An accepted answer to a post contains images that are non-illustrative and just scans of text. I attempted to correct this by typing in the text from these barely readable “images” and removing the images since they seemed superfluous at best. The edit was rejected with the original poster stating in a comment, “Deleting images out of other peoples' answers is a no-no.”
Really? A “no-no?” Especially when the images are just scans of text? I realize many online resources only provide scans of text for scripts and notes from film productions for various reasons—such as bragging rights that someone found some “leaked” info—but in the context of somewhat academic dissection of content and context, shouldn’t the text of these images be given a higher weight/value than the—often—barely legible and copied to death source material?
Which is a decent question. And the answer posted by Tyler Durden presents a nice history of how dialogue changed between what was scripted and what was filmed, but it is ultimately “truth” (aka: wrong but sounds correct enough to pass as truth). The crux is that the answer presents the 2004 DVD re-dubbing dialogue as (Does the ret-conning ever end?) “As it was actually filmed…” which is just wrong.
I proposed an edit to the answer which would address the difference between the 1980 dialogue and the 2004 dialogue which was rejected. Okay, I understand original poster’s should be deferred to when it comes to edits. But still, this level of complete rejection—not a “reject and edit” seemed odd to me—so I mentioned as much in a comment to the answer in question which caught the same 1980 versus 2004 issue as I did:
The original poster of this answer rejected my suggested edit to this post that clearly differentiated between the 1980 release of the film and the 2004 DVD release of the film as well as my edits that took the images with text and actually typed them in. If this site is about preventing SEO and improving search ability on solid info, hey… Who am I to complain. Anyway, I posted an answer myself to address this issue so the record is straight.
Yes, I posted a new answer that attempts to correct the fairly gaping oversight in the accepted answer… But I hate doing things like that since it ends up causing confusion to have two “parallel world” answers on the same page.
Anyway, in the context of that comment, the original poster explained their rejection of my edit by stating:
My answer has images from the original script, which you attempted to delete. Deleting images out of other peoples' answers is a no-no.
A “no-no?” Really? I admit that in addition to adding info regarding 1980 dialogue and the 2004 dialogue I did actually type out the text in the posted images, but that’s it… These “images” are simply scans of text. These “images” in this case don’t hold value as images; they are not illustrative but rather just scans of text that would be—in my humble opinion—better served by being text. My desire to remove them was to improve the answer; had they been actual images of value to the content I would have left them untouched
And there is no SEO value in these images since—if anything—the text of the dialogue cannot be picked up by search engines including the site’s internal searching methods. So I just removed them. What value do they hold as “images” other than to show off the fact some scanned to death copy of a script has been floating around?
So my question is, were my actions wrong in removing the text-only images entirely? Or is removing any image from the site a supposed “no-no?” Maybe they can be placed next to typed in text but everything I know about Stack Exchange tells me that “screenshots” that could simply be copied/pasted text should not exit; the text itself should always be favored for the reasons outlined above.