File talk:Tumblr p3qr0kbKlW1wep3uwo1 540.png

Attention Gardeners

An editor requests a change to the Image Summary form but I'm not sure if it's necessary. Would like your opinion, please.

SecurityBreach I appreciate you for finding these templates for me, however I'm wondering if the underage one should be applied? As the original post was deleted, we don't actually know the intent of the artist, and this Morty may be Aged Up. I personally don't like putting words in other's mouths. But I also understand you're trying to protect others. Just putting out my two cents. Also while I have you here, can link to the NSFW and Underage Image templates be added to the Image Summary form? I think it would make things a lot smoother. - Jacksbrak (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The article on Morty Smith says 'Morty is a 14-year-old high school student'. It also says that's canon in the show and, as far as I know, that's underage in a lot of countries. If you think this trigger warning shouldn't be there, pls feel free to remove it. --SecurityBreach (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify... I think it might be helpful to have something like the following on the Special:Upload page:

Add the following code to the bottom of the form if your image may depict underage characters:

{{UnderagePersonsInImage}}

Add the following code to the bottom of the form if your image is sexually explicit:

{{SexuallyExplicitImage}}

- Jacksbrak (talk) 12:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll add my two cents on adding under age warnings to explicit images. If the artist didn't clarify if the character in the image is aged up, but the canon age of the character is a minor and their depiction in the fanart looks reasonably young (or close to how they look in canon as a canon minor), then placing an underage warning seems better safe than sorry. I don't think there's any harm in being cautious. Patchlamb (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding my two cents as well: The picture is already minimized because of explicit sexual content. It doesn't get to be even smaller because a character is underage, therefore the additional text doesn't make any sense to me, especially the duplicate "minimized". --Doro (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I agree. I'll remove one of the templates. --SecurityBreach (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Patchlamb that is how I'm operating since SecurityBreach updated with the underage warning the first time. It's just that the artist didn't *not* clarify. These images I've been uploading the last few days are ones in which the original post was flagged across the board, or whose blogs were entirely deleted (likely in the aftermath of the purge) - the artists very well may have had a warning on their blog that all art depicted 18+ characters, or in their tags. As someone who is obviously a member of the problematic side of fandom, and as someone who has had my blog purged because someone actually made false claims against my art, I am of course, rather protective over people mis-identifying and reading into other's art, which is such a personal thing. I'd rather assume the artists erred on the side of caution, than misinterpret their art and claim they did not. But that's just me. And I really don't mind your way for the sake of protecting folks. I just know my feelings as an artist. @Doro that totally makes sense. I apologize. I probably got things confused because SecurityBreach was helping me fix my uploads, and I decided to also pitch in once the coding was in my face. Unfortunately I have since acted as though the double placement was the norm so there are other images that have double warnings. I'll fix them if I come upon them again. Thank you all! - Jacksbrak (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I see the second template is back on the file page. I removed it last year after the discussion above took place and I'm not sure if we need it. One of them is enough to do the job as two editors pointed out. In this case, I'd prefer the underage template. --SecurityBreach (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)