Po appears.

      Because it's a separate page where you're going to find more detail anyway?

      You don't go to a subgallery for more detail on the subject, but instead to see all the images of the subject.

      You would see all Snail-Po images in its subgallery though.

        Loading editor
    • Spongebob456 wrote:

      120d wrote:

      Spongebob456 wrote: Images are excellent for the wiki, not disagreeing with you. But having too many and cluttering galleries with 150+ images is a bad user experience and harms SEO. Also, while I sympathise, we need to consider the benefits of the 100s of thousands of views we get a week first.

      I should have guessed that, once again, you don't care about the actual wiki, but the numbers. It doesn't matter if there is 150+ images on a gallery page. The point of a gallery page is the images. There could be 1000 images and it wouldn't matter. The point of a gallery page is images. That's. Nothing more. Nothing less.
      Surely we edit this wiki for our viewers... would've thought making the experience easier for them and attracting more would be a priority.

      Um, the most troubling things for viewers is unorginized galleries. If all of them got orginized, it would be smooth sailing.

        Loading editor
    • I completely agree with you, 120d.

      Our goal is not to create a short summary of an episode at episode galleries, there should be a good amount of images. If the images are not duplicates of each other, then we should keep them all.

        Loading editor
    • Spongebob456 wrote:

      120d wrote:

      Spongebob456 wrote: Images are excellent for the wiki, not disagreeing with you. But having too many and cluttering galleries with 150+ images is a bad user experience and harms SEO. Also, while I sympathise, we need to consider the benefits of the 100s of thousands of views we get a week first.

      I should have guessed that, once again, you don't care about the actual wiki, but the numbers. It doesn't matter if there is 150+ images on a gallery page. The point of a gallery page is the images. There could be 1000 images and it wouldn't matter. The point of a gallery page is images. That's. Nothing more. Nothing less.

      Surely we edit this wiki for our viewers... would've thought making the experience easier for them and attracting more would be a priority.

      No. That has never been a priority. Maybe, your priority, but very few other people care about that. The numbers don't matter. It doesn't matter if we get one view or 1,000,000 views. The priority of this wiki is to make an encyclopedia of SpongeBob. It's literally in the name.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:

      Spongebob456 wrote:

      120d wrote:

      Spongebob456 wrote: Images are excellent for the wiki, not disagreeing with you. But having too many and cluttering galleries with 150+ images is a bad user experience and harms SEO. Also, while I sympathise, we need to consider the benefits of the 100s of thousands of views we get a week first.

      I should have guessed that, once again, you don't care about the actual wiki, but the numbers. It doesn't matter if there is 150+ images on a gallery page. The point of a gallery page is the images. There could be 1000 images and it wouldn't matter. The point of a gallery page is images. That's. Nothing more. Nothing less.
      Surely we edit this wiki for our viewers... would've thought making the experience easier for them and attracting more would be a priority.
      No. That has never been a priority. Maybe, your priority, but very few other people care about that. The numbers don't matter. It doesn't matter if we get one view or 1,000,000 views. The priority of this wiki is to make an encyclopedia of SpongeBob. It's literally in the name.

      If a gallery has 100,000,000,000,000,000 images, but everything is in order, it would be fine.

        Loading editor
    • If we can make a wiki about SpongeBob efficient, creates a good user experience, and attracts more viewers and members of our community, it's a big plus surely.

      How about a 50 image limit?

        Loading editor
    • Keep your replies coming folks, will respond later.

        Loading editor
    • Spongebob456 wrote: If we can make a wiki about SpongeBob efficient, creates a good user experience, and attracts more viewers and members of our community, it's a big plus surely.

      How about a 50 image limit?

      As Regawin keeps mentioning, if the images are in order, that's the best way to have a good user experience. You need to stop acting like the images are some big problem that needs to be tackled. I would love to see any evidence that the sheer number of images is a problem to a regular user. I'm not asking for statistics about load times or anything like that. I want a complaint from a real user that says that the images in the episode galleries are a problem.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:

      Spongebob456 wrote: If we can make a wiki about SpongeBob efficient, creates a good user experience, and attracts more viewers and members of our community, it's a big plus surely.

      How about a 50 image limit?

      As Regawin keeps mentioning, if the images are in order, that's the best way to have a good user experience. You need to stop acting like the images are some big problem that needs to be tackled. I would love to see any evidence that the sheer number of images is a problem to a regular user.

      This is a great point, actually. Until we see proof from people having trouble with the galleries, they aren't an issue.

        Loading editor
    • I feel like the shorts galleries are way more easier to finish compared to the episode galleries.

        Loading editor
    • I disagree. I have had multiple expiriences where i need an exact photo where they are opening their mouth , have their arms up, are making a face expression, etc. No need to be removing images from Galleries unless they are extremely low quality or in the wrong place.

        Loading editor
    • Spongebob456 wrote:
      Hey folks!

      I wanted to say first-off that I thought the forum games conversation went really well and I thank you all for your input. Given the success of that, I thought we'd do it again but on a new topic: episode galleries. Now to begin with, I want to address that this is just about episode, movie and short galleries, not character galleries, as they both operate differently. So why have a conversation about this? Episode galleries should be a place to showcase key moments from an episode. Readers will come to the wiki before or after watching an episode to read up on it. For those coming before, a reader shouldn’t be able to watch an entire episode through images effectively as surely that puts legality of our galleries in question. They also just went to get a flavour of the episode before viewing it. Those who come after have already seen the episode, they don’t need to see it repeated. Furthermore, in “Band Geeks”, say a reader wants to find the image with Patrick asking if mayonnaise is an instrument. Do they want to trawl through 170 images to find that? Very likely not and the chances are they’re looking for a key moment, all the other images will be ignored. Over 100 images become noise, not giving the reader a clean reading experience. I’ve seen an argument that if images are removed they’re wasted, I’d argue many are wasted now as readers’ eyes are just skimming over them.

      Here are a couple of examples of what I'm talking about where needless images can be cut:

      forum games conversation Grandpappy the Pirate/gallery

      Here, we only need to see Mr. Krabs and his Grandad had a chat. One image tells us that.

      GalleryEdit2

      You Don't Know Sponge/gallery
      Here, we see Gary got wet and Sandy had a conversation with SpongeBob. You can tell that from the images that were kept.

      So really I wanted to ask some questions to kick off the conversation:

      1. What do you use our episode galleries for (if at all)?
      2. What difference is there between what this gallery offers compared to this one?
      3. If they were reduced, what should the maximum number of images be?

      As per usual, let’s keep this conversation nice and civil. Thanks!

      Oh, look. There you are using an example of some high quality images of Gary and Sandy I uploaded to the You Don't Know Sponge/gallery 4 years ago in November 2014.

        Loading editor
    • Way back when the original gallery-merge proposal happened, some anonymous new user uploaded a heckin' ton of near-identical (and concerning) screengrabs of Sandy's shower scenes to Someone's in the Kitchen with Sandy/gallery. By our current "let's keep every single frame of a different facial expression" rule, the gallery had to be kept like that. That guy added those images to satisfy his cringe urges, not to illustrate the episode's story. They're not serving any purpose other than cluttering the gallery up (plus making it uncomfortable to look at). There absolutely needs to be a limit, this is ridiculous. I agree that it would be a nice compromise to limit an 11-minute ep to ~50 images. A loose limit, though, not a hard rule, because there could very well be a few extra noteworthy scenes that go over 50.

        Loading editor
    • Demigod brendan wrote: Way back when the original gallery-merge proposal happened, some anonymous new user uploaded a heckin' ton of near-identical (and concerning) screengrabs of Sandy's shower scenes to Someone's in the Kitchen with Sandy/gallery. By our current "let's keep every single frame of a different facial expression" rule, the gallery had to be kept like that. That guy added those images to satisfy his cringe urges, not to illustrate the episode's story. They're not serving any purpose other than cluttering the gallery up (plus making it uncomfortable to look at). There absolutely needs to be a limit, this is ridiculous. I agree that it would be a nice compromise to limit an 11-minute ep to ~50 images. A loose limit, though, not a hard rule, because there could very well be a few extra noteworthy scenes that go over 50.

      Relax, that gallery hasn’t been reorganized yet.

        Loading editor
    • Also, might I add the reason we need several images is because of the excessive amount of characters and objects subgalleries requiring images of only those specific things. I even remember trying to complete all of the subgalleries in the Larry the Lobster/gallery back in 2014, since some Larry's appearances were only cameos/brief scenes in some of the episodes. We have DragonSpore18 to thank for creating the large amount of subgalleries for location/objects pages such as Gary's food bowl, Krusty Krab employee hat, and SpongeBob's bedroom which all seams like an attempt at trying to keep track of how many appearances those things have made throughout the series with photographic proof.

        Loading editor
    • No offense but I also agree that even the non-cringe, recently-reorganized galleries are too extensive. The images that were just uploaded from Captures to The Good Krabby Name/gallery get kinda repetitive. We don't need five shots of Mr. Krabs and the mailman in the crow's nest. Just one would do.

      Bad krabby name
        Loading editor
    • Jensonk wrote:
      Also, might I add the reason we need several images is because of the excessive amount of characters and objects subgalleries requiring images of only those specific things. I even remember trying to complete all of the subgalleries in the Larry the Lobster/gallery back in 2014, since some Larry's appearances were only cameos/brief scenes in some of the episodes. We have DragonSpore18 to thank for creating the large amount of subgalleries for location/objects pages such as Gary's food bowl, Krusty Krab employee hat, and SpongeBob's bedroom which all seams like an attempt at trying to keep track of how many appearances those things have made throughout the series with photographic proof.

      That brings up another issue: for minor objects like Gary's food bowl that usually only make a cameo in each appearance, why do we dedicate a whole subgallery to each appearance? Wouldn't it be better to have one gallery for the food bowl, with a gallery of scenes from each appearance, labeled with the episode title?

        Loading editor
    • I don't think we need large galleries at all. If you want a scene by scene play of the episode, just watch the episode. I know some people come to this wiki to find images from episodes, but I think that 10 second intervals like Boop mentioned is more than enough to find a picture from a specific scene. (Plus frame by frame images can still be found on the wiki, just outside episode galleries.)

        Loading editor
    • EatThatPie wrote: I disagree. I have had multiple expiriences where i need an exact photo where they are opening their mouth , have their arms up, are making a face expression, etc. No need to be removing images from Galleries unless they are extremely low quality or in the wrong place.

      What did you need these images for? Did you actually need them or did you want them?

      Jensonk wrote: Also, might I add the reason we need several images is because of the excessive amount of characters and objects subgalleries requiring images of only those specific things. I even remember trying to complete all of the subgalleries in the Larry the Lobster/gallery back in 2014, since some Larry's appearances were only cameos/brief scenes in some of the episodes. We have DragonSpore18 to thank for creating the large amount of subgalleries for location/objects pages such as Gary's food bowl, Krusty Krab employee hat, and SpongeBob's bedroom which all seams like an attempt at trying to keep track of how many appearances those things have made throughout the series with photographic proof.

      Same as the above question. Do we really "need" excessive amount of images?

        Loading editor
    • Demigod brendan wrote: No offense but I also agree that even the non-cringe, recently-reorganized galleries are too extensive. The images that were just uploaded from Captures to The Good Krabby Name/gallery get kinda repetitive. We don't need five shots of Mr. Krabs and the mailman in the crow's nest. Just one would do.

      Bad krabby name

      As the person who uploaded those images, let me defend them. They are all important.

      1. Mr. Krabs silences the mailman
      2. The mailman is confused
      3. Mr. Krabs offers him a Krabby Patty
      4. He eats it
      5. And then he pays for it
        Loading editor
    • Not to be rude, but I fail to see how most of those images are important enough to be in the gallery.

        Loading editor
    • TheKorraFanatic wrote: Not to be rude, but I fail to see how most of those images are important enough to be in the gallery.

      They tell you about the story and what happens.

        Loading editor
    • TheKorraFanatic wrote: Not to be rude, but I fail to see how most of those images are important enough to be in the gallery.

      Some people don't have cable, and can't watch the episode.

        Loading editor
    • I do not see reasons as to why the galleries should be reduced. I'm seeing people asking why they shouldn't be reduced and people claiming it will help some arbitrary number, which is not important to anyone except for FANDOM staff. I have yet to receive the complaint(s) that I requested and am wondering if there are any. Galleries are not about the importance of images. They are about showing images from the episode. It doesn't matter if there are more or fewer images. This isn't a problem because it doesn't matter. It certainly not nearly important enough to be #2 on 456's list of things to discuss. There are a lot more problems on this wiki than how many images are on a gallery page.

        Loading editor
    • Views06 wrote:

      TheKorraFanatic wrote: Not to be rude, but I fail to see how most of those images are important enough to be in the gallery.

      Some people don't have cable, and can't watch the episode.

      These galleries are not meant to be a replacement for the actual show though.

        Loading editor
    • TheKorraFanatic wrote: What did you need these images for? Did you actually need them or did you want them?

      Do we actually need to have a gallery limit? There's no harm being done by having long galleries. The lowest I could see as a limit for an 11 minute episode is 200, personally.

        Loading editor
    • In my opinion, the bigger problem is the poor chronology of the frames. For example, Welcome to the Bikini Bottom Triangle/gallery is certainly not yet ordered to the episode scene chronology, as shown by the fact that Mr Krabs got the special butler massages in the middle of the episode, not at the end as shown by the gallery; at the end of the episode we see the wise sailor guy cooking Krabby Patties in the Krusty Krab. Even if we compare to Grandpappy the Pirate/gallery, there is a heck of a lot of "redundant" images, but at least all the scenes there are in order of how they appeared in the episode.

        Loading editor
    • Well this sucks. Sing a Song of Patrick/gallery has both the problem of bad chronology and "redundant" images and overall scene incompleteness.

        Loading editor
    • Tbh, using these huge galleries are not only unnecessary, but they actually get into a legal grey area, which is why I think they should be removed.

      legality

      Fandom is licensed under CC by 3.0 (Creative Commons), basically meaning that you can share and use content from a copyright holder so long as you give the correct attribution and you do not apply measures that prevent others from using the content in the same way you can on the site. However, the SpongeBob SquarePants series is not licensed under this same law. According to the Universal Studios website, all uses of SpongeBob are copyrighted and are a trademark of Nickelodeon and Stephen Hillenburg. Basically speaking, Nickelodeon holds all rights to the content in SpongeBob. This makes things tricky, since Fandom and SpongeBob both have different copyright laws and uses. If we go by basic TV copyright laws, according to Quora;

      Video stills have the same copyright as their source material. Derivative works are generally not permitted without the permission of the copyright holder, except in the case of Fair Use.

      And fair use laws state that such uses of TV show photos and images can only be used for a transformative purpose, like educational purposes, criticisms, or parodies. Galleries do not do any of these things, despite being on an encyclopedic website. They do not enhance articles nor do they add anything. They are instead near-breaking copyright laws, as it uses more content from SpongeBob than it does for anything else, making it not considered transformative by under Fair use laws. While I would consider ESB galleries more of a grey area, it is still alarming the number of images as compared to actual content on the gallery sections.

      This also is the case with episode scripts, which may also be something you guys should look into.

      necessities

      The real question to be asked here - are all of these really needed? Many of these are just separate frames from the same scene, and for arguments that it is there for those who are unable to watch the episodes, they won't be able to get the gist of the episode just from those screenshots; they would need to be assisted with the scripts. Many of these gallery sections can be cut down to only a couple of images; if any.

      conclusion ?

      tl;dr: the galleries are in a legal grey area and they seem completely useless, from someone who has a reader standpoint and has not edited at all here, besides forums.

      i really hope this reply didn't go to waste, and someone actually learns something from it : p

        Loading editor
    • TheKorraFanatic wrote:

      Views06 wrote:

      TheKorraFanatic wrote: Not to be rude, but I fail to see how most of those images are important enough to be in the gallery.

      Some people don't have cable, and can't watch the episode.

      These galleries are not meant to be a replacement for the actual show though.

      Then what's the point of transcripts?

        Loading editor
    • EarthlingnAkumi wrote:
      Tbh, using these huge galleries are not only unnecessary, but they actually get into a legal grey area, which is why I think they should be removed.

      legality

      Fandom is licensed under CC by 3.0 (Creative Commons), basically meaning that you can share and use content from a copyright holder so long as you give the correct attribution and you do not apply measures that prevent others from using the content in the same way you can on the site. However, the SpongeBob SquarePants series is not licensed under this same law. According to the Universal Studios website, all uses of SpongeBob are copyrighted and are a trademark of Nickelodeon and Stephen Hillenburg. Basically speaking, Nickelodeon holds all rights to the content in SpongeBob. This makes things tricky, since Fandom and SpongeBob both have different copyright laws and uses. If we go by basic TV copyright laws, according to Quora;

      Video stills have the same copyright as their source material. Derivative works are generally not permitted without the permission of the copyright holder, except in the case of Fair Use.

      And fair use laws state that such uses of TV show photos and images can only be used for a transformative purpose, like educational purposes, criticisms, or parodies. Galleries do not do any of these things, despite being on an encyclopedic website. They do not enhance articles nor do they add anything. They are instead near-breaking copyright laws, as it uses more content from SpongeBob than it does for anything else, making it not considered transformative by under Fair use laws. While I would consider ESB galleries more of a grey area, it is still alarming the number of images as compared to actual content on the gallery sections.

      This also is the case with episode scripts, which may also be something you guys should look into.

      necessities

      The real question to be asked here - are all of these really needed? Many of these are just separate frames from the same scene, and for arguments that it is there for those who are unable to watch the episodes, they won't be able to get the gist of the episode just from those screenshots; they would need to be assisted with the scripts. Many of these gallery sections can be cut down to only a couple of images; if any.

      conclusion ?

      tl;dr: the galleries are in a legal grey area and they seem completely useless, from someone who has a reader standpoint and has not edited at all here, besides forums.

      i really hope this reply didn't go to waste, and someone actually learns something from it : p

      Might I add that some of the videos on this wiki are allowed because they were posted on SpongeBob SquarePants Official and Nickelodeon which are both official YouTube channels run by people at Viacom and Nickelodeon Animation Studio.

        Loading editor
    • Figmeister wrote:

      TheKorraFanatic wrote: What did you need these images for? Did you actually need them or did you want them?

      Do we actually need to have a gallery limit? There's no harm being done by having long galleries. The lowest I could see as a limit for an 11 minute episode is 200, personally.

      There are so many reasons for needing a gallery image limit.

      • It would make galleries much easier to organize and maintain.
      • Having a smaller, but more organized, gallery that gets the point of the episode across allows users to refresh upon certain episodes or revisit certain moments without fully replacing watching the episode.
      • It would create a better experience for mobile users (and users in general) if the galleries were not a flood of excessive images. Imagine this: You're using a mobile device and you wanted to look at a certain SpongeBob image. Would you want to be flooded with a highly excessive amount of images on a tiny screen and scroll for ages just to see that image?
      • Per EarthlingnAkumi, the galleries are currently in a legal area and the wiki could eventually get hit by a DMCA notice from Viacom or other services.

      Views06 wrote: Then what's the point of transcripts?

      Very good question. While I know a lot of work has been put into them, I personally don't believe we should have episode transcripts. We're a SpongeBob SquarePants wiki, we should not be trying to fully replace actually watching the episode.

        Loading editor
    • By reading a transcript you don't get the full experience of an episode, I agree that we should cut down on the images on galleries.

