MarioWiki:Proposals

List of talk page proposals

 * Split Category:Super Mario 64 into Category:Super Mario 64 and (discuss) Deadline: Passed

Writing guidelines
None at the moment.

New features
None at the moment.

Removals
None at the moment.

Prohibit Converting Between GIF, JPEG, and PNG Formats
Converting between image formats is pointless and unconstructive maintenance. Why? Quality doesn't improve at all. There's also some misunderstandings how each image format works. JPEG to PNG preserves the JPEG artifacting (known as lossy compression). GIF to PNG keeps all the same pixels just to have a smaller file format because PNG compression is better than GIF compression (yes, there is a compression algorithm to GIF), which means improper colors are preserved because GIF is limited to 256 colors.
 * Introduction

PNG is the best format out there for web images but requires care to be wielded properly. It makes things harder to identify what needs replacing if improperly used. JPEG to PNG directly is improper use in general. This is especially true if it just to apply transparency that JPEG isn't capable of doing, which could fall under violation of a proposal prohibiting bad/fan transparency. The image that is in need of transparency should have a version that is officially applied by Nintendo, such as a press kit release. If it doesn't exist, don't convert to PNG (or edit the clean image if it is found to exist but not transparent). The file size will just be bloated at that point without affecting the quality at all.
 * What this proposal applies to

This doesn't apply to sprite rips or custom 3D model renders because the aliasing makes it super easy to apply so there is no potential for bad transparency. If there is a mistake, it can be corrected without affecting the overall image.
 * What this proposal doesn't apply to

This doesn't apply to replacing images if a clean version of that image exists or can exist. I replace screenshots and sprites often, especially if they are in the wrong format or improperly taken. You can see my images to see just how they compare to the image I was targeting to replace at the time.

If the image is found to be released in PSD or a similar format and it doesn't have transparency with all exposed layers, it might be possible to apply the transparency without it violating the bad transparency proposal.

Sometimes images are in the BMP format or some other raw format. That is OK to convert to PNG. No quality loss there.

However, if the PNG is seen to be too large for upload, even after compression optimization (10MB max at this time for each file), exceptions can be made to allow PNG to JPEG conversion. At that point, the JPEG will be of lower space requirements but the lower space requirements means lossy compression took place.
 * Exceptions

In short, keep the original format and don't convert directly. Do things properly. If this proposal passes, Image use policy needs to be amended to reflect the change. This applies to future uploading only. If it can be spotted that an image already uploaded is in violation of this policy change, deal with it on a case by case basis as things are discovered. No need to massively go through each an every image uploaded all at once.
 * Conclusion

Proposer: Deadline: January 30, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Support

 * 1) Per proposal
 * 2) - Per Wildgoosespeeder
 * 3) It took me two whole days to read and fully digest what this proposal means to the quality of images, considering how complicated it is, but after some thought, I've decided to support. It helps to have near pixel-perfect image conversions that don't affect the format (because affecting the format of an image is actually harder than it sounds). I also appreciate the fact that you're planning to update the written policy on images since, again, considering how complicated it is, this proposal, should it pass, is better written than unwritten. So long as you know exactly what you're proposing, well, per proposal!
 * 4) Per proposal.

Comments
Anything unclear? -- 22:45, 22 January 2017 (EST)

I think suffices to tell other editors that the image in question has JPEG artifacts or GIF 256-color limits. There are benefits of keeping things in a single format when the image size is small. When I created the list of Star Pieces in Paper Mario, I first used the screenshots from a 100% Paper Mario run on the Internet, which were similar to JPG, then replaced them with GIFs from the Star Piece guide on RPGClassics and finally retook them myself for successively higher quality. Since things were done in PNG at first, this saved the work of replacing all the images two times, with the additional benefit of preserving all the older versions for historical reference. -- 00:42, 23 January 2017 (EST)
 * There has been much debate over the use of that tag. I think it's best to just prohibit future uploads from converting the images so that way new debates if the tag should be placed on those images don't get started and existing debates can get resolved ASAP (any affected images that currently occupy Category:Quality requested). -- 01:10, 23 January 2017 (EST)
 * What if someone takes a screenshot from a YouTube video, like a Nintendo ad? I would save it as PNG to avoid another layer of compression, but the result would still be PNG with lossy compression. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) -- 09:54, 23 January 2017 (EST)
 * Even though the content is definitely heavily lossy compressed, compressing it as JPEG would cause further losses in quality, furthermore it can be subsequently replaced with a proper PNG screenshot without renaming. If no uncompressed or at least high bitrate lossy compressed source video can be found I would therefore say that in this case it is fine saving as PNG, stating that the source is a video and possibly including a link to the actual video.--Mister Wu (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2017 (EST)
 * I don't think those kinds of images apply to the proposal. This is more for artwork, screenshots, or other images obtained by means through someone else rather than through the submitter's own doing, like if the image they find through a Google Image Search is in the JPEG or GIF format and they submit it as a PNG instead. In general, I find that kind of practice plagiarism, unless the source is specified and there is no way for the submitter to replicate the result. -- 15:41, 23 January 2017 (EST)

