Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26174543-20190610213638/@comment-6986530-20190610222109

Keep in mind that one of the arguments that the debate ended on was the fact that it's not our job as a wiki to collect fanart.

The idea that it's confusing isn't referring to how story-compliant the art is (I mean it is, but that's only part of the point.) The fanart you're referring to that's still on the wikia, no matter how weird or abstract, was as you said published in an official capacity. So even if it's non-canon in the sense that it represents the story in a weird or inaccurate way, it's still canon in the sense that it's part of the franchise, or was in some way endorsed by mothy. Ichika's fanart is canon as in it represents the lore accurately (as far as we know) but it's not official EC content, and the misleading part is that putting it on the wiki is to lead people to believe that it is, especially because she's a main illustrator. That's what I thought the issue was, at least.

That being said, you're right that it's hypocritical to say that and then use fanart for character avatars (I think the idea might have been that it's okay because it's just their faces or something but it wasn't sitting right with me either.) I say we change them to official art, or they just don't have an avatar at all.

I don't have any clear thoughts about an illustrator fanart tab, except that I personally don't think it's necessary. It seems like it'd only really be useful for characters who both don't have any clear art and have fan illustrations, which is a pretty small number. I don't have a good frame of reference for how other wikis handle fanart though.