        Loading editor
    • Jensonk wrote:

      EarthlingnAkumi wrote:
      Tbh, using these huge galleries are not only unnecessary, but they actually get into a legal grey area, which is why I think they should be removed.

      legality

      Fandom is licensed under CC by 3.0 (Creative Commons), basically meaning that you can share and use content from a copyright holder so long as you give the correct attribution and you do not apply measures that prevent others from using the content in the same way you can on the site. However, the SpongeBob SquarePants series is not licensed under this same law. According to the Universal Studios website, all uses of SpongeBob are copyrighted and are a trademark of Nickelodeon and Stephen Hillenburg. Basically speaking, Nickelodeon holds all rights to the content in SpongeBob. This makes things tricky, since Fandom and SpongeBob both have different copyright laws and uses. If we go by basic TV copyright laws, according to Quora;

      Video stills have the same copyright as their source material. Derivative works are generally not permitted without the permission of the copyright holder, except in the case of Fair Use.

      And fair use laws state that such uses of TV show photos and images can only be used for a transformative purpose, like educational purposes, criticisms, or parodies. Galleries do not do any of these things, despite being on an encyclopedic website. They do not enhance articles nor do they add anything. They are instead near-breaking copyright laws, as it uses more content from SpongeBob than it does for anything else, making it not considered transformative by under Fair use laws. While I would consider ESB galleries more of a grey area, it is still alarming the number of images as compared to actual content on the gallery sections.

      This also is the case with episode scripts, which may also be something you guys should look into.

      necessities

      The real question to be asked here - are all of these really needed? Many of these are just separate frames from the same scene, and for arguments that it is there for those who are unable to watch the episodes, they won't be able to get the gist of the episode just from those screenshots; they would need to be assisted with the scripts. Many of these gallery sections can be cut down to only a couple of images; if any.

      conclusion ?

      tl;dr: the galleries are in a legal grey area and they seem completely useless, from someone who has a reader standpoint and has not edited at all here, besides forums.

      i really hope this reply didn't go to waste, and someone actually learns something from it : p

      Might I add that some of the videos on this wiki are allowed because they were posted on SpongeBob SquarePants Official and Nickelodeon which are both official YouTube channels run by people at Viacom and Nickelodeon Animation Studio.

      I'm not saying we shouldn't have photos or videos at all - these enhance the reader's understanding and reading. However, when the wiki has had a ton of DMCA takedowns, it becomes a huge problem.

      Edit: Also just thought about this; while yes they are uploaded to YouTube this does not make them automatically in the public domain. The companies are allowed to upload to YouTube at their own discretion, this does not change the copyright system or give users a pass just because it is on YouTube.

        Loading editor
    • TheKorraFanatic wrote:

      Figmeister wrote:


      TheKorraFanatic wrote: What did you need these images for? Did you actually need them or did you want them?

      Do we actually need to have a gallery limit? There's no harm being done by having long galleries. The lowest I could see as a limit for an 11 minute episode is 200, personally.
      There are so many reasons for needing a gallery image limit.
      • It would make galleries much easier to organize and maintain.
      • Having a smaller, but more organized, gallery that gets the point of the episode across allows users to refresh upon certain episodes or revisit certain moments without fully replacing watching the episode.
      • It would create a better experience for mobile users (and users in general) if the galleries were not a flood of excessive images. Imagine this: You're using a mobile device and you wanted to look at a certain SpongeBob image. Would you want to be flooded with a highly excessive amount of images on a tiny screen and scroll for ages just to see that image?
      • Per EarthlingnAkumi, the galleries are currently in a legal area and the wiki could eventually get hit by a DMCA notice from Viacom or other services.



      Views06 wrote: Then what's the point of transcripts?

      Very good question. While I know a lot of work has been put into them, I personally don't believe we should have episode transcripts. We're a SpongeBob SquarePants wiki, we should not be trying to fully replace actually watching the episode.

      You want there to be a gallery limit, but you are the same person who voted oppose on this proposal claiming that protecting galleries (or pages in general) due to being "complete" goes against the idea of a wiki, which is supposed to be an informational source that anyone is free to edit and is never considered "complete" or finished. By that logic, we may as well just add every frame from the episodes to the galleries until we've run out of missing frames (which does include pictures of a character making a slight movement like their arms going up and down or whatever). Forcing a gallery limit means you might as well protect all of the gallery pages just to prevent users from sneaking in any unwanted/unneeded images (especially when it comes to trolls and spammers that I've been dealing with on this wiki for the past 5 years now). You said you want a gallery limit, but claim that galleries cannot truly be considered complete. Can you make up your mind, please. My gosh, this thread is full of contradictions.

        Loading editor
    • Let's start initially imposing a 200-image limit per 11-minutes worth of episode. We cannot simply go straight to a very harsh screenshot quantity restriction, but we can start off with at least a slightly relaxed screenshot-quantitative restriction. Once all 400+ main episode galleries fit into the said criteria with decent gallery organization (chronologically ordered, value-efficient quality screenshots that depict every significant aspect of an episode), then we can cut down the quantity of screenshots even more, until we get to a quantity that satisfies both Fair Use and Fanbase Coverage.

        Loading editor
    • Jensonk wrote:

      ...

      You want there to be a gallery limit, but you are the same person who voted oppose on this proposal claiming that protecting galleries (or pages in general) due to being "complete" goes against the idea of a wiki, which is supposed to be an informational source that anyone is free to edit and is never considered "complete" or finished. By that logic, we may as well just add every frame from the episodes to the galleries until we've run out of missing frames (which does include pictures of a character making a slight movement like their arms going up and down or whatever). Forcing a gallery limit means you might as well protect all of the gallery pages just to prevent users from sneaking in any unwanted/unneeded images (especially when it comes to trolls and spammers that I've dealing with on this wiki for the past 5 years now). You said you want a gallery limit, but claim that galleries cannot truely be considered complete. Can you make up your mind, please. My gosh, this thread is full of contradictions.

      Umm... what does not wanting protecting galleries have to do with wanting a gallery limit? If you read what Korra said carefully, you'll notice he explicitly stated "Protecting galleries...goes against the idea of a wiki, which is supposed to be an informational source that anyone is free to edit and is never considered "complete" or finished." What he means by this is that you shouldn't protect galleries because no project on the wiki is never considered "complete". This applies to galleries as well, anyone should be free to add or remove what they think is necessary.

        Loading editor
    • Per Akumi. You can support having limitations on pages and also disapprove of protecting said pages on the basis of allowing everyone to edit them. I do not see how that contradicts anything.

        Loading editor
    • Qwertyxp2000 the second wrote: Let's start initially imposing a 200-image limit per 11-minutes worth of episode. We cannot simply go straight to a very harsh screenshot quantity restriction, but we can start off with at least a slightly relaxed screenshot-quantitative restriction. Once all 400+ main episode galleries fit into the said criteria with decent gallery organization (chronologically ordered, value-efficient quality screenshots that depict every significant aspect of an episode), then we can cut down the quantity of screenshots even more, until we get to a quantity that satisfies both Fair Use and Fanbase Coverage.

      That sounds like a good idea to me.

        Loading editor
    • I agree, it's a good start.

        Loading editor
    • Let's start off with Help Wanted/gallery. Reviewing on the overall quality of the gallery, the following Qwertyxp2000 Gallery Criteria have been met, in the order of priority from 1 to the final number:

      1. All Significant Scenes Present ✓
      2. Chronological order ✓
      3. No Redundant Scenes ✘
      4. Balanced Gallery Size (connected to Priority 3) ✘
      5. All Acceptable Quality Images ✘
      6. Naming scheme ✘

      Essentially, the gallery possesses all significant scenes of the episode, the gallery is ordered pretty well in the chronology of each scene, but there are many redundant scenes that are causing imbalanced gallery size, some screenshots have watermarks on them, and the naming scheme (lowest priority) is not yet done. Here are some parts on the gallery where I feel require cleanup on "redundant" screenshots or poor quality screenshots (I have highlighted what I definitely would remove and possibly may remove or otherwise needs replacement):

        Loading editor
    • I do not claim to be a lawyer, a representative of Wikia Inc, or SpongeBob SquarePants, but I do believe that we are acting too swiftly because of a single what if scenario. One of the main arguments I'm seeing is the fact that it's "borderline piracy" and "in a grey area," but doesn't that mean that it just has the potential to be a problem instead of it being an actual problem? SpongeBob SquarePants producers have acknowledged ESB's existence in the past without mentioning any of that, and neither have Fandom Staff, although Fandom Staff have made decisions that affect galleries in the past. Why are we going to reduce galleries because of a what-if situation?

      It's worth pointing out that I'm not saying this isn't piracy, only the fact that we haven't had a single problem in that regard so far. If a staff member is invited to ESB and does agree that it needs to be dealt with, then I will change my opinion. I'm not trying to take sides, only trying to point out that we don't have proof of this being such a big problem.

      Secondly, some people have said that they don't think we need images in their opinion. However, is that to say that a thriving website that has been around for over a decade should begin to impose guidelines on something else that has been around for just as long just because of someone's opinion? Absolutely not. I don't think there's enough facts in regards to this topic for anyone to even properly take a stance. Just like what 120d has stated, there hasn't been any drive for this decision to suddenly manifest itself as a serious legal issue. It just feels like it's a major decision that was proposed for no urgent reason, as per the reasons I stated above about legal issues.

      That's a problem I see with a lot of these major decisions. People say that they have proof and statistics, but that's rarely ever shown. The fact that we are questioning that should be a good thing, because it means that there isn't the risk of the community being misguided by, say, a troll in the future who claims to be staff.

      In a nutshell: There isn't enough evidence about legal issues or statistics in general, but there are a lot of opinions that count as "facts," even when they shouldn't.

      Edit: I was just notified that there have been DMCA requests sent to this wiki, in which multiple gallery images were deleted. However, I think that that is evidence that the galleries are fine, and not the other way around. We are obeying the corporations when they are giving legal orders to staff, and we aren't fighting against that decision. If the rest of the galleries aren't prompting more DMCA requests being sent, does that not mean that they are clean? If we know that Viacom and such are taking action, doesn't that mean that the galleries and images that they haven't taken action on have no legal issues?

      In addition to that, how can a legal issue be in a grey area? It's either at risk of being a legal problem (in which a DMCA request would be sent, and it would be fine) or it isn't a problem, but has the potential to be one. If that happens, a DMCA request would be sent, and it would be fine). Of course, having DMCA requests being sent all the time would really not look good for ESB, but so far we haven't hit that point, considering most of the users here don't know anything about that. Just like 120d said, there's a very small number of users on ESB who really think that this is a critical issue.

        Loading editor
    • Alex.sapre wrote:
      I do not claim to be a lawyer, a representative of Wikia Inc, or SpongeBob SquarePants, but I do believe that we are acting too swiftly because of a single what if scenario. One of the main arguments I'm seeing is the fact that it's "borderline piracy" and "in a grey area," but doesn't that mean that it just has the potential to be a problem instead of it being an actual problem? SpongeBob SquarePants producers have acknowledged ESB's existence in the past without mentioning any of that, and neither have Fandom Staff, although Fandom Staff have made decisions that affect galleries in the past. Why are we going to reduce galleries because of a what-if situation?

      It's worth pointing out that I'm not saying this isn't piracy, only the fact that we haven't had a single problem in that regard so far. If a staff member is invited to ESB and does agree that it needs to be dealt with, then I will change my opinion. I'm not trying to take sides, only trying to point out that we don't have proof of this being such a big problem.

      Secondly, some people have said that they don't think we need images in their opinion. However, is that to say that a thriving website that has been around for over a decade should begin to impose guidelines on something else that has been around for just as long just because of someone's opinion? Absolutely not. I don't think there's enough facts in regards to this topic for anyone to even properly take a stance. Just like what 120d has stated, there hasn't been any drive for this decision to suddenly manifest itself as a serious legal issue. It just feels like it's a major decision that was proposed for no urgent reason, as per the reasons I stated above about legal issues.

      That's a problem I see with a lot of these major decisions. People say that they have proof and statistics, but that's rarely ever shown. The fact that we are questioning that should be a good thing, because it means that there isn't the risk of the community being misguided by, say, a troll in the future who claims to be staff.

      In a nutshell: There isn't enough evidence about legal issues or statistics in general, but there are a lot of opinions that count as "facts," even when they shouldn't.

      Edit: I was just notified that there have been DMCA requests sent to this wiki, in which multiple gallery images were deleted. However, I think that that is evidence that the galleries are fine, and not the other way around. We are obeying the corporations when they are giving legal orders to staff, and we aren't fighting against that decision. If the rest of the galleries aren't prompting more DMCA requests being sent, does that not mean that they are clean? If we know that Viacom and such are taking action, doesn't that mean that the galleries and images that they haven't taken action on have no legal issues?

      In addition to that, how can a legal issue be in a grey area? It's either at risk of being a legal problem (in which a DMCA request would be sent, and it would be fine) or it isn't a problem, but has the potential to be one. If that happens, a DMCA request would be sent, and it would be fine). Of course, having DMCA requests being sent all the time would really not look good for ESB, but so far we haven't hit that point, considering most of the users here don't know anything about that. Just like 120d said, there's a very small number of users on ESB who really think that this is a critical issue.

      An example is how on July 14, 2015, Sherm Cohen went ahead and created a Wikia account and joined this wiki.

        Loading editor
    • Ok. I am totally confused. Partically this: let's start off with Help Wanted/gallery. Reviewing on the overall quality of the gallery, the following Qwertyxp2000 Gallery Criteria have been met, in the order of priority from 1 to the final number:

      1. All Significant Scenes Present ✓
      2. Chronological order ✓
      3. No Redundant Scenes ✘
      4. Balanced Gallery Size (connected to Priority 3) ✘
      5. All Acceptable Quality Images ✘
      6. Naming scheme ✘

      Essentially, the gallery possesses all significant scenes of the episode, the gallery is ordered pretty well in the chronology of each scene, but there are many redundant scenes that are causing imbalanced gallery size, some screenshots have watermarks on them, and the naming scheme (lowest priority) is not yet done. Here are some parts on the gallery where I feel require cleanup on "redundant" screenshots or poor quality screenshots (I have highlighted what I definitely would remove and possibly may remove or otherwise needs replacement.



      How can I help? What should I do?

        Loading editor
    • Neutral on this. Seems quite unnecessary. I am supportive of using plain common sense when it comes to an image, but I oppose the amount reduced in SpongeBob456's test article and what he suggested. Narrowing a 200 image gallery into a 50 image gallery is plain ridiculous. Removing 500 images from a movie article is absurd. Adding a restriction is just preposterous. No need, really. We use common sense. Duplicated images should get removed. Low quality images, remove. Unnecessary images (like a carbon copy of SpongeBob Captures (e.g. 600 images for an episode)) should be reduced (such as an image for each second which can introduce duplicates quite easily.) A prolific amount is 200 which works well and seems to match most episodes. That's all I'll say for now.

      Is the amount of images too much? Most galleries have between 200-300 images. Considering the potential copyright issue, why does the SpongeBob Captures website, which gets 10,000-15,000 views a day per AMK, and appears on the face of this, and every other SpongeBobia wiki, not get any issues with Viacom for the past five years?

      Like I said, we can exert some common sense here and remove images that clearly aren't needed, like we currently do. But I'm not going to advocate for an unnecessary policy as in most scenarios, the gallery works fine. There's no evidence that the galleries are illegal and shall be removed. Per Alex, the DMCA Requests are not major enough that we need to assess the images and decrease them drastically. I veto the restriction, especially SpongeBob456's suggestion and his test gallery example. Removing a given number of bytes (of perfectly good, valid images of course) is basically removing perfectly good content. Yes, per above, there is also no urgency for this and there is also no real need to make this change, is there? Trying to explore the lowest amount of images a gallery can possibly have before we start having complaints that we can't find the image we are looking for? Especially as the suggested guideline is quite stringent.

        Loading editor
    • Let's think about this critically and not what our corporate masters are telling us to think about it.

      This is a conversation, not an actual voting or amending of anything to the wiki. It would be a shame if these passive comments suddenly gained momentum and changed how the wiki functions, simply because that's what happened on the games thread.

      I had intended on leaving this site because things have just grown stale, but of course, we have to bring up more things that do not matter for reasons unknown. I ask a question, and I get a politicians response that dodges the question and does not address my concerns in a constructive or positive manner.

      Imposing an images limit does what? It doesn't help any of the challenges that are being created for this thread. Literally there aren't any issues with the number of images. If this violated copyright under US law, you'd know about it. You've seen YouTube videos where anything that has too much content is blocked immediately by Viacom. If there were a problem with the number of STILL images, the problem would be addressed from the copyright and patent offices of the US Government and maybe by Staff just so they could look cool.

      Now I know you love to create these kinds of threads because it's only you that wants to implement these changes for *gasp* SEO. I can tell math is not your strong set, so let's break this down. You have the nerve, someone that does not do any work related to the galleries or upload any important images to try and impose a limit? Really? You think 171 is bad? Please visit SpongeBuddy Mania to know what a lot of images is: https://www.sbmania.net/pictures.php?id=121a That link is for Sand Castles in the Sand. There are 528 images. Not frame by frame, but a lot of redundant motion (especially seasons 5-8 with much less fluid dynamic motion). They haven't been addressed by the Department of Justice yet. And we think that a few extra images is a problem? For God's sake.

      Now, I haven't called you out by name yet, Spongebob456 (oop there it is), but in the words of Michael Jordon. Stop it. Get some help. You're not good at answering questions. You're not good with coming up with ideas. You're not really good for anything except, I dunno, just being there to create threads to fix problems your mind creates and then impose your ideological deficiency upon the rest of us on the wiki. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. You're trying to put a girdle on the images and they become underdeveloped and less attractive as a result. Wouldn't you want a more complete wiki with all the images to draw in more viewers and readers?

        Loading editor
    • I have to make a significant correction. The wiki's use of these images does not break the law (at least not the laws in America). ESB and FANDOM as a whole are protected under fair use laws. The fair use laws say that ESB can use the images because it is an encyclopedia, which falls under its jurisdiction. This is supported by the fact that no one here claims that they made the image or that they own the image. Everyone here knows that Nickelodeon owns the episodes as a whole. Any legal issues would come from the source of an image. If the image comes from a YouTube video of someone filming their TV for an entire episode or from an unlicensed streaming service, then it would be piracy. Otherwise, legitimate sources like DVDs and digital downloads are protected under the fair use laws. If any images on this wiki have been removed or requested to be removed via Nickelodeon or Viacom, they were done so wrongfully.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:
      I have to make a significant correction. The wiki's use of these images does not break the law (at least not the laws in America). ESB and FANDOM as a whole are protected under fair use laws. The fair use laws say that ESB can use the images because it is an encyclopedia, which falls under its jurisdiction. This is supported by the fact that no one here claims that they made the image or that they own the image. Everyone here knows that Nickelodeon owns the episodes as a whole. Any legal issues would come from the source of an image. If the image comes from a YouTube video of someone filming their TV for an entire episode or from an unlicensed streaming service, then it would be piracy. Otherwise, legitimate sources like DVDs and digital downloads are protected under the fair use laws. If any images on this wiki have been removed or requested to be removed via Nickelodeon or Viacom, they were done so wrongfully.

      This is exactly the kind of breakdown I needed. There is a good legit reason Paramount Home Media has been releasing official SpongeBob DVDs for the past 16 years.

        Loading editor
    • This seems like the perfect decision. I'm tired of having to search through a gallery several thousand strong to find the one picture I need.

        Loading editor
    • What if instead of just deleting some of the images we delete…

      the whole wiki? Ah, yes, I think that would solve our imaginary image problem then. As well as our imaginary copyright and SEO problems and every other problem that does or does not exist.