If I wanted to make a jpg transparent (make it a png), would this be allowed based on your proposal? --Andymii (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2017 (EST)
 * That's already covered by the proposal. -- 15:47, 28 January 2017 (EST)
 * What if the image is a scan (like most of the pre-internet artworks)? What's wrong with making them transparent so they don't have fuzzy backgrounds? I feel it would be better if each case was taken upon individually, instead of having a sweeping rule that may in fact get in the way for certain cases. --Andymii (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2017 (EST)
 * This is a matter of image format and understanding what format is best for what situation and understanding that converting between formats doesn't increase quality. PNG doesn't mean higher quality. PNG means that it will preserve an image in whatever state it is in 100% accurately. BMPs are ideal for PNG because no degradation occurred. JPEG uses encodings that estimate what a color is at certain pixels, divided into blocks, which is why it is regarded as a lower quality lossy format that degrades an image. There is nothing wrong with JPEGs if that is all that is available at this time. It's also better for photographs or other images that are complex with colors and patterns, which can often compress better than PNG. JPEG is a tradeoff of lower space requirements for images that can get away with quality loss, which visually, could be undetectable.
 * This is also a matter of patience and making things easier to track what needs a high quality replacement at some point, if at all. High quality versions of images will eventually come. Just a month or two ago, (formerly ) found BMPs of Super Mario World artwork that MarioWiki hosted JPEG versions of instead. The JPEGs were replaced with the BMPs (converted to PNG). That's something we don't have to worry about anymore. -- 18:35, 29 January 2017 (EST)
 * How come that if something doesn't increase quality it must be forbidden? It is true that PNG encodes a photo worse than JPG, but it encodes better than GIF a pixel artwork < 256 color, such as early images on Nintendo's website before PNG came. -- 21:30, 29 January 2017 (EST)
 * We should focus on constructive edits. Converting wastes time and makes things more confusing in the long run and problems can go unnoticed for years. At least if we forbid conversion, we can track JPEG and GIF by extension instead of by visually scanning the image for imperfections if it was converted to PNG and tagging them with, thus keeping Category:Quality requested more manageable. The extension is like a MediaWiki maintenance category in disguise. Just have to use Special:Export (formerly could use Special:MIMESearch) and remove the PNGs from the list of possible JPEGs and GIFs that should see a replacement.
 * PNG isn't encoding. It's the result of reducing data redundancy without affecting the image's pixel data. JPEG goes about compression much differently, which leads to detail loss.
 * I am kind of iffy converting those GIFs to PNG because GIF has an inferior algorithm compared to PNG but there could be a better version floating around where the colors aren't limited to 256 colors.
 * I hope this clears things up. -- 22:14, 29 January 2017 (EST)

I mostly agree with your proposal, however, I disagree with this:

Exceptions

However, if the PNG is seen to be too large for upload, even after compression optimization (10MB max at this time for each file), exceptions can be made to allow PNG to JPEG conversion. At that point, the JPEG will be of lower space requirements but the lower space requirements means lossy compression took place.

I would truthfully rather have no image at all for a given subject in cases like this if the alternative is an image with lossy compression. 16:41, 30 January 2017 (EST)
 * Two problems with that. Resolution reduction isn't desirable. Also you would have to ask to increase the upload file size limits. This is also a very rare case. I have only come across a situation like this twice out of the 70,000+ files we have uploaded. -- 17:54, 30 January 2017 (EST)

Changing the Super Mario Wiki Logo!
It's time for the wiki to get a facelift and receive a brand new logo. The matter was brought up on the forums recently and I've been discussing it with several users, including Porplemontage. I presented a proposed design for the logo, and after a few adjustments I can now present it here:

This new logo is simple. Rather than displaying a piece of Mario himself, it shows the iconic mushroom. The mushroom is a symbol of the Mushroom Kingdom as a whole, similarly to how the wiki covers the entire franchise as a whole, even when Mario isn't the focus of a game. The current logo (seen at the top left of the page) is very dated, featuring artwork and screenshots from games that came out almost a decade ago. The proposed design is unique in that it won't become dated in a few years by each game that comes out.

What do you think? Should we change the logo to this new design, or keep the current logo?