        Loading editor
    • No Tan.

      How about we just try to implement my suggestion of the 200-image gallery limits on 400+ main episode galleries to reduce the potential piracy grey area?

        Loading editor
    • I agree with the 200-image limit, since that's a reasonable number. We still need to re-do and organize a lot of galleries, though, so I'd like to hold off on adding a limit until we get a majority of them done.

        Loading editor
    • Qwertyxp2000 the second wrote: No Tan.

      How about we just try to implement my suggestion of the 200-image gallery limits on 400+ main episode galleries to reduce the potential piracy grey area?

      There is no piracy gray area. The images on this wiki are not violating any American copyright laws.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:

      Qwertyxp2000 the second wrote: No Tan.

      How about we just try to implement my suggestion of the 200-image gallery limits on 400+ main episode galleries to reduce the potential piracy grey area?

      There is no piracy gray area. The images on this wiki are not violating any American copyright laws.

      Oh, I forgot. I should've read above at above messages.

      Actually, the 200-image gallery limits for the 400+ main episode galleries is intended to improve conciseness efficiency.

        Loading editor
    • There is no need for conciseness or efficiency. There is no need for a limit. There is just no demand, except for people who are looking out for FANDOM company and not for the actual demands of the people using the site.

        Loading editor
    • I’m completely undecided here.

        Loading editor
    • Hey folks, so I have some evidence here for this change. Take a read of the content and see what you think, thanks.

        Loading editor
    • Spongebob456 wrote: He folks, so I have some evidence here for this change. Take a read of the content and see what you think, thanks.

      I think we follow these guidelines pretty well. As it said in the conclusion, too few and it limits memorability. Too many and it confuses people. We have to find that balance, so 50 is not a good number as that is definitely too few. And SpongeBuddy Mania with 500+ is too many, so we need a range of images rather than a strict number, imo

        Loading editor
    • Qwertyxp2000 the second wrote: No Tan.

      How about we just try to implement my suggestion of the 200-image gallery limits on 400+ main episode galleries to reduce the potential piracy grey area?

      As for piracy grey area, there is no grey area. It either is piracy or it is not piracy. And again, a strict number of images limits creative capacity and what we are able to showcase. Especially with episodes like Feral Friends or Squirrel Jelly that are 15 minutes long

        Loading editor
    • Alex.sapre wrote: ... One of the main arguments I'm seeing is the fact that it's "borderline piracy" and "in a grey area," but doesn't that mean that it just has the potential to be a problem instead of it being an actual problem? SpongeBob SquarePants producers have acknowledged ESB's existence in the past without mentioning any of that, and neither have Fandom Staff, although Fandom Staff have made decisions that affect galleries in the past. ...

      You're completely right - staff nor the creators of SpongeBob have said anything about it. However, this does not make it right for ESB to do.

      Let's say someone walks into a bar using an ID that is not theirs. The ID holder is okay with it, and so is the bartender. But if the police found out, that person would still get in trouble, because it is still violating the law. Just because both parties are okay with it, this does not make it right.

      Alex.sapre wrote: ... how can a legal issue be in a grey area? It's either at risk of being a legal problem (in which a DMCA request would be sent, and it would be fine) or it isn't a problem, but has the potential to be one. If that happens, a DMCA request would be sent, and it would be fine). ...

      It's very complex. Currently, there is no problem, and I understand that with no problem, you don't want to do anything about it because the community is currently content. However, wouldn't you rather prevent an issue before it arises, so it doesn't become more of a problem?

      Tanhamman wrote: ... If this violated copyright under US law, you'd know about it. You've seen YouTube videos where anything that has too much content is blocked immediately by Viacom. If there were a problem with the number of STILL images, the problem would be addressed from the copyright and patent offices of the US Government and maybe by Staff just so they could look cool. ...

      YouTube and Fandom are basically two different worlds imo. On YouTube, the copyright system is often much more easier to go through, and that process is automatic. You can test that out by uploading unlisted footage of SpongeBob - I did that once and it got immediately copyright claimed by Viacom, despite being unlisted. It is an automated process.

      Whereas here, Viacom has to manually check through all images on the site to copyright claim them. No company wants to do that. Nor does the US Government or Staff. They only reply or refer to these kinds of issues if they are drawn to their attention because they have better things to do than look through galleries full of hundreds of useless images all day :)

      Tanhamman wrote: ... Now, I haven't called you out by name yet, Spongebob456 (oop there it is), but in the words of Michael Jordon. Stop it. Get some help. You're not good at answering questions. You're not good with coming up with ideas. You're not really good for anything except, I dunno, just being there to create threads to fix problems your mind creates and then impose your ideological deficiency upon the rest of us on the wiki. ...

      ???? Seriously? Saying things like this makes your replies look childish and as a result, makes me not want to take anything you say seriously.

      120d wrote: I have to make a significant correction. The wiki's use of these images does not break the law (at least not the laws in America). ESB and FANDOM as a whole are protected under fair use laws. The fair use laws say that ESB can use the images because it is an encyclopedia, which falls under its jurisdiction. This is supported by the fact that no one here claims that they made the image or that they own the image. Everyone here knows that Nickelodeon owns the episodes as a whole. Any legal issues would come from the source of an image. If the image comes from a YouTube video of someone filming their TV for an entire episode or from an unlicensed streaming service, then it would be piracy. Otherwise, legitimate sources like DVDs and digital downloads are protected under the fair use laws. If any images on this wiki have been removed or requested to be removed via Nickelodeon or Viacom, they were done so wrongfully.

      I have to disagree here. These galleries are not protected under fair use because they are not transformative.

      Let's take two galleries as an example - Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy and Help Wanted.

      Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy has 553 bytes in images and 10,668 bytes in actual content. This is a good ratio because it has more original wiki content as it does images. (Imo, the actual image count on that page is low. However, my point here is more about the ratio of images to content.) On Help Wanted, there are 4,012 bytes in images and 72 bytes in actual content. If anything, this is way too low to be fair use. There is barely any actual content in galleries like these.

      120d wrote: There is no need for conciseness or efficiency. There is no need for a limit. There is just no demand, except for people who are looking out for FANDOM company and not for the actual demands of the people using the site.

      I am sorry to say this, but the "actual demands" of the people using the site are unwillingness to change. I say this with upmost respect for ESB, but its community and some of their moderation team want ESB to be in, as I call it, the "stone ages" and any other type of change is met with negative reactions every time. This mindset, frankly, does not help ESB in the long run nor does it make new users want to join your community.


      Sorry if any parts of this reply are messy, a lot of this had to be retyped and revised because I kept accidentally overwriting my replies with the quote feature... :(

        Loading editor
    • Tanhamman wrote:

      Spongebob456 wrote: He folks, so I have some evidence here for this change. Take a read of the content and see what you think, thanks.

      I think we follow these guidelines pretty well. As it said in the conclusion, too few and it limits memorability. Too many and it confuses people. We have to find that balance, so 50 is not a good number as that is definitely too few. And SpongeBuddy Mania with 500+ is too many, so we need a range of images rather than a strict number, imo

      Hey, ok thanks, that's a start. At least we've said some kind of guideline is needed. Here's an interesting point from the evidence:

      "Regarding pages that are nothing but galleries of images, there are things that we can learn from e-commerce sites about how good images can be presented. The key lessons are that those pages can be effective if the images are sufficiently distinct, have good organization and clear captions for context, and have limits on how many images are presented at a single time (to avoid clutter)."

      I think that definitely suggests we need to be removing images on here that look too similar to one another. The evidence justifies making changes like this for example:

      GalleryEdit1

      "Not all images improve the reader's experience. Some of them just take up space or, in the worst case, confuse the user with noise. Cluttering a page overloads a reader with too much information — every added image and line of text makes the screen more complicated, compounded on mobile devices with smaller views and bandwidth."

      This is an important point too. Having 100s of images on a page isn't going to do mobile viewers any favours with endless scrolling to reach an image they want. Same on desktop too being honest. It also suggests that if you complicate the page, you reduce the quality of the reading experience. That of course means users are less likely to return to the wiki or to those articles. That's surely something we need to remedy.

        Loading editor
    • EarthlingnAkumi wrote:

      Alex.sapre wrote: ... One of the main arguments I'm seeing is the fact that it's "borderline piracy" and "in a grey area," but doesn't that mean that it just has the potential to be a problem instead of it being an actual problem? SpongeBob SquarePants producers have acknowledged ESB's existence in the past without mentioning any of that, and neither have Fandom Staff, although Fandom Staff have made decisions that affect galleries in the past. ...

      You're completely right - staff nor the creators of SpongeBob have said anything about it. However, this does not make it right for ESB to do.

      Let's say someone walks into a bar using an ID that is not theirs. The ID holder is okay with it, and so is the bartender. But if the police found out, that person would still get in trouble, because it is still violating the law. Just because both parties are okay with it, this does not make it right.

      Alex.sapre wrote: ... how can a legal issue be in a grey area? It's either at risk of being a legal problem (in which a DMCA request would be sent, and it would be fine) or it isn't a problem, but has the potential to be one. If that happens, a DMCA request would be sent, and it would be fine). ...

      It's very complex. Currently, there is no problem, and I understand that with no problem, you don't want to do anything about it because the community is currently content. However, wouldn't you rather prevent an issue before it arises, so it doesn't become more of a problem?

      1. That analogy does not hold up, because, in this context, Fandom Staff are Viacom producers are the police. Copyright law on Fandom isn't enforced by the police departments in North America. It is enforced by staff. The bartender would be the local staff on this wiki. However, for the reasons I have stated, both Fandom Staff and Viacom are okay with the rest of the wiki. If they weren't okay with it, they would sent more DMCA requests (as they have already done so, why wouldn't they send another one?).

      2. It is not about what I want to do about the situation, but whether or not I think there is an urgent need to act on it. I think that the problem has been inflated and blown out of proportion, hence my message. As multiple people have said, the general consensus is that we are doing pretty well with the gallery limits so far, and there isn't any evidence to suggest that there will be a major copyright issue anytime soon, so why impose a very strict guideline based on a what-if situation?

      3. I must disagree with your statement about ESB and its unwillingness to change. Even if there is opposition on this thread, for the most part, it is done respectfully. This thread hasn't even had any major issues with moderation. Also, we are not a community who wants to remain in the "Stone ages," as you called it, for multiple reasons. First, we have Discussions alongside Forums, and both are used relatively frequently. Discussions are a product that hasn't even been completely finished yet. Secondly, we have had a major proposal regarding forum games, which Sb456 even said had a very successful discussion. Third, the community is actively discussing new changes and we have had major proposals pass in the past, as you will see if you look at ESB:Proposals. I believe it is wrong to make the statement that we are hurting our community because the general consensus disagrees with a decision you support (actually, according to statistics, our viewership has gone up in the past following us passing proposals that Fandom Staff have suggested).

        Loading editor
    • As I said before, I'm willing to accept a 200 image limit. Other than that, though, I still don't see any real reason to enforce anything on galleries. It seems like we're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

        Loading editor
    • It is worth stressing that just because they haven't pulled us up on it now, it doesn't mean they won't in future. Just look at YouTube. Fresh copyright strikes are happening all the time with new guidelines etc.

      So if there is no need to urgently solve a problem, does that mean we should always leave it until the last minute? General consensus may be that we're fine at the moment but don't forgot we're accounting for the hundreds of thousands of readers. They take precedent.

      There is definitely an unwillingness to change from certain community members I'm afraid. Yes statistics have shown views have gone up since PIs (which is great) but there is more improvement to be had.

        Loading editor
    • Figmeister wrote: As I said before, I'm willing to accept a 200 image limit. Other than that, though, I still don't see any real reason to enforce anything on galleries. It seems like we're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

      Hey, please take a look at:

      Hey folks, so I have some evidence here for this change. Take a read of the content and see what you think, thanks.

        Loading editor
    • Spongebob456 wrote:

      Tanhamman wrote:

      Spongebob456 wrote: He folks, so I have some evidence here for this change. Take a read of the content and see what you think, thanks.

      I think we follow these guidelines pretty well. As it said in the conclusion, too few and it limits memorability. Too many and it confuses people. We have to find that balance, so 50 is not a good number as that is definitely too few. And SpongeBuddy Mania with 500+ is too many, so we need a range of images rather than a strict number, imo
      Hey, ok thanks, that's a start. At least we've said some kind of guideline is needed. Here's an interesting point from the evidence:

      "Regarding pages that are nothing but galleries of images, there are things that we can learn from e-commerce sites about how good images can be presented. The key lessons are that those pages can be effective if the images are sufficiently distinct, have good organization and clear captions for context, and have limits on how many images are presented at a single time (to avoid clutter)."

      I think that definitely suggests we need to be removing images on here that look too similar to one another. The evidence justifies making changes like this for example:

      GalleryEdit1

      "Not all images improve the reader's experience. Some of them just take up space or, in the worst case, confuse the user with noise. Cluttering a page overloads a reader with too much information — every added image and line of text makes the screen more complicated, compounded on mobile devices with smaller views and bandwidth."

      This is an important point too. Having 100s of images on a page isn't going to do mobile viewers any favours with endless scrolling to reach an image they want. Same on desktop too being honest. It also suggests that if you complicate the page, you reduce the quality of the reading experience. That of course means users are less likely to return to the wiki or to those articles. That's surely something we need to remedy.

      Those images that you listed as an example show differences in the characters' facial expressions, and are therefore a vital part of telling the story in that way. While images that are strictly duplicates of another should be removed, there is no reason to remove images like that if they're not. The point of this website is to create an encyclopedia about SpongeBob. If there is a lack of information or "noise" on a website that calls itself an encyclopedia, then a terrible encyclopedia it is. Even if removing images would make it lightly easier for the odd visitor (if they're lucky to find that the image they want hasn't been culled), this will make it significantly harder for editors (the people who actually improve this site) and would reduce the amount of information significantly. Any visitor to this wiki is looking for information, and by not having the information that they want, we are discouraging return visitors, reducing the amount of ad revenue for FANDOM, which is obviously what you are seeking to improve given your mentioning of nigh redundant statistics such as SEO that you mentioned here and in other places. Why would someone who just wants to be a contrubutor care about that at all? If you are not begging to be employed by FANDOM then what you are trying to do is very odd indeed...

        Loading editor
    • The gamer 987654321 wrote:

      Spongebob456 wrote:

      Tanhamman wrote:

      Spongebob456 wrote: He folks, so I have some evidence here for this change. Take a read of the content and see what you think, thanks.

      I think we follow these guidelines pretty well. As it said in the conclusion, too few and it limits memorability. Too many and it confuses people. We have to find that balance, so 50 is not a good number as that is definitely too few. And SpongeBuddy Mania with 500+ is too many, so we need a range of images rather than a strict number, imo
      Hey, ok thanks, that's a start. At least we've said some kind of guideline is needed. Here's an interesting point from the evidence:

      "Regarding pages that are nothing but galleries of images, there are things that we can learn from e-commerce sites about how good images can be presented. The key lessons are that those pages can be effective if the images are sufficiently distinct, have good organization and clear captions for context, and have limits on how many images are presented at a single time (to avoid clutter)."

      I think that definitely suggests we need to be removing images on here that look too similar to one another. The evidence justifies making changes like this for example:

      GalleryEdit1

      "Not all images improve the reader's experience. Some of them just take up space or, in the worst case, confuse the user with noise. Cluttering a page overloads a reader with too much information — every added image and line of text makes the screen more complicated, compounded on mobile devices with smaller views and bandwidth."

      This is an important point too. Having 100s of images on a page isn't going to do mobile viewers any favours with endless scrolling to reach an image they want. Same on desktop too being honest. It also suggests that if you complicate the page, you reduce the quality of the reading experience. That of course means users are less likely to return to the wiki or to those articles. That's surely something we need to remedy.

      Those images that you listed as an example show differences in the characters' facial expressions, and are therefore a vital part of telling the story in that way. While images that are strictly duplicates of another should be removed, there is no reason to remove images like that if they're not. The point of this website is to create an encyclopedia about SpongeBob. If there is a lack of information or "noise" on a website that calls itself an encyclopedia, then a terrible encyclopedia it is. Even if removing images would make it lightly easier for the odd visitor (if they're lucky to find that the image they want hasn't been culled), this will make it significantly harder for editors (the people who actually improve this site) and would reduce the amount of information significantly. Any visitor to this wiki is looking for information, and by not having the information that they want, we are discouraging return visitors, reducing the amount of ad revenue for FANDOM, which is obviously what you are seeking to improve given your mentioning of nigh redundant statistics such as SEO that you mentioned here and in other places. Why would someone who just wants to be a contrubutor care about that at all? If you are not begging to be employed by FANDOM then what you are trying to do is very odd indeed...

      I fully support removing the redundant images that have very little motion or action happening. Something like Patrick doing that doodle loo thing in "To SquarePants or Not To" would be a waste of space and images. However, especially with the newer seasons, the motion is more fluid and captures more in each frame, so limiting the images for those limits the expression of creativity and limits the person uploading the images as well

        Loading editor
    • Spongebob456 wrote:
      It is worth stressing that just because they haven't pulled us up on it now, it doesn't mean they won't in future. Just look at YouTube. Fresh copyright strikes are happening all the time with new guidelines etc.

      So if there is no need to urgently solve a problem, does that mean we should always leave it until the last minute? General consensus may be that we're fine at the moment but don't forgot we're accounting for the hundreds of thousands of readers. They take precedent.

      There is definitely an unwillingness to change from certain community members I'm afraid. Yes statistics have shown views have gone up since PIs (which is great) but there is more improvement to be had.

      You are right, it is unwillingness. It is unwillingness to appease to the whims of someone who has risen to power on this wiki over many years and is now obsessing over things like page views. Answer this question, SpongeBob456: Why do you care? Give an honest answer please.

        Loading editor
    • Alex.sapre wrote:

      EarthlingnAkumi wrote: ...

      1. That analogy does not hold up, because, in this context, Fandom Staff are Viacom producers are the police. Copyright law on Fandom isn't enforced by the police departments in North America. It is enforced by staff. The bartender would be the local staff on this wiki. However, for the reasons I have stated, both Fandom Staff and Viacom are okay with the rest of the wiki. If they weren't okay with it, they would sent more DMCA requests (as they have already done so, why wouldn't they send another one?).

      2. It is not about what I want to do about the situation, but whether or not I think there is an urgent need to act on it. I think that the problem has been inflated and blown out of proportion, hence my message. As multiple people have said, the general consensus is that we are doing pretty well with the gallery limits so far, and there isn't any evidence to suggest that there will be a major copyright issue anytime soon, so why impose a very strict guideline based on a what-if situation?

      3. I must disagree with your statement about ESB and its unwillingness to change. Even if there is opposition on this thread, for the most part, it is done respectfully. This thread hasn't even had any major issues with moderation. Also, we are not a community who wants to remain in the "Stone ages," as you called it, for multiple reasons. First, we have Discussions alongside Forums, and both are used relatively frequently. Discussions are a product that hasn't even been completely finished yet. Secondly, we have had a major proposal regarding forum games, which Sb456 even said had a very successful discussion. Third, the community is actively discussing new changes and we have had major proposals pass in the past, as you will see if you look at ESB:Proposals. I believe it is wrong to make the statement that we are hurting our community because the general consensus disagrees with a decision you support (actually, according to statistics, our viewership has gone up in the past following us passing proposals that Fandom Staff have suggested).

      1. Not really. Viacom is the person in the ID, since SpongeBob is their intellectual property. Fandom staff is the bartender. The ESB community is the person getting the drink. Hope that cleared something up?

      And, as I said to Tan, the reason they are not sending more DMCAs is because they don't have the time or want to. They are a huge company; they have a lot more to focus on than DMCAing images all day long. The only reason they do it on places such as YouTube so quickly is because it is an automated process on those platforms.

      2. Understandable. It isn't an urgent issue, and I wasn't trying to blow it out of the water, I was simply trying to show that what we're doing may create problems in the future.

      3. It's not just about this decision - I notice a lot of discussions you guys have, even in ESB:Proposals, end up getting mostly opposes, just because the community does not want to change.

      I really do think this is a good discussion between the community members of ESB. However, I do think many of the members of this community need to step back and be willing to change aspects of your community. It doesn't specifically need to be with this proposal, but with others as well.

      Hopefully that clears some of my thoughts up for you.

      The gamer 987654321 wrote: ... Those images that you listed as an example show differences in the characters' facial expressions, and are therefore a vital part of telling the story in that way. While images that are strictly duplicates of another should be removed, there is no reason to remove images like that if they're not. The point of this website is to create an encyclopedia about SpongeBob. If there is a lack of information or "noise" on a website that calls itself an encyclopedia, then a terrible encyclopedia it is. Even if removing images would make it lightly easier for the odd visitor (if they're lucky to find that the image they want hasn't been culled), this will make it significantly harder for editors (the people who actually improve this site) and would reduce the amount of information significantly. Any visitor to this wiki is looking for information, and by not having the information that they want, we are discouraging return visitors, reducing the amount of ad revenue for FANDOM, which is obviously what you are seeking to improve given your mentioning of nigh redundant statistics such as SEO that you mentioned here and in other places. Why would someone who just wants to be a contrubutor care about that at all? If you are not begging to be employed by FANDOM then what you are trying to do is very odd indeed...

      Why would we need to tell the story via the images? The images don't really add any encyclopedic information to the site whatsoever.

      Contributors should care for the site's SEO, especially as bureaucrats. It helps promote ESB and get new contributors for the site. To say that someone is "begging to be employed by Fandom" just because they care about how the site's SEO is very unfair to say and goes with what I said to Alex above about the unwillingness to change.

        Loading editor
    • I think that some people are misunderstanding my point. I, like Tan, agree that there should be an ultimate limit. I just disagree with the motion being purely backed up by a looming threat of copyright law when it isn't even that much of a major problem, as several users who have disagreed with me have even admitted. Using that would be the same as misleading the community. That's all.

        Loading editor
    • How are facial expressions important to the story please? A gallery is to give you a flavour of the episode, tells you what happens. The plot summary tells you how the characters are feeling. The image tells us Mr Krabs and his Grandad had a chat. Really nothing more it needs to tell that the text doesn't provide.

      "Even if removing images would make it lightly easier for the odd visitor (if they're lucky to find that the image they want hasn't been culled), this will make it significantly harder for editors (the people who actually improve this site) and would reduce the amount of information significantly."

      First, not "odd visitor", we're talking thousands and thousands. Why would it make it harder work for editors? Surely it makes it easier as images won't be added that viewers won't even read.

      "Any visitor to this wiki is looking for information, and by not having the information that they want, we are discouraging return visitors"

      Yep, they are looking for information, not 190 images for an 11 minute episode which they've just watched or are about to see. If you want to capture emotions of an episode you should watch it. A wiki is not a substitute for that and isn't an image storage site.

      "we are discouraging return visitors, reducing the amount of ad revenue for FANDOM, which is obviously what you are seeking to improve given your mentioning of nigh redundant statistics such as SEO that you mentioned here and in other places. Why would someone who just wants to be a contrubutor care about that at all? If you are not begging to be employed by FANDOM then what you are trying to do is very odd indeed..."

      How are SEO stats redundant? That's why people run websites. We contribute here to help out the site, to have fun, and to have other readers see the hard work we put in. Also, more readers will lead to a growing user community which we want.

        Loading editor
    • Spongebob456 wrote:

      Figmeister wrote: As I said before, I'm willing to accept a 200 image limit. Other than that, though, I still don't see any real reason to enforce anything on galleries. It seems like we're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

      Hey, please take a look at:

      Hey folks, so I have some evidence here for this change. Take a read of the content and see what you think, thanks.

      Are these actual problems, or is it just what FishTank thinks?

      There is definitely an unwillingness to change from certain community members I'm afraid.

      We've had this discussion before, I'm sure. The community isn't against change itself, it's against bad change. Getting rid of all these images is not a good change.

        Loading editor
    • Hey folks, one thing to consider with copyright is the change in EU law (which would still affect everyone).

      Don't forget those EU laws passed that added strict measures on copyright. Furthermore, they switch the onus from the users of a site to the site itself (if you remember, memes may be banned on Twitter rip). This means the EU law may force Fandom's hand to make these changes in future. I'd rather make the change on our own terms, in a way we want. Chances are, as a result, we wouldn't have ages to make the change and the website may even have to be taken down while the change is made. Nobody wants that.

        Loading editor
    • Figmeister wrote:

      Spongebob456 wrote:

      Figmeister wrote: As I said before, I'm willing to accept a 200 image limit. Other than that, though, I still don't see any real reason to enforce anything on galleries. It seems like we're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

      Hey, please take a look at:

      Hey folks, so I have some evidence here for this change. Take a read of the content and see what you think, thanks.

      Are these actual problems, or is it just what FishTank thinks?

      There is definitely an unwillingness to change from certain community members I'm afraid.

      We've had this discussion before, I'm sure. The community isn't against change itself, it's against bad change. Getting rid of all these images is not a good change.

      The sources are there in the evidence, they were just collated into one piece. Feel free to read those yourself. And per this reply.

        Loading editor
    • EarthlingnAkumi wrote:

      Alex.sapre wrote:

      EarthlingnAkumi wrote: ...

      1. That analogy does not hold up, because, in this context, Fandom Staff are Viacom producers are the police. Copyright law on Fandom isn't enforced by the police departments in North America. It is enforced by staff. The bartender would be the local staff on this wiki. However, for the reasons I have stated, both Fandom Staff and Viacom are okay with the rest of the wiki. If they weren't okay with it, they would sent more DMCA requests (as they have already done so, why wouldn't they send another one?).

      2. It is not about what I want to do about the situation, but whether or not I think there is an urgent need to act on it. I think that the problem has been inflated and blown out of proportion, hence my message. As multiple people have said, the general consensus is that we are doing pretty well with the gallery limits so far, and there isn't any evidence to suggest that there will be a major copyright issue anytime soon, so why impose a very strict guideline based on a what-if situation?

      3. I must disagree with your statement about ESB and its unwillingness to change. Even if there is opposition on this thread, for the most part, it is done respectfully. This thread hasn't even had any major issues with moderation. Also, we are not a community who wants to remain in the "Stone ages," as you called it, for multiple reasons. First, we have Discussions alongside Forums, and both are used relatively frequently. Discussions are a product that hasn't even been completely finished yet. Secondly, we have had a major proposal regarding forum games, which Sb456 even said had a very successful discussion. Third, the community is actively discussing new changes and we have had major proposals pass in the past, as you will see if you look at ESB:Proposals. I believe it is wrong to make the statement that we are hurting our community because the general consensus disagrees with a decision you support (actually, according to statistics, our viewership has gone up in the past following us passing proposals that Fandom Staff have suggested).

      1. Not really. Viacom is the person in the ID, since SpongeBob is their intellectual property. Fandom staff is the bartender. The ESB community is the person getting the drink. Hope that cleared something up?

      And, as I said to Tan, the reason they are not sending more DMCAs is because they don't have the time or want to. They are a huge company; they have a lot more to focus on than DMCAing images all day long. The only reason they do it on places such as YouTube so quickly is because it is an automated process on those platforms.

      2. Understandable. It isn't an urgent issue, and I wasn't trying to blow it out of the water, I was simply trying to show that what we're doing may create problems in the future.

      3. It's not just about this decision - I notice a lot of discussions you guys have, even in ESB:Proposals, end up getting mostly opposes, just because the community does not want to change.

      I really do think this is a good discussion between the community members of ESB. However, I do think many of the members of this community need to step back and be willing to change aspects of your community. It doesn't specifically need to be with this proposal, but with others as well.

      Hopefully that clears some of my thoughts up for you.

      1. Don't you think that we would have been notified about copyright problems by a staff member or a producer of SBSP if it is such a big issue? That is a process that barely takes any time, and staff have come to this wiki and made statements about similar problems.

      2. Got it.

      3. The thing is, it's unfair to label the community as such and it's misleading to do so. Your statements imply that we want to go back to the oldest forums and Wikipedia, which is completely false. We aren't a community who say no to everything and don't expand on it. We have counterarguments, we have reasons for our beliefs, and sometimes those reasons aren't even refuted. The party that is right in these situations isn't even clear. We have Discord, we have Discussions, we have portable infoboxes, we have a new product Fandom is testing that automatically saves changes in an editor window. Your statement is far too broad.

        Loading editor
    • DMCA has more important problems to deal with than one little wiki that doesn't link to episodes or distribute illegal copies. There are many more severe crimes that need to be dealt with before they decide to waltz in on us and say that we're a problem.

      As for US copyright and patent laws, intellectual property is owned by Nick and Viacom (SpongeBob) and will remain protected under the distribution laws where applicable. Since we aren't showing the episodes, rather still clips, there would be little to no problem for copyright. And it's also important to capture the important parts of an episode, and nowadays, the motion is a part of the story

        Loading editor
    • With the EU laws changing, no guarantees of that.

        Loading editor
    • All laws change, but it's impossible to prepare for every single one of them. I don't think we should be mentioning law at all if it hasn't proven to be a problem for ESB.

        Loading editor
    • Spongebob456 wrote: With the EU laws changing, no guarantees of that.

      Ah but you're in Britain, some of us are in the United States. Also, I pay taxes which is not relevant to this argument, but throwing it out there for when the people that get paid by my tax dollars say we're a problem

      United-states-of-america
        Loading editor
    • I think we can prepare for a law that could get us shut down while changes are made. The implications are unclear, but we should be prepared.

        Loading editor
    • Spongebob456 wrote: I think we can prepare for a law that could get us shut down while changes are made. The implications are unclear, but we should be prepared.

      Why would we get shut down? The EU doesn't have jurisdiction over this wiki, it's under Fandom control which is under California law which is superseded by US law

        Loading editor
    • Should be noted that just because you live in the US does not mean the law doesn't affect you. It will still affect online communities even outside of the EU, just as GDPR did to Fandom and many other sites. So even if Fandom is based under California, in order for users in the EU to use it it must comply with those laws

        Loading editor
    • Honestly, it sounds to me like you're trying to make a problem to fit the policy that you want to add. Is there evidence that shows that the galleries are negatively affecting the wiki? I think removing tons of content from 400+ of the more popular pages on the wiki would be worse than keeping the images. I've read through the document you provided several times and I don't see any solid proof of this. Every argument for a gallery restriction is hypothetical and there doesn't seem to be any problems with what we've been doing for years and years.

        Loading editor
    • The EU is messing up more than just Fandom related online activity. And thanks to Brexit, the EU is becoming much less of a union, and very hostile towards its people. Their politicians don't even know what they vote for, they, like many others, are told what and how to vote, which is why the EU is getting into this worse mess with the Internet and literally everything else.

        Loading editor
    • Tanhamman wrote: The EU is messing up more than just Fandom related online activity. And thanks to Brexit, the EU is becoming much less of a union, and very hostile towards its people. Their politicians don't even know what they vote for, they, like many others, are told what and how to vote, which is why the EU is getting into this worse mess with the Internet and literally everything else.

      Let's not make this political, thanks.

        Loading editor
    • Figmeister wrote: Honestly, it sounds to me like you're trying to make a problem to fit the policy that you want to add. Is there evidence that shows that the galleries are negatively affecting the wiki? I think removing tons of content from 400+ of the more popular pages on the wiki would be worse than keeping the images. I've read through the document you provided several times and I don't see any solid proof of this. Every argument for a gallery restriction is hypothetical and there doesn't seem to be any problems with what we've been doing for years and years.

      If not evidence that it's hindering the wiki, there's evidence that viewership would improve as I linked above due to better use experience and improved SEO. I think what we've been doing for years and years is part of the problem and we need to move with the times, ie, accounting for mobile devices.

        Loading editor
    • Keep the replies coming folks, will be back in a bit.

        Loading editor
    • Spongebob456 wrote:

      Figmeister wrote: Honestly, it sounds to me like you're trying to make a problem to fit the policy that you want to add. Is there evidence that shows that the galleries are negatively affecting the wiki? I think removing tons of content from 400+ of the more popular pages on the wiki would be worse than keeping the images. I've read through the document you provided several times and I don't see any solid proof of this. Every argument for a gallery restriction is hypothetical and there doesn't seem to be any problems with what we've been doing for years and years.

      If not evidence that it's hindering the wiki, there's evidence that viewership would improve as I linked above due to better use experience and improved SEO. I think what we've been doing for years and years is part of the problem and we need to move with the times, ie, accounting for mobile devices.

      This. More and more users are using mobile as an alternative, and these images do not display well on mobile. Draw your own conclusions from these screenshots.

      Edit: Sorry about the hard to read text on the last screenshot, i didnt realize it until now. It says "On mobile, Fandom just gives up after a while"

        Loading editor
    • In short, this thread is just speaking of the idea of deleting unecessary images from galleries? Huh?

        Loading editor
    • 200 images?

      That's tricky.

        Loading editor
    • Chachingchaching wrote: In short, this thread is just speaking of the idea of deleting unecessary images from galleries? Huh?

      Pretty much, yes.

        Loading editor
    • EarthlingnAkumi wrote:

      Spongebob456 wrote:

      Figmeister wrote: Honestly, it sounds to me like you're trying to make a problem to fit the policy that you want to add. Is there evidence that shows that the galleries are negatively affecting the wiki? I think removing tons of content from 400+ of the more popular pages on the wiki would be worse than keeping the images. I've read through the document you provided several times and I don't see any solid proof of this. Every argument for a gallery restriction is hypothetical and there doesn't seem to be any problems with what we've been doing for years and years.

      If not evidence that it's hindering the wiki, there's evidence that viewership would improve as I linked above due to better use experience and improved SEO. I think what we've been doing for years and years is part of the problem and we need to move with the times, ie, accounting for mobile devices.

      This. More and more users are using mobile as an alternative, and these images do not display well on mobile. Draw your own conclusions from these screenshots.

      Edit: Sorry about the hard to read text on the last screenshot, i didnt realize it until now. It says "On mobile, Fandom just gives up after a while"

      Only a quarter of viewers come on mobile devices. Nearly half remain on desktop and another quarter on tablets.

        Loading editor
    • Shouldn't we still cater for that figure? Worth stressing it's unclear how the mobile device stats are measured, we have between 25-60% as a figure. Also worth saying that mobile users probably don't return as our wiki isn't particularly mobile friendly.

        Loading editor
    • Tanhamman wrote:

      EarthlingnAkumi wrote:

      Spongebob456 wrote:

      Figmeister wrote: Honestly, it sounds to me like you're trying to make a problem to fit the policy that you want to add. Is there evidence that shows that the galleries are negatively affecting the wiki? I think removing tons of content from 400+ of the more popular pages on the wiki would be worse than keeping the images. I've read through the document you provided several times and I don't see any solid proof of this. Every argument for a gallery restriction is hypothetical and there doesn't seem to be any problems with what we've been doing for years and years.

      If not evidence that it's hindering the wiki, there's evidence that viewership would improve as I linked above due to better use experience and improved SEO. I think what we've been doing for years and years is part of the problem and we need to move with the times, ie, accounting for mobile devices.

      This. More and more users are using mobile as an alternative, and these images do not display well on mobile. Draw your own conclusions from these screenshots.

      Edit: Sorry about the hard to read text on the last screenshot, i didnt realize it until now. It says "On mobile, Fandom just gives up after a while"

      Only a quarter of viewers come on mobile devices. Nearly half remain on desktop and another quarter on tablets.

      A quarter is still a lot for an average of 10,500+ views daily. In fact, the Gary & Spot gallery page got nearly 2000 views last week, meaning that around approximately 500 users viewed that on mobile. See the problem?

        Loading editor
    • What is wrong with the mobile version? The images appear perfectly fine.

      Update: I've been informed that they are cluttered to some and hard to scroll through. However, depleting the desktop experience is not going to solve that, considering how majority of viewers come from that side.

        Loading editor
    • EarthlingnAkumi wrote:

      Tanhamman wrote:

      EarthlingnAkumi wrote:

      Spongebob456 wrote:

      Figmeister wrote: Honestly, it sounds to me like you're trying to make a problem to fit the policy that you want to add. Is there evidence that shows that the galleries are negatively affecting the wiki? I think removing tons of content from 400+ of the more popular pages on the wiki would be worse than keeping the images. I've read through the document you provided several times and I don't see any solid proof of this. Every argument for a gallery restriction is hypothetical and there doesn't seem to be any problems with what we've been doing for years and years.

      If not evidence that it's hindering the wiki, there's evidence that viewership would improve as I linked above due to better use experience and improved SEO. I think what we've been doing for years and years is part of the problem and we need to move with the times, ie, accounting for mobile devices.

      This. More and more users are using mobile as an alternative, and these images do not display well on mobile. Draw your own conclusions from these screenshots.

      Edit: Sorry about the hard to read text on the last screenshot, i didnt realize it until now. It says "On mobile, Fandom just gives up after a while"

      Only a quarter of viewers come on mobile devices. Nearly half remain on desktop and another quarter on tablets.

      A quarter is still a lot for an average of 10,500+ views daily. In fact, the Gary & Spot gallery page got nearly 2000 views last week, meaning that around approximately 500 users viewed that on mobile. See the problem?

      And what about the 1,500 that were using other means to view the gallery? Do they not matter? Statistically, the likelihood of suddenly gaining more mobile viewers isn't going to increase dramatically because we change the number of images in a gallery.

        Loading editor
    • Tanhamman wrote:

      EarthlingnAkumi wrote:

      Tanhamman wrote:

      EarthlingnAkumi wrote:

      Spongebob456 wrote:

      Figmeister wrote: Honestly, it sounds to me like you're trying to make a problem to fit the policy that you want to add. Is there evidence that shows that the galleries are negatively affecting the wiki? I think removing tons of content from 400+ of the more popular pages on the wiki would be worse than keeping the images. I've read through the document you provided several times and I don't see any solid proof of this. Every argument for a gallery restriction is hypothetical and there doesn't seem to be any problems with what we've been doing for years and years.

      If not evidence that it's hindering the wiki, there's evidence that viewership would improve as I linked above due to better use experience and improved SEO. I think what we've been doing for years and years is part of the problem and we need to move with the times, ie, accounting for mobile devices.

      This. More and more users are using mobile as an alternative, and these images do not display well on mobile. Draw your own conclusions from these screenshots.

      Edit: Sorry about the hard to read text on the last screenshot, i didnt realize it until now. It says "On mobile, Fandom just gives up after a while"

      Only a quarter of viewers come on mobile devices. Nearly half remain on desktop and another quarter on tablets.

      A quarter is still a lot for an average of 10,500+ views daily. In fact, the Gary & Spot gallery page got nearly 2000 views last week, meaning that around approximately 500 users viewed that on mobile. See the problem?