Proposer: Deadline: February 1, 2017, 23:59 GMT

Switch to New Logo

 * 1) Per proposal
 * 2) I'm honestly going to miss the old one, but I agree, it's long overdue for a change.
 * 3) I like it!
 * 4) The design looks really good and everything Eldritchdraaks said about it symboling the Mushroom Kingdom instead of just Mario is really accurate. In other words, I like it enough for it to be the new logo. Per all.
 * 5) Per all.
 * 6) Preferably should be drawn with vectors, though
 * 7) Per all
 * 8) Per all
 * 9) Per all
 * 10) Since Mario's cap is not proposed as alternative logo, voting this one. Surely, a logo that doesn't become outdate is better.
 * 11) Per all.
 * 12) Goody. Though I wish it was a little less generic.
 * 13) While the current logo is at least somewhat generic, the artwork of Mario and the game screenshots are from around a decade ago, which might not be as appealing to readers. Having a logo with a good enough genericness would give that logo a much longer life span. And yes, we as a wiki also provide details about the Yoshi and Wario series, so having a simple Mushroom would be good enough, since Yoshi and Wario are too connected to Mario to have their own wikis. However, I do agree with Baby Luigi's comment about converting the image to vector scale, but we can always cross that bridge if and when we come to it.
 * 14) That is a good looking logo.
 * 15) Per All. While I Do Agree That It's A Bit Generic, It's Also Easily Recognisable.
 * 16) - Per all.
 * 17) I'm gonna miss the old one. Per all.
 * 18) No real reason not to. Per all.
 * 19) The Super Mushroom represents the Mario franchise, like the emblem used to represent the Mario universe in the Smash Bros series. And also this is the perfect time to switch to the new logo to coincide the "new Nintendo", with their brand logo changed from "grey logo on white" to "white logo on red". Per all.
 * 20) The new logo isn't very unique or clever, so I'm hesitant to support it. However, it's definitely better than what we have now, so I guess it's okay.
 * 21) Per proposed.
 * 22) Per all.

Keep the Current Logo

 * 1) At the risk of sounding picky, I kinda like the current logo better. I have nothing against the one shown, but it's a matter taste and I just like the current one. If I need a reason why I like the current one, I like the screenshots behind Mario and the logo itself. While they are kinda hard to see, they do show a bit of the various games in the series overall.

Comments
The original file IS drawn with vector... mostly. It's x1500px.-- 22:45, 25 January 2017 (EST)

Barely related, but how does everyone feel about naming this Wiki Mushroom Kingdom Wiki? Not something that is going to be changed any time soon or even through a proposal to make the change, but I think it is worth discussing just as a hypothetical. -- 20:56, 27 January 2017 (EST)
 * Too close to The Mushroom Kingdom. 21:04, 27 January 2017 (EST)
 * The series is called "Mario" after all, so it makes sense to be named after that. 21:05, 27 January 2017 (EST)
 * But we cover a lot of non-Mario things, such as Luigi's Mansion, WarioWare, Donkey Kong Country (series), Super Smash Bros., Mario & Sonic (series), Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker, and Yoshi (series) just to name a few examples. I already feel that we shouldn't cover some of those on another talk page. -- 15:34, 28 January 2017 (EST)

Along with the new logo, can this wiki change its wiki skin to Vector (with the search bar on the top right) as default? The new logo skin wouldn't fit in with the MonoBook skin. The Zelda Wiki, Smash Wiki and Nintendo Wiki all have the Vector skin as default. 21:45, 27 January 2017 (EST)
 * One change at a time! Isn't it possible to have it's size reduced or create a smaller one, though? ...Eh, I'd likely keep my setting to MonoBook anyway. 22:10, 27 January 2017 (EST)

One thing about the SVG version placed here last night is that while a PNG of 150px is 23KB, the vector is 342KB, which is significant. I would then use the PNG instead. You can also use a PNG of 300px instead to accommodate for high density screen users (51KB), or both and have it be switched as needed by CSS. 09:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * If filesize is a concern, the SVG can just be scaled down to the desired x150px and uploaded as that, right? 08:18, 28 January 2017 (EST)


 * That's not how SVG works. SVG grows in size as the complexity of the image increases, not the resolution. 13:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Ah, gotcha. In that case, I think we're better off uploading a PNG at the appropriate 150px size for use in the CSS, and keeping the full SVG available for potential use elsewhere. 08:37, 28 January 2017 (EST)
 * This isn't about png or svg, it's about the logo design. I've already discussed the png vs svg with Steve.-- 12:32, 28 January 2017 (EST)


 * The format is good to think about though. What was the outcome of your discussion? Can't seem to find it on his talk. 21:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a private discussion. The proposal isn't about the format; it's not something up for discussion here, and will be decided by Steve himself.-- 17:31, 28 January 2017 (EST)

Oh yeah, if this proposal passes, we need to change. -- 15:38, 28 January 2017 (EST)

Miscellaneous
None at the moment.