      And what about the 1,500 that were using other means to view the gallery? Do they not matter? Statistically, the likelihood of suddenly gaining more mobile viewers isn't going to increase dramatically because we change the number of images in a gallery.

      There are ways to make things more efficient for mobile, desktop, and tablet viewers. It's not a "you can't please everyone" situation with mobile viewing. That's why Fandom has implemented such things as the mobile main page.

        Loading editor
    • Spongebob456 wrote:

      Figmeister wrote: Honestly, it sounds to me like you're trying to make a problem to fit the policy that you want to add. Is there evidence that shows that the galleries are negatively affecting the wiki? I think removing tons of content from 400+ of the more popular pages on the wiki would be worse than keeping the images. I've read through the document you provided several times and I don't see any solid proof of this. Every argument for a gallery restriction is hypothetical and there doesn't seem to be any problems with what we've been doing for years and years.

      If not evidence that it's hindering the wiki, there's evidence that viewership would improve as I linked above due to better use experience and improved SEO. I think what we've been doing for years and years is part of the problem and we need to move with the times, ie, accounting for mobile devices.

      Reducing galleries will not boost viewership. Maybe from one perspective, yes, because that viewer would find the image and avoid scrolling through a mahoosive amount to find it. But from another, they can't find the image they're looking for so they'll just flock off to SpongeBob Captures to get it. Even if SBCaptures isn't there, SBM has galleries Tan linked in an earlier post. There are many alternatives and reducing images will deplete viewership. We have naming scheme so users know how far in the episode an image appears in, therefore making navigating through a gallery convenient.

      Look things from multiple perspectives, not just one. The images that were removed from your test gallery should've stayed unless they were removed for genuinely good reasons, for which they were not. If a random user did remove that many images on a given day, I see that as an act of vandalism. If we remove 80% of images from a gallery because people don't want to sift through one to find the important images, perhaps we should remove 80% of the SpongeBob SquarePants (character) article so users can see the occupation section, by that logic clearly.

      Or for a gallery example, let's remove 75% of images from a movie gallery and then I'm sure the 25% will be able to support and outline the synopsis well, will it? I really don't know. The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie summary alone is nearly 20,000 bytes. Also, how many "key moments" are there in a movie? This completely overcomplicates the wiki and its galleries entirely.

      I never view this wiki from mobile so I cannot speak up for them, but where is your evidence that if we decease the images, mobile viewership numbers will suddenly proliferate? That gallery format on the mobile skin will still stay the same and not consistent like the desktop experience. What's the point? Anyone who dislikes the appearance will continue to dislike it. Fifty images is still quite a bit to scroll through. If we do this to a movie, 250 images left is still quite a lot. How does this fix the scrolling problem for those who don't like clicking the "see more" button more than once? Yes, it's less than the previous way but with this change also impacting desktop negatively (in my opinion), minor preferences of not pressing "see more" should not be taken into consideration by ESB. It should be taken into consideration by Fandom so they can improve the mobile skin. This also does not solve Fandom's ways of cropping the images to be square shaped on mobile into a collage format.

        Loading editor
    • Golfpecks256 wrote:

      Spongebob456 wrote:

      Figmeister wrote: Honestly, it sounds to me like you're trying to make a problem to fit the policy that you want to add. Is there evidence that shows that the galleries are negatively affecting the wiki? I think removing tons of content from 400+ of the more popular pages on the wiki would be worse than keeping the images. I've read through the document you provided several times and I don't see any solid proof of this. Every argument for a gallery restriction is hypothetical and there doesn't seem to be any problems with what we've been doing for years and years.

      If not evidence that it's hindering the wiki, there's evidence that viewership would improve as I linked above due to better use experience and improved SEO. I think what we've been doing for years and years is part of the problem and we need to move with the times, ie, accounting for mobile devices.

      Reducing galleries will not boost viewership. Maybe from one perspective, yes, because that viewer would find the image and avoid scrolling through a mahoosive amount to find it. But from another, they can't find the image they're looking for so they'll just flock off to SpongeBob Captures to get it. Even if SBCaptures isn't there, SBM has galleries Tan linked in an earlier post. There are many alternatives and reducing images will deplete viewership. We have naming scheme so users know how far in the episode an image appears in, therefore making navigating through a gallery convenient.

      Look things from multiple perspectives, not just one. The images that were removed from your test gallery should've stayed unless they were removed for genuinely good reasons, for which they were not. If a random user did remove that many images on a given day, I see that as an act of vandalism. If we remove 80% of images from a gallery because people don't want to sift through one to find the important images, perhaps we should remove 80% of the SpongeBob SquarePants (character) article so users can see the occupation section, by that logic clearly.

      Or for a gallery example, let's remove 75% of images from a movie gallery and then I'm sure the 25% will be able to support and outline the synopsis well, will it? I really don't know. The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie summary alone is nearly 20,000 bytes. Also, how many "key moments" are there in a movie? This completely overcomplicates the wiki and its galleries entirely.

      I never view this wiki from mobile so I cannot speak up for them, but where is your evidence that if we decease the images, mobile viewership numbers will suddenly proliferate? That gallery format on the mobile skin will still stay the same and not consistent like the desktop experience. What's the point? Anyone who dislikes the appearance will continue to dislike it. Fifty images is still quite a bit to scroll through. If we do this to a movie, 250 images left is still quite a lot. How does this fix the scrolling problem for those who don't like clicking the "see more" button more than once? Yes, it's less than the previous way but with this change also impacting desktop negatively (in my opinion), minor preferences of not pressing "see more" should not be taken into consideration by ESB. It should be taken into consideration by Fandom so they can improve the mobile skin. This also does not solve Fandom's ways of cropping the images to be square shaped on mobile into a collage format.

      I don't think it has anything to do with Fandom's cropping : p If they cropped them as squares, or changed their cropping to something else altogether, it would still take up enough space to where the user would have to scroll and go on a hunt to find the image they wanted. (Many users probably also have to do this on desktop anyway.)

        Loading editor
    • Regardless of that, the mobile skin isn't perfect. These issues with the mobile skin shouldn't just make ESB remove so much work that users put in to the galleries over the years to satisfy a minor preference/issue with that due to large quantities of pictures.

      Perhaps Fandom should make the image appearance smaller on mobile so more can be seen at a time, hence reducing the amount of scrolling you have to do. If viewers want to see the image enlarged, they can click it. Simple. If this is a desperate issue, Fandom should be aware. It's just not fair we have to delete images for it to work on mobile. We've done some work to have infoboxes operate well, why can't Fandom do some work to make large galleries work out as well? This constant adaption we have to do because of a wiki skin is really ridiculous because the mobile skin has many flaws, including that one. Fandom should be working on improving them rather than trying to impose some sort of agenda to try and delete colossal amount of images. I am aware it's mainly sb456 who's suggesting this but FishTank has shown some support for this in the past before this was brought up on this thread.

        Loading editor
    • Golfpecks256 wrote: Regardless of that, the mobile skin isn't perfect. These issues with the mobile skin shouldn't just make ESB remove so much work that users put in to the galleries over the years to satisfy a minor preference/issue with that due to large quantities of pictures.

      Perhaps Fandom should make the image appearance smaller on mobile so more can be seen at a time, hence reducing the amount of scrolling you have to do. If viewers want to see the image enlarged, they can click it. Simple. If this is a desperate issue, Fandom should be aware. It's just not fair we have to delete images for it to work on mobile. We've done some work to have infoboxes operate well, why can't Fandom do some work to make large galleries work out as well? This constant adaption we have to do because of a wiki skin is really ridiculous because the mobile skin has many flaws, including that one. Fandom should be working on improving them rather than trying to impose some sort of agenda to try and delete colossal amount of images. I am aware it's mainly sb456 who's suggesting this but FishTank has shown some support for this in the past before this was brought up on this thread.

      The image sizes are based off of [[File:filename.jpg|250px]] or the size that the user uploaded them as. Therefore, Fandom has no reason to change any sizes because it's completely based on the community members how large the images are.

      The same goes for most other factors of the gallery. It's not Fandom's fault at all and has nothing to do with the mobile skin.

      While I understand you and many other users are trying to find alternatives to the problems that the wiki is having, we should look for more realistic answers and do things that our community can solve on its own. Fandom staff is not going to change the mobile skin just because of the needs of one community, nor should they be expected to.

      compromise

      So, I was thinking up something and I think it will work for the needs of everyone. I built it off of Qwertyxp2000 the second's version, so thank you for your version!

      • Two images per scene.
      • No duplicate images.
      • Chronological ordered images.
      • No redundant scenes, ie, no scenes that last less than 1 minute should have images.
      • Gallery has more original wiki content than images (ie trivia, explanations of images).

      How does that sound? This way there is no limit so long as you do not add too many images per scene.

        Loading editor
    • EarthlingnAkumi wrote:

      Golfpecks256 wrote: Regardless of that, the mobile skin isn't perfect. These issues with the mobile skin shouldn't just make ESB remove so much work that users put in to the galleries over the years to satisfy a minor preference/issue with that due to large quantities of pictures.

      Perhaps Fandom should make the image appearance smaller on mobile so more can be seen at a time, hence reducing the amount of scrolling you have to do. If viewers want to see the image enlarged, they can click it. Simple. If this is a desperate issue, Fandom should be aware. It's just not fair we have to delete images for it to work on mobile. We've done some work to have infoboxes operate well, why can't Fandom do some work to make large galleries work out as well? This constant adaption we have to do because of a wiki skin is really ridiculous because the mobile skin has many flaws, including that one. Fandom should be working on improving them rather than trying to impose some sort of agenda to try and delete colossal amount of images. I am aware it's mainly sb456 who's suggesting this but FishTank has shown some support for this in the past before this was brought up on this thread.

      The image sizes are based off of [[File:filename.jpg|250px]] or the size that the user uploaded them as. Therefore, Fandom has no reason to change any sizes because it's completely based on the community members how large the images are.

      The same goes for most other factors of the gallery. It's not Fandom's fault at all and has nothing to do with the mobile skin.

      While I understand you and many other users are trying to find alternatives to the problems that the wiki is having, we should look for more realistic answers and do things that our community can solve on its own. Fandom staff is not going to change the mobile skin just because of the needs of one community, nor should they be expected to.


      Fandom literally comes in and changes what they want/need for the mobile platform quite often.

      Images are subjective. It all depends on who is viewing what. Limiting or overextending ourselves does not provide adequate images nor a good user experience. So instead of mowing down the images we have, we should be focusing on galleries that are still incomplete (or have low quality images) and then worry about which images should stay and which should go.

        Loading editor
    • Tanhamman wrote:

      EarthlingnAkumi wrote:

      Golfpecks256 wrote: Regardless of that, the mobile skin isn't perfect. These issues with the mobile skin shouldn't just make ESB remove so much work that users put in to the galleries over the years to satisfy a minor preference/issue with that due to large quantities of pictures.

      Perhaps Fandom should make the image appearance smaller on mobile so more can be seen at a time, hence reducing the amount of scrolling you have to do. If viewers want to see the image enlarged, they can click it. Simple. If this is a desperate issue, Fandom should be aware. It's just not fair we have to delete images for it to work on mobile. We've done some work to have infoboxes operate well, why can't Fandom do some work to make large galleries work out as well? This constant adaption we have to do because of a wiki skin is really ridiculous because the mobile skin has many flaws, including that one. Fandom should be working on improving them rather than trying to impose some sort of agenda to try and delete colossal amount of images. I am aware it's mainly sb456 who's suggesting this but FishTank has shown some support for this in the past before this was brought up on this thread.

      The image sizes are based off of [[File:filename.jpg|250px]] or the size that the user uploaded them as. Therefore, Fandom has no reason to change any sizes because it's completely based on the community members how large the images are.

      The same goes for most other factors of the gallery. It's not Fandom's fault at all and has nothing to do with the mobile skin.

      While I understand you and many other users are trying to find alternatives to the problems that the wiki is having, we should look for more realistic answers and do things that our community can solve on its own. Fandom staff is not going to change the mobile skin just because of the needs of one community, nor should they be expected to.


      Fandom literally comes in and changes what they want/need for the mobile platform quite often.

      Images are subjective. It all depends on who is viewing what. Limiting or overextending ourselves does not provide adequate images nor a good user experience. So instead of mowing down the images we have, we should be focusing on galleries that are still incomplete (or have low quality images) and then worry about which images should stay and which should go.

      They didn't do anything about the galleries though. Instead of pointing the finger at the big bad Fandom staff, we should be actually trying to find out how to solve our issues.

      I like the idea of starting with incomplete galleries, though. That way we can see what works there and then change that with the current completed galleries. (I think that's what you meant? Sorry if i misinterpreted it)

        Loading editor
    • Golfpecks256 wrote: Fandom should be working on improving them rather than trying to impose some sort of agenda to try and delete colossal amount of images. I am aware it's mainly sb456 who's suggesting this but FishTank has shown some support for this in the past before this was brought up on this thread.

      Users and Staff support this change because, in our view, it's a sensible thing to do. No one is trying to "impose some sort of agenda". I feel like if users would try to understand our view, instead of looking at it as some great evil, we could reach a compromise better.

      Tanhamman wrote: Fandom literally comes in and changes what they want/need for the mobile platform quite often.

      Same answer as the above reply.

        Loading editor
    • EarthlingnAkumi wrote:

      Golfpecks256 wrote: Regardless of that, the mobile skin isn't perfect. These issues with the mobile skin shouldn't just make ESB remove so much work that users put in to the galleries over the years to satisfy a minor preference/issue with that due to large quantities of pictures.

      Perhaps Fandom should make the image appearance smaller on mobile so more can be seen at a time, hence reducing the amount of scrolling you have to do. If viewers want to see the image enlarged, they can click it. Simple. If this is a desperate issue, Fandom should be aware. It's just not fair we have to delete images for it to work on mobile. We've done some work to have infoboxes operate well, why can't Fandom do some work to make large galleries work out as well? This constant adaption we have to do because of a wiki skin is really ridiculous because the mobile skin has many flaws, including that one. Fandom should be working on improving them rather than trying to impose some sort of agenda to try and delete colossal amount of images. I am aware it's mainly sb456 who's suggesting this but FishTank has shown some support for this in the past before this was brought up on this thread.

      The image sizes are based off of [[File:filename.jpg|250px]] or the size that the user uploaded them as. Therefore, Fandom has no reason to change any sizes because it's completely based on the community members how large the images are.

      The same goes for most other factors of the gallery. It's not Fandom's fault at all and has nothing to do with the mobile skin.

      While I understand you and many other users are trying to find alternatives to the problems that the wiki is having, we should look for more realistic answers and do things that our community can solve on its own. Fandom staff is not going to change the mobile skin just because of the needs of one community, nor should they be expected to.

      compromise

      So, I was thinking up something and I think it will work for the needs of everyone. I built it off of Qwertyxp2000 the second's version, so thank you for your version!

      • Two images per scene.
      • No duplicate images.
      • Chronological ordered images.
      • No redundant scenes, ie, no scenes that last less than 1 minute should have images.
      • Gallery has more original wiki content than images (ie trivia, explanations of images).

      How does that sound? This way there is no limit so long as you do not add too many images per scene.

      The default gallery image sizes should be displayed smaller, nevertheless. Using the gallery tag, I assume the size is 250. Whatever it is, it should be smaller in size like how mobile screens are smaller than desktop screens. So more is covered.

      TheKorraFanatic wrote:

      Users and Staff support this change because, in our view, it's a sensible thing to do. No one is trying to "impose some sort of agenda". I feel like if users would try to understand our view, instead of looking at it as some great evil, we could reach a compromise better.

      Not all of the community is supporting this change. ;) I am not calling staff evil, I am saying improving their software would be a good way of solving the problem altogether. Who's to say we are the only wiki facing this?

      Also, I am fine with reducing images but with a compromise that they do not go as low as the initial suggestions brought up (e.g. 50, 20 etc.) The test Gallery was what put me off. I feel we should have as many images there needs to be, while also following that criteria.

      So I agree with Qwerty's suggestion. There should be no set number of how many we reduce. Different episode galleries might have different suited amounts of images. I think we can work using that compromise.

        Loading editor
    • Although, I have some questions on that criteria.

      Two images per scene seem too little in some cases. It can be debatable in others. It might suit well for some scenes but not others. Again, we should not have a set number. Different episodes might suit different numbers of images. Some scenes are longer than others. Some scenes are more notable. This is why we should not draft a concise number. We should just use common sense when it comes to assessing how many we need.

      "No redundant scenes, ie, no scenes that last less than 1 minute should have images."

      Again, if the scene is notable and lasts less than one minute, it should have images. This should be case-by-case, not a generic restriction.

      "Gallery has more original wiki content than images (ie trivia, explanations of images)." What do you mean?

        Loading editor
    • There are so many people who are citing legal issues, and so many more who are citing the fact that we are harming thousands of mobile users and their experiences. If it was that serious, wouldn't it be logical for there to be more complaints about the galleries? Yet, that is not the case. Again, why base a whole argument off the theoretical?

        Loading editor
    • Gonna unfollow this thread now. I feel as though I have made all my points very clear and I don't want the conversation to end up being me repeating all of my thoughts over and over.

      Hope you all find a good consensus :)

        Loading editor
    • While I would love to respond to EarthlingnAkumi directly, I cannot. While I am not a lawyer, I doubt that she is either. Transformative works are not the only things that are protected under fair use law. This wiki is protected, so this is not a factor in this debate. I should also point out that EarthlingnAkumi has no record of experience with ESB galleries, which implies that she is a "FishTank", someone brought it to support 456 by using illogical, incorrect, and otherwise harmful statements, which cause the wiki to overreact and think something is more of a problem than it actually is. While she has edited on this wiki before this, it has mostly been in forums.

      Regarding the other half of this discussion, I feel as if there is little to no demand for this and viewership won't change or it won't be a significant change. This is unnecessary and not a problem that needs to be addressed, at least not right now. There are more things like gallery organization that need to be dealt with first. Of course, you can't discuss that, can you? Since, you know, everyone agrees that galleries should be organized. It seems like the only reason this was brought up is that it was the first thing that 456 could come up with that could spark a discussion. Well, either that or he is salty about his proposal not passing, so 456 thought that if he can't move the galleries, then at least, he can trim them down. Of course, I doubt that is even something he wants or cares about. He cares about making the Staff happy. Why? I have no idea. I don't know why he thinks he needs to since anything they could do to him can be repealed and get those who did it in trouble.

        Loading editor
    • I like how even though you guys have talk about reducing the amount of SpongeBob images to only show the highlights and important parts, you still haven't said anything about Patchy the Pirate. Exactly what parts of the Patchy the Pirate segments are considered "important to the story"?

        Loading editor
    • There is no real reason to do this. Until there is definitive proof that galleries need reduction for whatever technological, aesthetic, or legal purpose, it would just be best to let this "problem" go

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote: I should also point out that EarthlingnAkumi has no record of experience with ESB galleries, which implies that she is a "FishTank", someone brought it to support 456 by using illogical, incorrect, and otherwise harmful statements, which cause the wiki to overreact and think something is more of a problem than it actually is. While she has edited on this wiki before this, it has mostly been in forums.

      I ask that you assume good faith about users. While you are free to disagree with users, please do not make assumptions about them and their intentions.

        Loading editor
    • TheKorraFanatic wrote:

      120d wrote: I should also point out that EarthlingnAkumi has no record of experience with ESB galleries, which implies that she is a "FishTank", someone brought it to support 456 by using illogical, incorrect, and otherwise harmful statements, which cause the wiki to overreact and think something is more of a problem than it actually is. While she has edited on this wiki before this, it has mostly been in forums.

      I ask that you assume good faith about users. While you are free to disagree with users, please do not make assumptions about them and their intentions.

      I realize that I may have jumped the gun with my analysis of her.

        Loading editor
    • Ok you admins rlly make no sense. Here are the facts: You have very diverse galleries for everything on this wiki, and because its "annoying" to scroll for more than 10 seconds to find an image you decided to remove images? Geez you should be thankful people took the time to submit so many, and you cant say "nobody wants that". Only YOU guys dont want that. You cant count on every single person who may just be looking for the perfect photo for a meme or LITTERALLY any other purpose.

      I am completely against removing images from the large galleries we already have but if u wanna restrict new episode galleries, go ahead.

        Loading editor
    • EatThatPie wrote:
      Ok you admins rlly make no sense. Here are the facts: You have very diverse galleries for everything on this wiki, and because its "annoying" to scroll for more than 10 seconds to find an image you decided to remove images? Geez you should be thankful people took the time to submit so many, and you cant say "nobody wants that". Only YOU guys dont want that. You cant count on every single person who may just be looking for the perfect photo for a meme or LITTERALLY any other purpose.

      I am completely against removing images from the large galleries we already have but if u wanna restrict new episode galleries, go ahead.

      I agree.

        Loading editor
    • EatThatPie wrote: Ok you admins rlly make no sense. Here are the facts: You have very diverse galleries for everything on this wiki, and because its "annoying" to scroll for more than 10 seconds to find an image you decided to remove images? Geez you should be thankful people took the time to submit so many, and you cant say "nobody wants that". Only YOU guys dont want that. You cant count on every single person who may just be looking for the perfect photo for a meme or LITTERALLY any other purpose.

      I am completely against removing images from the large galleries we already have but if u wanna restrict new episode galleries, go ahead.

      I 100% agree with this.

        Loading editor
    • I need to talk to SpongeBob456.

        Loading editor
    • EatThatPie wrote: Ok you admins rlly make no sense. Here are the facts: You have very diverse galleries for everything on this wiki, and because its "annoying" to scroll for more than 10 seconds to find an image you decided to remove images? Geez you should be thankful people took the time to submit so many, and you cant say "nobody wants that". Only YOU guys dont want that. You cant count on every single person who may just be looking for the perfect photo for a meme or LITTERALLY any other purpose.

      I am completely against removing images from the large galleries we already have but if u wanna restrict new episode galleries, go ahead.

      Hi, you mention that only we don't want 100s of images for an 11 minute episode. Surely the evidence I posted above suggests it is detrimental to the viewing experience for readers and the SEO of the wiki?

      Worth stressing again that a wiki isn't an image repository, it's a place to find information in an efficient way. Differing facial expressions are not important to the purpose of a wiki. Why would someone looking for a key moment want to scroll past 20 images of Patrick and SpongeBob standing there talking just moving their mouths?

        Loading editor
    • Keep in mind there's a transcript for the images to also support. Not just the summary and episode article. ;) Transcripts can be considered as "information." With the dialogue being precise (hopefully), the episode galleries should be able to cover all of what the transcript covers in images, if we are using the logic of "images support the text."

      If a viewer reads the dialogue and wants to see the facial expression of the character, they will check the gallery. If they gallery is not concise and comprehensive, then they will not be able to find the image. Therefore, breaking the logic of "images support the text."

        Loading editor
    • Hi, you mention that only we don't want 100s of images for an 11 minute episode. Surely the evidence I posted above suggests it is detrimental to the viewing experience for readers and the SEO of the wiki?

      Worth stressing again that a wiki isn't an image repository, it's a place to find information in an efficient way. Differing facial expressions are not important to the purpose of a wiki. Why would someone looking for a key moment want to scroll past 20 images of Patrick and SpongeBob standing there talking just moving their mouths?

      You sort of contradicted yourself there a bit. "a wiki isnt an image repository, its a place to find information in an efficient way". How is having tons of images for every episode not an "information repository"; or whatever your definition of what a wiki is? 

      I think it just comes down to how you think others use this wiki. Heres a simple question. You have an image gallery for an episode. It has 150 images in it. Lets also say there are no duplicate images, no bad quality images, images are all in chronological order and all the images are from that episode.

      So here is my question: What exactly is the problem with that? I think you should be thankful that people spend time to upload so many, to keep the galleries diverse. Having more images is not "detrimental" and it is not bad, if anything it can help more people who may just be looking for the perfect screenshot.

      Also you said " differing facial expressions are not important to the wiki" then what IS important to the wiki? If its an "information repository" then the more, the better. How is having more screenshots worse than less? There is no legal issues with doing this and this isnt hurting anybody, except you admins apparently.

      But it still comes down to what you think an image gallery should be for, or as you said, "the key moments in the episode." so let me ask you, why? Why should an image gallery be just the "key moments"? What is wrong with more images? It is not "time consuming" to find the key moment in the episode by scrolling through the gallery. It will probably take 10 seconds, max, and also, if there are MULTIPLE images from the SAME SCENE, then it would no doubt be easier to spot the scene in the gallery.

      Others are grateful that we have very diverse and large galleries, when most wikis dont have very large galleries at all. You really cant compensate for every possible scenario when someone might need a specific screenshot from the episode.

      There isnt really anything good you get from removing images.

        Loading editor
    • EatThatPie wrote:

      I think it just comes down to how you think others use this wiki. Heres a simple question. You have an image gallery for an episode. It has 150 images in it. Lets also say there are no duplicate images, no bad quality images, and all the images are from that episode.

      And in order! But I have to agree.

        Loading editor
    • EatThatPie
      EatThatPie removed this reply because:
      useless comment by me
      17:47, April 1, 2019
      This reply has been removed
    • I don't see an issue with reducing galleries. If someone wants to retain an image for another page, they can do so, like of an object or minor character. If you want to see the whole story, you can just watch the episode. 300 images for an 11 minute episode is overboard.

      We could certainly find a compromise in all of this to address concerns--let's do that.

        Loading editor
    • Spongebob456 wrote:

      EatThatPie wrote: Ok you admins rlly make no sense. Here are the facts: You have very diverse galleries for everything on this wiki, and because its "annoying" to scroll for more than 10 seconds to find an image you decided to remove images? Geez you should be thankful people took the time to submit so many, and you cant say "nobody wants that". Only YOU guys dont want that. You cant count on every single person who may just be looking for the perfect photo for a meme or LITTERALLY any other purpose.

      I am completely against removing images from the large galleries we already have but if u wanna restrict new episode galleries, go ahead.

      Hi, you mention that only we don't want 100s of images for an 11 minute episode. Surely the evidence I posted above suggests it is detrimental to the viewing experience for readers and the SEO of the wiki?

      Worth stressing again that a wiki isn't an image repository, it's a place to find information in an efficient way. Differing facial expressions are not important to the purpose of a wiki. Why would someone looking for a key moment want to scroll past 20 images of Patrick and SpongeBob standing there talking just moving their mouths?

      Hey! EatThatPie got five kudos but you only got one kudo.

      Scrolling down a few photos is not a hard thing. It takes only a few seconds. Why do you want to delete all those images?

        Loading editor
    • AMK152 wrote: I don't see an issue with reducing galleries. If someone wants to retain an image for another page, they can do so, like of an object or minor character. If you want to see the whole story, you can just watch the episode. 300 images for an 11 minute episode is overboard.

      We could certainly find a compromise in all of this to address concerns--let's do that.

      There is no need to compromise as the only ones who are in support of this are the admins. There is also no way to compromise. It is not like those of us who oppose reducing the galleries will just accept reducing it a little. Reducing the gallery at all makes us lose.

      Also, who cares if there are 300 images for an 11-minute episode? It is not harming anyone. It is not stopping anyone from doing anything else on this wiki. It is not interfering with any design elements. There are no legality issues. It looks like those who are in support of this just want to get rid of images for no reason.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:

      There is no need to compromise as the only ones who are in support of this are the admins. There is also no way to compromise. It is not like those of us who oppose reducing the galleries will just accept reducing it a little. Reducing the gallery at all makes us lose.

      Also, who cares if there are 300 images for an 11-minute episode? It is not harming anyone. It is not stopping anyone from doing anything else on this wiki. It is not interfering with any design elements. There are no legality issues. It looks like those who are in support of this just want to get rid of images for no reason.

      This is exactly what im saying. Removing images from galleries doesnt do anything helpful for anyone and it seriously looks like this idea came from someone just got annoyed they couldnt find a certain image and decided to just remove a bunch so browsing galleries takes less than 5 seconds.

      +1

      ADMINS, Please do not remove images from any galleries unless they are duplicates, wrong images, or very low quality. If you seriously believe that there is a very large amount of people on this wiki that agree with you, then make a poll. But the way I see it, nobody wants this except you.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:

      AMK152 wrote: I don't see an issue with reducing galleries. If someone wants to retain an image for another page, they can do so, like of an object or minor character. If you want to see the whole story, you can just watch the episode. 300 images for an 11 minute episode is overboard.

      We could certainly find a compromise in all of this to address concerns--let's do that.

      There is no need to compromise as the only ones who are in support of this are the admins. There is also no way to compromise. It is not like those of us who oppose reducing the galleries will just accept reducing it a little. Reducing the gallery at all makes us lose.

      Also, who cares if there are 300 images for an 11-minute episode? It is not harming anyone. It is not stopping anyone from doing anything else on this wiki. It is not interfering with any design elements. There are no legality issues. It looks like those who are in support of this just want to get rid of images for no reason.

      We've seen evidence the user experience and SEO would improve though. 300 images for an 11 minute episode is bad for user experience as the evidence showed. Seems a bit silly to say "for no reason" when we've clearly laid it out, including with evidence.

        Loading editor
    • Spongebob456 wrote:

      120d wrote:

      AMK152 wrote: I don't see an issue with reducing galleries. If someone wants to retain an image for another page, they can do so, like of an object or minor character. If you want to see the whole story, you can just watch the episode. 300 images for an 11 minute episode is overboard.

      We could certainly find a compromise in all of this to address concerns--let's do that.

      There is no need to compromise as the only ones who are in support of this are the admins. There is also no way to compromise. It is not like those of us who oppose reducing the galleries will just accept reducing it a little. Reducing the gallery at all makes us lose.

      Also, who cares if there are 300 images for an 11-minute episode? It is not harming anyone. It is not stopping anyone from doing anything else on this wiki. It is not interfering with any design elements. There are no legality issues. It looks like those who are in support of this just want to get rid of images for no reason.

      We've seen evidence the user experience and SEO would improve though. 300 images for an 11 minute episode is bad for user experience as the evidence showed. Seems a bit silly to say "for no reason" when we've clearly laid it out, including with evidence.

      What evidence do you have that says it would improve user experience? Have other communities removed large galleries and received positive feedback?

        Loading editor
    • Spongebob456 wrote:

      120d wrote:


      AMK152 wrote: I don't see an issue with reducing galleries. If someone wants to retain an image for another page, they can do so, like of an object or minor character. If you want to see the whole story, you can just watch the episode. 300 images for an 11 minute episode is overboard.

      We could certainly find a compromise in all of this to address concerns--let's do that.

      There is no need to compromise as the only ones who are in support of this are the admins. There is also no way to compromise. It is not like those of us who oppose reducing the galleries will just accept reducing it a little. Reducing the gallery at all makes us lose.

      Also, who cares if there are 300 images for an 11-minute episode? It is not harming anyone. It is not stopping anyone from doing anything else on this wiki. It is not interfering with any design elements. There are no legality issues. It looks like those who are in support of this just want to get rid of images for no reason.

      We've seen evidence the user experience and SEO would improve though. 300 images for an 11 minute episode is bad for user experience as the evidence showed. Seems a bit silly to say "for no reason" when we've clearly laid it out, including with evidence.

      Once again, you are not really addressing some of the other image issues users have brought up in this thread such as episodes with slow moving animation, exactly how important Patchy the Pirate images are, the amount of time it takes to capture images from high quality sources, etc.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:

      Spongebob456 wrote:

      120d wrote:

      AMK152 wrote: I don't see an issue with reducing galleries. If someone wants to retain an image for another page, they can do so, like of an object or minor character. If you want to see the whole story, you can just watch the episode. 300 images for an 11 minute episode is overboard.

      We could certainly find a compromise in all of this to address concerns--let's do that.

      There is no need to compromise as the only ones who are in support of this are the admins. There is also no way to compromise. It is not like those of us who oppose reducing the galleries will just accept reducing it a little. Reducing the gallery at all makes us lose.

      Also, who cares if there are 300 images for an 11-minute episode? It is not harming anyone. It is not stopping anyone from doing anything else on this wiki. It is not interfering with any design elements. There are no legality issues. It looks like those who are in support of this just want to get rid of images for no reason.

      We've seen evidence the user experience and SEO would improve though. 300 images for an 11 minute episode is bad for user experience as the evidence showed. Seems a bit silly to say "for no reason" when we've clearly laid it out, including with evidence.

      What evidence do you have that says it would improve user experience? Have other communities removed large galleries and received positive feedback?

      Given how wikis are quite niche, you need to extrapolate out. I explain more in this reply.

        Loading editor
    • Once again, you are not really addressing some of the other image issues users have brought up in this thread such as episodes with slow moving animation, exactly how important Patchy the Pirate images are, the amount of time it takes to capture images from high quality sources, etc.

      Hey, what do you mean by "slow moving animation"? I think you're misinterpreting what I mean by "importance". I don't mean "oh the Patchy scenes are rubbish, ignore them". I mean, like the rest of the episode, use the Patchy images that tell the story of what's doing, as we would with the characters in the animated segments.

        Loading editor
    • The gallery system that you guys use for seasons 9-12 is perfect.

      Plankton's Pet/gallery and My Leg!/gallery (both at 200 images) are two examples of ideal galleries. They contain every noteworthy scene without getting extensive. There are no repetitive images, and all of the images are the same high quality. This makes it very easy to scroll through them, either to understand the story or to find a certain scene. If I want to find an important climactic scene, like Spot saving Plankton or Fred revealing his crush, it's there. If I want to find a character cameo or a funny gag, like Patrick's cameo in the pound or Bubble Bass's cameo on the street, it's there. If I want to find cluttered, low-quality images that are repetitive and unnecessary, they're not there (though they are on the majority of seasons 1-8 galleries... the poor quality of those galleries should really be addressed before trying to limit gallery size). There is no need to change the season 9-12 galleries at all.

      As a reader, I actually use the galleries when I want to check out a recent episode or catch up on an older one that I don't remember. The season 9-12 galleries are perfect because they are high-quality, concise, and thorough... unlike SpongeBob Captures, SBMania, or any other imagedump site that includes every second of each episode. Those are useless when I can just go and watch the episode; the season 9-12 galleries here on the wiki, on the other hand, are ideal when you want to check out an episode. Just what a wiki about a TV show should be for.

        Loading editor
    • Spongebob456 wrote:

      Once again, you are not really addressing some of the other image issues users have brought up in this thread such as episodes with slow moving animation, exactly how important Patchy the Pirate images are, the amount of time it takes to capture images from high quality sources, etc.

      Hey, what do you mean by "slow moving animation"? I think you're misinterpreting what I mean by "importance". I don't mean "oh the Patchy scenes are rubbish, ignore them". I mean, like the rest of the episode, use the Patchy images that tell the story of what's doing, as we would with the characters in the animated segments.

      The cheap walk cycle in "The Sponge Who Could Fly" is a prime example of some slow moving animation. There are some users, like me, who have tried helping out with episode galleries and I have uploaded over 4000 images for the past 5 years I've been on this wiki. People like me know how much of a hassle it can be to hunt down high quality images and organize the galleries.

        Loading editor
    • Spongebob456 wrote:

      120d wrote:

      Spongebob456 wrote:

      120d wrote:

      AMK152 wrote: I don't see an issue with reducing galleries. If someone wants to retain an image for another page, they can do so, like of an object or minor character. If you want to see the whole story, you can just watch the episode. 300 images for an 11 minute episode is overboard.

      We could certainly find a compromise in all of this to address concerns--let's do that.

      There is no need to compromise as the only ones who are in support of this are the admins. There is also no way to compromise. It is not like those of us who oppose reducing the galleries will just accept reducing it a little. Reducing the gallery at all makes us lose.

      Also, who cares if there are 300 images for an 11-minute episode? It is not harming anyone. It is not stopping anyone from doing anything else on this wiki. It is not interfering with any design elements. There are no legality issues. It looks like those who are in support of this just want to get rid of images for no reason.

      We've seen evidence the user experience and SEO would improve though. 300 images for an 11 minute episode is bad for user experience as the evidence showed. Seems a bit silly to say "for no reason" when we've clearly laid it out, including with evidence.

      What evidence do you have that says it would improve user experience? Have other communities removed large galleries and received positive feedback?

      Given how wikis are quite niche, you need to extrapolate out. I explain more in this reply.

      You just told me you have no evidence that this will impact anything positively. Right now, the only thing you know is that pages take time to load. That's just a fact. That's not indicative of anything. Everybody has to deal with load times sometimes. It isn't the end of the world if someone has to wait a few seconds. If they get frustrated and leave, then that's their fault, not the fault of the wiki. We don't have to adapt to impatient people. That's just stupid. If anyone cares enough to find that special image they want to see, they'll deal with the load times because that's just a part of being on the Internet. It is more a problem of America and a few other countries not having fast enough Internet, which is the fault of the corporations, not the people. If you want people to see the images sooner, write your local politicians and demand that they make Internet companies allow us to have access to high-speed Internet. This is not something that ESB or FANDOM should be trying to fix by removing images. It is a problem they should be trying to fix by demanding politicians and Internet companies not restrict Internet speed.

        Loading editor
    • Luv Starfire1 wrote: The gallery system that you guys use for seasons 9-12 is perfect.

      Plankton's Pet/gallery and My Leg!/gallery (both at 200 images) are two examples of ideal galleries. They contain every noteworthy scene without getting extensive. There are no repetitive images, and all of the images are the same high quality. This makes it very easy to scroll through them, either to understand the story or to find a certain scene.

      Hey there, that's given us something specific to look at. Let's look at example from the Plankton's Pet gallery:

      Garyandspotgalleryexample

      So here, we see Plankton seeing Spot is bored/wants to do something and he takes him for a walk. I haven't crossed out any images as I'd like your opinion on it. Is there a way of telling that more efficiently there? I think per the evidence, it's important to have images that are "sufficiently distinct". As we can see there, most of the images there look very similar.

      If I want to find an important climactic scene, like Spot saving Plankton or Fred revealing his crush, it's there. If I want to find a character cameo or a funny gag, like Patrick's cameo in the pound or Bubble Bass's cameo on the street, it's there. If I want to find cluttered, low-quality images that are repetitive and unnecessary, they're not there (though they are on the majority of seasons 1-8 galleries... the poor quality of those galleries should really be addressed before trying to limit gallery size). There is no need to change the season 9-12 galleries at all.

      Regarding cameos, it's worth saying those images could go in that character's respective article or in the trivia section. Where we have a section such as "running gags" or "errors", we can place an image beside the text. This makes the viewing experience easier and improves SEO.

      As a reader, I actually use the galleries when I want to check out a recent episode or catch up on an older one that I don't remember. The season 9-12 galleries are perfect because they are high-quality, concise, and thorough... unlike SpongeBob Captures, SBMania, or any other imagedump site that includes every second of each episode. Those are useless when I can just go and watch the episode; the season 9-12 galleries here on the wiki, on the other hand, are ideal when you want to check out an episode. Just what a wiki about a TV show should be for.

      You make some very valid points here, in fact, it's pretty much exactly what I'm after. I think galleries with high quality images and are concise are very important. Per above, wondering if more can be done however regarding quantity of images.

        Loading editor
    • Jensonk wrote:

      Spongebob456 wrote:

      Once again, you are not really addressing some of the other image issues users have brought up in this thread such as episodes with slow moving animation, exactly how important Patchy the Pirate images are, the amount of time it takes to capture images from high quality sources, etc.

      Hey, what do you mean by "slow moving animation"? I think you're misinterpreting what I mean by "importance". I don't mean "oh the Patchy scenes are rubbish, ignore them". I mean, like the rest of the episode, use the Patchy images that tell the story of what's doing, as we would with the characters in the animated segments.

      The cheap walk cycle in "The Sponge Who Could Fly" is a prime example of some slow moving animation. There are some users, like me, who have tried helping out with episode galleries and I have uploaded over 4000 images for the past 5 years I've been on this wiki. People like me know how much of a hassle it can be to hunt down high quality images and organize the galleries.

      Hey, so regarding that scene, it's very repetitive. One or two images showing some different poses would surely suffice. Regarding the work of users like yourself, I completely agree. I don't want it wasted but if users aren't viewing all 200 images anyway, then I worry how much of that work is appreciated by readers.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote: You just told me you have no evidence that this will impact anything positively. Right now, the only thing you know is that pages take time to load. That's just a fact. That's not indicative of anything. Everybody has to deal with load times sometimes. It isn't the end of the world if someone has to wait a few seconds. If they get frustrated and leave, then that's their fault, not the fault of the wiki. We don't have to adapt to impatient people. That's just stupid. If anyone cares enough to find that special image they want to see, they'll deal with the load times because that's just a part of being on the Internet. It is more a problem of America and a few other countries not having fast enough Internet, which is the fault of the corporations, not the people. If you want people to see the images sooner, write your local politicians and demand that they make Internet companies allow us to have access to high-speed Internet. This is not something that ESB or FANDOM should be trying to fix by removing images. It is a problem they should be trying to fix by demanding politicians and Internet companies not restrict Internet speed.

      Expertly said, I 100% agree.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:

      You just told me you have no evidence that this will impact anything positively. Right now, the only thing you know is that pages take time to load. That's just a fact. That's not indicative of anything. Everybody has to deal with load times sometimes. It isn't the end of the world if someone has to wait a few seconds. If they get frustrated and leave, then that's their fault, not the fault of the wiki. We don't have to adapt to impatient people. That's just stupid. If anyone cares enough to find that special image they want to see, they'll deal with the load times because that's just a part of being on the Internet. It is more a problem of America and a few other countries not having fast enough Internet, which is the fault of the corporations, not the people. If you want people to see the images sooner, write your local politicians and demand that they make Internet companies allow us to have access to high-speed Internet. This is not something that ESB or FANDOM should be trying to fix by removing images. It is a problem they should be trying to fix by demanding politicians and Internet companies not restrict Internet speed.

      This is probably the best way to describe the issue, and I have nothing to add to the conversation at this point.

        Loading editor
    • Spongebob456: Sure, they're all in the Chum Bucket laboratory, but each picture tells the story and the different tricks Spot learns:

      • Plankton is confused, he doesn't know what to do with Spot
      • Karen tells him to train Spot
      • Plankton decides to start with something easy
      • He puts Spot down
      • He walks across the room and Spot learns to "stay"
      • Spot learns "sit"
      • Spot learns "roll over"
      • Plankton shows some rare gratitude and happiness
      • Spot goes overboard learning to "shake"
      • Plankton decides it's time for a walk
      • We see the tiny amoeba leash
      • And we have a happy Plankton and Spot going for a walk

      The scenes have the same background, but at least they're distinct. An argument could be made to get rid of a few images, but when it comes down to a minor change like that, I see no reason for you guys to put forth the effort. Why limit well-done galleries when there are so many low-quality ones? The season 9-12 galleries are so much more concise than any season 1-8 gallery... compare Squidward's School for Grown-Ups/gallery, which is bogged down by unnecessary spans of near-identical scenes, all taken straight from Captures. This is a poor-quality, difficult-to-browse gallery; the season 9-12 galleries aren't.

      EXPT1

      Barely any change between the scenes.

      EXPT2

      Nothing but raised hands and minor expression changes.

      Also, as some of the more active users have said, episodes from seasons 10-12 have tons of motion and sight gags compared to the earlier ones. It would be hard for a season 10-12 gallery to be thorough with less than ~200 images.

        Loading editor
    • Luv Starfire1: Hey, thanks for the feedback. I get where you're coming from. I think the issue is finding a balance and also being consistent. It's easier to say "limit all galleries" rather than "limit some but not XYZ".

      Regarding the sight gags, that is a valid point that I'd need to consider more. What differentiates SpongeBob from something like Star Wars is that there is more visual comedy which I accept.

      I was wondering if we could find a compromise here. I acknowledge my gallery of 25 images came across as extreme to some. Would there be a way to get episode galleries at least down to double figures perhaps? I can have a crack and am happy to, but would you be willing to have a go at trimming a gallery down to double figures? It doesn't matter what exact number.

      I understand it's a change you disagree with and it's asking a fair bit, but I'd be interested to see if it's something someone who uses the galleries could try out and if successful, something that other users might get on board with. :)

        Loading editor
    • Why double figures? Why so low like that? The objective should be as long as images befit the criteria outlined by someone, they can stay. If we have 150 images that follow it, we should not be trying to exercise more removal just to push it down under a certain limit. Based on the concern that was brought up about images that don't need to be there, such as redundant scenes, etc. Regardless, having 100—200 images is a fair compromise anyway.

        Loading editor
    • Spongebob456 wrote: Luv Starfire1: Hey, thanks for the feedback. I get where you're coming from. I think the issue is finding a balance and also being consistent. It's easier to say "limit all galleries" rather than "limit some but not XYZ".

      Regarding the sight gags, that is a valid point that I'd need to consider more. What differentiates SpongeBob from something like Star Wars is that there is more visual comedy which I accept.

      I was wondering if we could find a compromise here. I acknowledge my gallery of 25 images came across as extreme to some. Would there be a way to get episode galleries at least down to double figures perhaps? I can have a crack and am happy to, but would you be willing to have a go at trimming a gallery down to double figures? It doesn't matter what exact number.

      I understand it's a change you disagree with and it's asking a fair bit, but I'd be interested to see if it's something someone who uses the galleries could try out and if successful, something that other users might get on board with. :)

      I've already provided a perfectly fine solution that one could consider a compromise. In case you missed it or purposefully ignored it, my solution is to have the Internet speed increased by Internet provider companies. It helps literally everyone. It helps those of us who don't want the galleries trimmed. It helps those who want more views on the galleries. It helps FANDOM get more revenue. It helps advertisers get more views to their ads. It helps FANDOM to create a version of their site that works for every platform and makes it so no one has to be inconvenienced. It helps everyone get faster Internet. There are literally no downsides to doing this. Nobody has to lose.

        Loading editor
    • I do agree that many galleries have unnecessary photos, but do we really need to make galleries only 25 photos long? I personally find that way too short. I think around 100 to 150 photos would be fine.

      Also, how would I do galleries now? I currently take photos from galleries and replace them with higher quality photos.

        Loading editor
    • Expert at Terraria wrote: I do agree that many galleries have unnecessary photos, but do we really need to make galleries only 25 photos long? I personally find that way too short. I think around 75 to 100 photos would be fine.

      Also, how would I do galleries now? I currently take photos from galleries and replace them with higher quality photos.

      There is no reason for us to reduce the number. I understand that some galleries may contain repeating frames and those should be removed, but there is no reason to reduce the number of images so significantly. This is also not a proposal and not enforceable by anyone, so as far as I know, you can continue doing what you are doing.

        Loading editor
    • Each of us has an ideal number in mind, with some being wayyy too low. 25 is not good. Like where did you pull that number out of? 75-100 is still not long enough because you cut out crucial images.

      How many images is enough for you?
       
      2
       
      3
       
      6
       
      1
       
      10
       

      The poll was created at 21:37 on April 1, 2019, and so far 22 people voted.
        Loading editor
    • I re-thought about it, and I think 100-150 would be fine. I don't mind 200, but that is a little much, imo, and over 200 generally has repetitive photos.

        Loading editor
    • Tanhamman wrote: Each of us has an ideal number in mind, with some being wayyy too low. 25 is not good. Like where did you pull that number out of? 75-100 is still not long enough because you cut out crucial images.

      I wanna say no limit, but then again I don't want thousands of duplicate images. I would also say 200+ plus but that also is basically no limit.

        Loading editor
    • Hi, admins...

      There is a bunch of images in the SpongeBob SquarePants (character) gallery that are actually nicely formatted but most of them aren't needed (especially outfits he has wore that have only had one appearance throughout the show).

        Loading editor
    • My personal solution is that maybe there shouldn't be a set limit that all galleries follow, but rather we just make an effort to delete/not upload images that are either redundant or convey no new information.

      For instance if we have say 4 images from a specific scene where it's just Squidward standing at the cash register, and the only difference between them is that he makes different facial expressions, we really don't need all 4 and could just cut it down to 1. In this instance the images portray the scene, but we only need 1 to understand what is happening. All the other 3 images do is add no new information other than that Yes, Squidward is capable of multiple facial expressions. What a shocker.

        Loading editor
    • Alexjakob99 wrote:
      Ok. I am totally confused. Partically this: let's start off with Help Wanted/gallery. Reviewing on the overall quality of the gallery, the following Qwertyxp2000 Gallery Criteria have been met, in the order of priority from 1 to the final number:
      1. All Significant Scenes Present ✓
      2. Chronological order ✓
      3. No Redundant Scenes ✘
      4. Balanced Gallery Size (connected to Priority 3) ✘
      5. All Acceptable Quality Images ✘
      6. Naming scheme ✘

      Essentially, the gallery possesses all significant scenes of the episode, the gallery is ordered pretty well in the chronology of each scene, but there are many redundant scenes that are causing imbalanced gallery size, some screenshots have watermarks on them, and the naming scheme (lowest priority) is not yet done. Here are some parts on the gallery where I feel require cleanup on "redundant" screenshots or poor quality screenshots (I have highlighted what I definitely would remove and possibly may remove or otherwise needs replacement.



      How can I help? What should I do?

      Any response/help anyone?

        Loading editor
    • I say we narrow down the episode galleries to 75-100 pictures each.

        Loading editor
    • Chickenkrispies wrote: My personal solution is that maybe there shouldn't be a set limit that all galleries follow, but rather we just make an effort to delete/not upload images that are either redundant or convey no new information.

      For instance if we have say 4 images from a specific scene where it's just Squidward standing at the cash register, and the only difference between them is that he makes different facial expressions, we really don't need all 4 and could just cut it down to 1. In this instance the images portray the scene, but we only need 1 to understand what is happening. All the other 3 images do is add no new information other than that Yes, Squidward is capable of multiple facial expressions. What a shocker.

      I kind of like the general idea with this one, where you limit future uploads instead of trying to impose a ban on images for galleries that are more or less complete. However, I can see that there are some drawbacks to this, with people possibly complaining that future galleries are inconsistent with older galleries or people complaining that they are just trying to make the galleries look consistent by uploading more images. I genuinely think that there should just not be any limitation, at least not until the galleries are complete. I understand that will be difficult considering the show is still on the air, meaning that they will be releasing new episodes (and another movie) while we would be doing that, meaning that there will be more galleries to complete.

      I think, for now, this discussion should be closed and revisited when the galleries are complete. I really don't think this discussion was worthy of being #2 on 456's list of things to discuss. It certainly wasn't worthy enough to be a bell notification thing.

      If you are still worried about SEO, then write your local representative or maybe even your Internet provider and demand that everyone get the highest speed Internet. That is the only true way to increase views and help everyone avoid load times. Otherwise, we are just appealing to impatient people, which you should never try to do because no matter what you try to do, there will always be something to complain about, especially with load times, which is partially caused by Planned obsolescence, which is a whole other problem that you can write to your local representative about.

        Loading editor
    • Hi guys,

      I thought now would be a good time to summarise.

      • We know from the evidence that having images be sufficiently distinct has positive effects on user experience. That basically rules out scenarios like this:
      GalleryEdit1
      • We also know from the evidence that having too many images clutters a page and creates visual noise for the reader, negatively affecting the viewing experience. This means having hundreds of images in a gallery simply is not viable. For mobile and desktop users this means they are less likely to return to the wiki which we surely don't want.
      • Regarding mobile users, it's worth stressing that many of our articles were blank in the mobile skin for a long while. When a user comes to a website, finds its articles blank, they're very likely not going to return. If we improve this mobile experience, we make it easier for mobile users to return to the wiki.
      • Copyright is also a concern. I think the fair use of these images is in doubt if we have such a high quantity of frames documented for an episode. Given how companies such as YouTube are clamping down on copyright more, this is an important issue. Furthermore, the changes in EU Law could affect us significantly. As I said before, these new laws that passed clampdown on copyright and shift the onus from the users to the website itself - in other words, Fandom. Fandom may be forced, by EU law, to deal with our images and to even shut us down while they do that. Much like GDPR, the EU may not provide much time for this to happen. Surely it is up to us to make this change smoothly and in accordance with the way we want it, rather than it being done in haste and in a way we don't want it.
        • And no we will not be asking readers to contact politicians to account for our inadequacies. If a website is inadequately designed, it is up to us to fix it. In no way is it viable to say “nope, we’re not changing our website, contact your politician or don’t come back at all”. It’s very silly to think that in fact. Interesting some would rather blame our readers before blaming ourselves - food for thought.
      • I understand the argument that SpongeBob has a lot of sight gags and facial expressions are important to some. With that, I acknowledge the argument for more images than the 25 I suggested. I’m hoping to find some middle ground here. Ideally, we want our image galleries to give a flavour of the episode without being a substitute for watching it. That’s why less than 200 images is very possible. It’s worth noting that for cameos, errors, specific details there are other sections they are appropriate for too. For example, if we see a tin of Snail-Po in the background, it’s perfectly fine to place that image in the trivia section (next to the trivia text saying Snail-Po appears) and on the Snail-Po article. This makes sense user experience wise and it helps SEO.
      • I know some have suggested having a more flexible limit for galleries. I would be open to considering that more, but it is a lot easier to create a blanket figure rather than "this gallery can be 80 images, but not this one". I am wondering if something a long the lines of "Gallery limits can be X number +- 10" is viable. Let me know on that.

      Overall guys, I really ask we find some sort of compromise and agreement here. I’ve said the 25 images is flexible and even said if we can just get it down to any double figure number initially. Let’s not start the “we’ve been doing this for years, others should change around us” argument. We should move with the times and serve our readers better.

        Loading editor
    • Spongebob456 wrote: Hi guys,

      I thought now would be a good time to summarise.

      • We know from the evidence that having images be sufficiently distinct has positive effects on user experience. That basically rules out scenarios like this:
      GalleryEdit1
      • We also know from the evidence that having too many images clutters a page and creates visual noise for the reader, negatively affecting the viewing experience. This means having hundreds of images in a gallery simply is not viable. For mobile and desktop users this means they are less likely to return to the wiki which we surely don't want.
      • Regarding mobile users, it's worth stressing that many of our articles were blank in the mobile skin for a long while. When a user comes to a website, finds its articles blank, they're very likely not going to return. If we improve this mobile experience, we make it easier for mobile users to return to the wiki.
      • Copyright is also a concern. I think the fair use of these images is in doubt if we have such a high quantity of frames documented for an episode. Given how companies such as YouTube are clamping down on copyright more, this is an important issue. Furthermore, the changes in EU Law could affect us significantly. As I said before, these new laws that passed clampdown on copyright and shift the onus from the users to the website itself - in other words, Fandom. Fandom may be forced, by EU law, to deal with our images and to even shut us down while they do that. Much like GDPR, the EU may not provide much time for this to happen. Surely it is up to us to make this change smoothly and in accordance with the way we want it, rather than it being done in haste and in a way we don't want it.
        • And no we will not be asking readers to contact politicians to account for our inadequacies. If a website is inadequately designed, it is up to us to fix it. In no way is it viable to say “nope, we’re not changing our website, contact your politician or don’t come back at all”. It’s very silly to think that in fact. Interesting some would rather blame our readers before blaming ourselves - food for thought.
      • I understand the argument that SpongeBob has a lot of sight gags and facial expressions are important to some. With that, I acknowledge the argument for more images than the 25 I suggested. I’m hoping to find some middle ground here. Ideally, we want our image galleries to give a flavour of the episode without being a substitute for watching it. That’s why less than 200 images is very possible. It’s worth noting that for cameos, errors, specific details there are other sections they are appropriate for too. For example, if we see a tin of Snail-Po in the background, it’s perfectly fine to place that image in the trivia section (next to the trivia text saying Snail-Po appears) and on the Snail-Po article. This makes sense user experience wise and it helps SEO.
      • I know some have suggested having a more flexible limit for galleries. I would be open to considering that more, but it is a lot easier to create a blanket figure rather than "this gallery can be 80 images, but not this one". I am wondering if something a long the lines of "Gallery limits can be X number +- 10" is viable. Let me know on that.

      Overall guys, I really ask we find some sort of compromise and agreement here. I’ve said the 25 images is flexible and even said if we can just get it down to any double figure number initially. Let’s not start the “we’ve been doing this for years, others should change around us” argument. We should move with the times and serve our readers better.

      1. An e-commerce website is a terrible example. We're not trying to sell anything. These are galleries about the episode. If the galleries were on the episode pages, you would have a point, but since they aren't, you don't have one. 2. The only way to improve the mobile experience is through designing the mobile experience to be as good as desktop, not removing images. That won't solve anything. It doesn't matter if you have 1000 images or one image, if they can't see the image(s), that's the problem, not the number of images on the page. 3. As of right now, copyright is not an issue. If it becomes an issue, then we can deal with it then. There is no reason to be preparing the worst. How's that whole Brexit thing going? Remember when every Brit was overreacting to that? The fact that copyright was even brought up is just terrible. Also, I'm not sure how much power Article 13 or whatever laws the EU uses will have any effect on FANDOM since it is an American-based company. I wouldn't be surprised if Internet providers are the ones who get attacked more than website owners. In other words, Europe may go dark for some websites as it may be easier than asking American-based companies to remove their images or videos or whatever, especially one as big as FANDOM. 4. I know that you come from a country where politics is a joke, not like it is much better here in America, but at least, one person can't just overturn something because she feels like it. Writing to politicians is a good way to get any change made, so maybe, don't tell people not to write their politicians, especially if the change would benefit everyone in multiple ways, regardless of this discussion. I find it more humorous that you feel as if the "poorly designed" website is the fault of the users, rather than, you know, the designers. I think what makes it especially humorous is the fact that you are now just bringing up the website's design. Until now, it has not been about the design of the website, but, instead, the fact that the galleries are not being viewed by people or otherwise are "cluttered". If this is a discussion about the website's design, then the solution is to make a better website, not to change our policies because some designers don't want to, not that I think they are unwilling to make the change since I have yet to actually meet a designer of this website and know what his or her opinion is. 5. If it is important to some, then why get rid of it? I've given you your solution to the SEO problem. I think I've given you several solutions here and in your awful proposal. If you don't want to take it, then that's fine, but don't expect this wiki to make a change because you and the Staff aren't willing to do work. Speaking of work, we haven't talked about who would remove the images. I volunteer 456 to do it unless he thinks he is above the work. If you want to remove images, then I think you should go through all 593 galleries and remove them yourself. If you don't want to do that yourself, then this discussion doesn't need to go on any longer. I don't think anyone on this wiki is demanding these images be removed, maybe requesting, but certainly not demanding. 6. Double digits is too few images. It just is. 7. Regarding your final paragraph, "serving our readers better" is not your goal. Well, it is, but the way you are going about it is not helpful. I and many others have attempted to explain why it is unhelpful. The argument of "we've been doing this for years, others should change around us" is not one that applies here. It has never has. The reality is that no one here thinks that we shouldn't change. We think that not every solution is the responsibility of the users who use the website. Just because we contribute, doesn't mean we should be the ones to change. Sometimes, it is the Staff that needs to change. The sooner you realize that the sooner you can actually start helping the readers. Also, "We should move with the times and serve our readers better." What are we a newspaper? What times? It is not like this website is behind the current trend. In many cases, this website is often looked up to as the example for other wiki sites. I'm not saying that this website isn't outdated in some respects; the search feature comes to mind. (Seriously, get that updated.) I guess I'm saying that that might be the topping on the "I don't care about the users" cake you just laid out. You clearly don't actually care about getting these things fixed. You just care about making the Staff happy. You are supposed to be a representative of this community, not Staff. If they cared enough, they wouldn't send someone like you to do their bidding. They would send a Staff member to make these requests. I understand that they may be intimidated by some of the users here as Staff members haven't exactly had the warmest welcome here, but if they really believed that the problem was the galleries, they would go through that to tell us. Right now, there is no evidence that the problem is the gallery. If you can get some, then we can have a proper discussion, but until then, I stand by closing this and dealing with it later if it is actually important.

        Loading editor
    • Idk what to say :P

        Loading editor
    • Like I said before, and I'll say it again: the whole notion of this is far too complicated, time consuming, and unnecessary. No, I am not standing by that assumption made earlier that we "can't accept change and like the Stone Ages." I'm genuinely saying this change is similar to this. It is completely blown out of proportion.

      There is no evidence that viewership will increase. There is also no evidence that viewership is currently decreasing because of our current ways.

      Also, can someone please explain to me why copyright is an issue here? Also why SBCaptures is still open and has been open for five years, 10,000-15,000 views per day, linked on every SpongeBobia wiki, and has not received not one copyright infringement issue.

      Also, FYI, even if this does pass, I still don't think this would make galleries eligible for merge, as this idea was brought up to defend that notion too. I really don't and can easily see why the suggested number was so low. But I'm not going to assume anything for now.

      Overall, this is another major change that has some concerns. I strongly say images should not be pushed down less than 100. Images should stay around 200. Ones over 300 or more, it should be advisory to the authors of them to try and reduce it, but it should not be enforced like the law of the land because it's still a valid contribution.

        Loading editor
    • Do not bring up Article 13 again. Article 13 does not affect this wiki because FANDOM is owned by an American company and is not part of the EU. 

      Also stop saying stuff like "the wiki doesnt like change so they say no to everything". That is false. The reason we say no to most stuff is because they are bad ideas, and not because we dont like change. You have to look at the surface of what you're pruposing, which, in case you havent noticed, is litterally "lets remove images from galleries because its annoying to scroll through". You then bring up Article 13, which has no say here, and most likely never will. The truth is nobody wants images removed from galleries just because they are too large. You guys realize that this is a SPONGEBOB WIKI, and not the CIA website or the Wikipedia itself. We can have as many images of characters talking as we want, it doesnt bother anybody or anything.

        Loading editor
    • 120d wrote:

      1. An e-commerce website is a terrible example. We're not trying to sell anything. These are galleries about the episode. If the galleries were on the episode pages, you would have a point, but since they aren't, you don't have one. 2. The only way to improve the mobile experience is through designing the mobile experience to be as good as desktop, not removing images. That won't solve anything. It doesn't matter if you have 1000 images or one image, if they can't see the image(s), that's the problem, not the number of images on the page. 3. As of right now, copyright is not an issue. If it becomes an issue, then we can deal with it then. There is no reason to be preparing the worst. How's that whole Brexit thing going? Remember when every Brit was overreacting to that? The fact that copyright was even brought up is just terrible. Also, I'm not sure how much power Article 13 or whatever laws the EU uses will have any effect on FANDOM since it is an American-based company. I wouldn't be surprised if Internet providers are the ones who get attacked more than website owners. In other words, Europe may go dark for some websites as it may be easier than asking American-based companies to remove their images or videos or whatever, especially one as big as FANDOM. 4. I know that you come from a country where politics is a joke, not like it is much better here in America, but at least, one person can't just overturn something because she feels like it. Writing to politicians is a good way to get any change made, so maybe, don't tell people not to write their politicians, especially if the change would benefit everyone in multiple ways, regardless of this discussion. I find it more humorous that you feel as if the "poorly designed" website is the fault of the users, rather than, you know, the designers. I think what makes it especially humorous is the fact that you are now just bringing up the website's design. Until now, it has not been about the design of the website, but, instead, the fact that the galleries are not being viewed by people or otherwise are "cluttered". If this is a discussion about the website's design, then the solution is to make a better website, not to change our policies because some designers don't want to, not that I think they are unwilling to make the change since I have yet to actually meet a designer of this website and know what his or her opinion is. 5. If it is important to some, then why get rid of it? I've given you your solution to the SEO problem. I think I've given you several solutions here and in your awful proposal. If you don't want to take it, then that's fine, but don't expect this wiki to make a change because you and the Staff aren't willing to do work. Speaking of work, we haven't talked about who would remove the images. I volunteer 456 to do it unless he thinks he is above the work. If you want to remove images, then I think you should go through all 593 galleries and remove them yourself. If you don't want to do that yourself, then this discussion doesn't need to go on any longer. I don't think anyone on this wiki is demanding these images be removed, maybe requesting, but certainly not demanding. 6. Double digits is too few images. It just is. 7. Regarding your final paragraph, "serving our readers better" is not your goal. Well, it is, but the way you are going about it is not helpful. I and many others have attempted to explain why it is unhelpful. The argument of "we've been doing this for years, others should change around us" is not one that applies here. It has never has. The reality is that no one here thinks that we shouldn't change. We think that not every solution is the responsibility of the users who use the website. Just because we contribute, doesn't mean we should be the ones to change. Sometimes, it is the Staff that needs to change. The sooner you realize that the sooner you can actually start helping the readers. Also, "We should move with the times and serve our readers better." What are we a newspaper? What times? It is not like this website is behind the current trend. In many cases, this website is often looked up to as the example for other wiki sites. I'm not saying that this website isn't outdated in some respects; the search feature comes to mind. (Seriously, get that updated.) I guess I'm saying that that might be the topping on the "I don't care about the users" cake you just laid out. You clearly don't actually care about getting these things fixed. You just care about making the Staff happy. You are supposed to be a representative of this community, not Staff. If they cared enough, they wouldn't send someone like you to do their bidding. They would send a Staff member to make these requests. I understand that they may be intimidated by some of the users here as Staff members haven't exactly had the warmest welcome here, but if they really believed that the problem was the galleries, they would go through that to tell us. Right now, there is no evidence that the problem is the gallery. If you can get some, then we can have a proper discussion, but until then, I stand by closing this and dealing with it later if it is actually important.

      I 100% agree

        Loading editor
    • Hol' up...FishTank really IS actively monitoring this thread. As 120d said, if Fandom Staff wants us to limit the galleries, why aren't they sending one of their Staff cronies to ask us? And if any users on the ESB Crew are getting orders from Fandom Staff to have this discussion, they should be honest about it and tell us IMO.

      Again, I support the idea of a limit. People have pointed out that the galleries for non-HD episodes have way too many images and are just bad quality. I agree, so I'd like to see some action taken against the bad galleries.

      But a MUCH bigger issue that is probably hindering SEO way more is the rampant subgalleries for minor things. Out of the 20,000 pages on here, it seems like more than 60% are random subgalleries. Clicking on Random Page will almost ALWAYS get you to a subgallery. Nobody's coming here for those, they just look at the general episode galleries and the general character galleries, and that's it. I swear, nobody on Earth wants to see Galley Grub/gallery/The Ballad of Filthy Muck. Minor object subgalleries are so unnecessary that someone requested a bylaw review about them, ESB:Convention/Bylaws reviews - Content/Subtopic1 in February. But as far as I can tell, the admins never even looked at it.

        Loading editor
    • Demigod brendan wrote: Hol' up...FishTank really IS actively monitoring this thread. As 120d said, if Fandom Staff wants us to limit the galleries, why aren't they sending one of their Staff cronies to ask us? And if any users on the ESB Crew are getting orders from Fandom Staff to have this discussion, they should be honest about it and tell us IMO.

      I can safely confirm that not a single ESB Crew member has been given an "order" to have this discussion. FishTank is simply watching this discussion out of interest, Staffers are users too after all and not everything they do on the site revolves around their position.

      Demigod brendan wrote: But a MUCH bigger issue that is probably hindering SEO way more is the rampant subgalleries for minor things. Out of the 20,000 pages on here, it seems like more than 60% are random subgalleries. Clicking on Random Page will almost ALWAYS get you to a subgallery. Nobody's coming here for those, they just look at the general episode galleries and the general character galleries, and that's it. I swear, nobody on Earth wants to see Galley Grub/gallery/The Ballad of Filthy Muck. Minor object subgalleries are so unnecessary that someone requested a bylaw review about them, ESB:Convention/Bylaws reviews - Content/Subtopic1 in February. But as far as I can tell, the admins never even looked at it.

      I agree that these galleries are an issue and should be addressed. However, it is not something we've ignored and I've, personally, had several conversations about them with various other administration members. I am sure they'll be addressed officially in due time.

        Loading editor
    • TheKorraFanatic wrote:

      I can safely confirm that not a single ESB Crew member has been given an "order" to have this discussion. FishTank is simply watching this discussion out of interest, Staffers are users too after all and not everything they do on the site revolves around their position.

      Whew, that's a relief. I was afraid this was another weird staff scenario.

      TheKorraFanatic wrote:

      I agree that these galleries are an issue and should be addressed. However, it is not something we've ignored and I've, personally, had several conversations about them with various other administration members. I am sure they'll be addressed officially in due time.

      Aight. I'll start a proposal to cut down on the subgalleries.

        Loading editor
    • Here's my opinion on this:

      Some people want to see the entire episode through galleries. Others don't, they just want to see a specific moment of the episode. What, you just let one person get what they want, and the other person has to weep? No. What I think is that the people who want to see the entire episode through galleries AND the people who want to see the specific moment should get what they wan't. If I were the wiki's leader, I would create "full galleries" or galleries dedicated to every moment of each episode, for the people who want to watch the episode through pictures, "summary galleries" for the people watching beforehand and who just want a quick summary, and "moment galleries" galleries divided into specific moments using a template, for the people who just want to see a specific moment of an episode.

        Loading editor
    •   Loading editor
    • Demigod brendan wrote: Hol' up...FishTank really IS actively monitoring this thread. As 120d said, if Fandom Staff wants us to limit the galleries, why aren't they sending one of their Staff cronies to ask us? And if any users on the ESB Crew are getting orders from Fandom Staff to have this discussion, they should be honest about it and tell us IMO.

      Again, I support the idea of a limit. People have pointed out that the galleries for non-HD episodes have way too many images and are just bad quality. I agree, so I'd like to see some action taken against the bad galleries.

      But a MUCH bigger issue that is probably hindering SEO way more is the rampant subgalleries for minor things. Out of the 20,000 pages on here, it seems like more than 60% are random subgalleries. Clicking on Random Page will almost ALWAYS get you to a subgallery. Nobody's coming here for those, they just look at the general episode galleries and the general character galleries, and that's it. I swear, nobody on Earth wants to see Galley Grub/gallery/The Ballad of Filthy Muck. Minor object subgalleries are so unnecessary that someone requested a bylaw review about them, ESB:Convention/Bylaws reviews - Content/Subtopic1 in February. But as far as I can tell, the admins never even looked at it.

      I can 100% categorically say this was my decision, mine alone, and something I'd be pondering over for a long time.

      Regarding subgalleries, I agree with you - they need heavily trimming and me and AMK have had some thoughts on that. I'll let him know of the proposal.

      I am wondering whether one thing at a time is something we need to consider, getting this resolved first. But for now we'll leave the proposal up to at least gain some consensus too while we're on the topic of galleries.

        Loading editor
    • Spongebob456 wrote:

      Demigod brendan wrote: Hol' up...FishTank really IS actively monitoring this thread. As 120d said, if Fandom Staff wants us to limit the galleries, why aren't they sending one of their Staff cronies to ask us? And if any users on the ESB Crew are getting orders from Fandom Staff to have this discussion, they should be honest about it and tell us IMO.

      Again, I support the idea of a limit. People have pointed out that the galleries for non-HD episodes have way too many images and are just bad quality. I agree, so I'd like to see some action taken against the bad galleries.

      But a MUCH bigger issue that is probably hindering SEO way more is the rampant subgalleries for minor things. Out of the 20,000 pages on here, it seems like more than 60% are random subgalleries. Clicking on Random Page will almost ALWAYS get you to a subgallery. Nobody's coming here for those, they just look at the general episode galleries and the general character galleries, and that's it. I swear, nobody on Earth wants to see Galley Grub/gallery/The Ballad of Filthy Muck. Minor object subgalleries are so unnecessary that someone requested a bylaw review about them, ESB:Convention/Bylaws reviews - Content/Subtopic1 in February. But as far as I can tell, the admins never even looked at it.

      I can 100% categorically say this was my decision, mine alone, and something I'd be pondering over for a long time.

      Regarding subgalleries, I agree with you - they need heavily trimming and me and AMK have had some thoughts on that. I'll let him know of the proposal.

      I am wondering whether one thing at a time is something we need to consider, getting this resolved first. But for now we'll leave the proposal up to at least gain some consensus too while we're on the topic of galleries.

      Your first paragraph is just digging this discussion's grave even deeper. If it was merely your idea, then there is even less reason for us to do this. I'm not necessarily saying that your ideas are bad, although your recent track record speaks for itself, I'm saying that if only one person is truly demanding we make this change and a few people are in support, then it just seems pointless. If Staff was demanding this, then there would be a reason to be having this discussion as, while I don't entirely trust their statistics and research, I at least trust that they have a reason, no matter how stupid that reason might be. It is no wonder you don't want to tell Staff to make changes to the site, they have nothing to do with this and will probably look down on you for even suggesting making an unnecessary change. (Oh, the irony.)

        Loading editor
    • For what it's worth, AMK agrees with the change also.

        Loading editor
    • TheKorraFanatic wrote:

      Demigod brendan wrote: Hol' up...FishTank really IS actively monitoring this thread. As 120d said, if Fandom Staff wants us to limit the galleries, why aren't they sending one of their Staff cronies to ask us? And if any users on the ESB Crew are getting orders from Fandom Staff to have this discussion, they should be honest about it and tell us IMO.

      I can safely confirm that not a single ESB Crew member has been given an "order" to have this discussion. FishTank is simply watching this discussion out of interest, Staffers are users too after all and not everything they do on the site revolves around their position.


      Demigod brendan wrote: But a MUCH bigger issue that is probably hindering SEO way more is the rampant subgalleries for minor things. Out of the 20,000 pages on here, it seems like more than 60% are random subgalleries. Clicking on Random Page will almost ALWAYS get you to a subgallery. Nobody's coming here for those, they just look at the general episode galleries and the general character galleries, and that's it. I swear, nobody on Earth wants to see Galley Grub/gallery/The Ballad of Filthy Muck. Minor object subgalleries are so unnecessary that someone requested a bylaw review about them, ESB:Convention/Bylaws reviews - Content/Subtopic1 in February. But as far as I can tell, the admins never even looked at it.

      I agree that these galleries are an issue and should be addressed. However, it is not something we've ignored and I've, personally, had several conversations about them with various other administration members. I am sure they'll be addressed officially in due time.

      The Galley Grub subgalleries I can agree on because that one is so minor and is sometimes hard to see. There are times where the Galley Grub can only be seen if one looks very closely behind the Krusty Krab windows.

        Loading editor
    • Spongebob456 wrote: For what it's worth, AMK agrees with the change also.

      No offense, but the two of you don't comprise the majority. The majority does not support this drastic (radical) alteration to the galleries. Again, we should focus on low quality images before number of images.

        Loading editor
    • I agree with the deletion of minor subgalleries. Let's limit subgalleries to notable things. I personally see subgalleries as a way of conveying images based on something that has many notable appearances throughout the series, in an organized approach. Things inside major things (Gallery Grub inside Krusty Krab) shouldn't need them, yeah I agree, let's limit to only the main key elements of the series.

        Loading editor
    • EatThatPie wrote:
      Do not bring up Article 13 again. Article 13 does not affect this wiki because FANDOM is owned by an American company and is not part of the EU. 

      Also stop saying stuff like "the wiki doesnt like change so they say no to everything". That is false. The reason we say no to most stuff is because they are bad ideas, and not because we dont like change. You have to look at the surface of what you're pruposing, which, in case you havent noticed, is litterally "lets remove images from galleries because its annoying to scroll through". You then bring up Article 13, which has no say here, and most likely never will. The truth is nobody wants images removed from galleries just because they are too large. You guys realize that this is a SPONGEBOB WIKI, and not the CIA website or the Wikipedia itself. We can have as many images of characters talking as we want, it doesnt bother anybody or anything.

      Uzylilarr, Chuck123456, AW10, FlyingDutchmen among others all have to abide by those EU rules, including Article 13. Look at this: Twitter memes were hidden from the EU and may be banned outright Worldwide. Who knows? That could have easily been Fandom.

      As a longtime resident of Alaska, I have not that much of an idea about Cyber Law, but I have actually recieved a DMCA before due to copyrighted images, and believe me, whatever you do, DON'T TRY IT. I know quite a few laws about copyright.

        Loading editor
    • Sigh. Can’t we just get started with my idea of improving the gallery quality over the gallery quantity first?

        Loading editor
    • Quality over quantity.

      There are a lot more low-quality galleries than """extremely large""" galleries, and as multiple people have said, that should be the main focus as of now.

        Loading editor
    • Qwertyxp2000 the second wrote:
      Sigh. Can’t we just get started with my idea of improving the gallery quality over the gallery quantity first?

      Go make a thread for THAT, Qwerty.



      Yes, episode galleries should have only good-quality fine images, but this is NOT about episode gallery QUALITY, it's about QUANTITY. You are on the wrong board, mister.

        Loading editor
    • Mind Luxor wrote:

      Qwertyxp2000 the second wrote:
      Sigh. Can’t we just get started with my idea of improving the gallery quality over the gallery quantity first?

      Go make a thread for THAT, Qwerty.



      Yes, episode galleries should have only good-quality fine images, but this is NOT about episode gallery QUALITY, it's about QUANTITY. You are on the wrong board, mister.

      You literally misunderstood every word he said. He was saying that we shouldn't be worried about the quantity when the quality is a much bigger issue. It's a valid point for the thread.

        Loading editor
    • Its true, there are more galleries with low quality images > good quality images. However the original post doesnt say anything about removing images for that reason. The admins still defend their point and say that we should be removing images from gallery's, because: 

      'There are too many images'

      Now I will respond to this despite the fact that these arguments have been disproven by the majority of people participating in this conversation.

      First of all, like I previously said, IF there is a gallery with a "absurd amount of images" and IF every image is in chronological order, none are