Please remember that WiKirby contains spoilers, which you read at your own risk! See our general disclaimer for details.

WiKirby:Proposals

From WiKirby, your independent source of Kirby knowledge.
Revision as of 19:41, 27 February 2021 by DeepFriedCabbage (talk | contribs) (poor toadette.)
Jump to navigationJump to search


Your opinions matter!

Welcome to the Proposals page. Here, WiKirby's editors may propose changes to the way the wiki operates, including how to handle certain categories of content, quality standards, or even just making aesthetic suggestions. Any user who has Autopatrol status or above may make a proposal or vote on one, and after two weeks of voting, if it passes, it will be incorporated into policy. Please see below for the specifics on how to make and/or vote on a proposal.

How to make a proposal

Please use one of the following templates to make a new proposal:

Single vote: This is for proposals which only propose a single change to the wiki.

==(insert proposal here) (insert date here)==
(insert details of proposal here and sign with ~~~~)
{{Support}}
{{Oppose}}
{{Neutral}}

===Discussion===

{{clear}}

Multi-option vote: This is for proposals which include many possible changes to a particular element of policy. One option should always be to keep things as they were. It is recommended that no more than 8 options are given in a single proposal, including the "no change" option.

==(insert proposal here) (insert date here)==
(insert details of proposal here and sign with ~~~~)
{{Option|1|(option title 1)}}
{{Option|2|(option title 2)}}
{{Option|3|(option title 3)}}
{{Option|etc.|(option title etc.)}}
{{Neutral}}

===Discussion===

{{clear}}

Multi-facet vote: This is for proposals which want to make several smaller changes to a single element of policy (for instance, making several changes to how the main page looks). Each change needs to be voted up or down individually. There should not be more than 5 parts to a proposal like this. This type of proposal should not be made without approval from wiki administration.

==(insert proposal here) (insert date here)==
(insert summary of proposal here and sign with ~~~~)
===Change 1===
(insert details here)
{{Support}}
{{Oppose}}
{{Neutral}}
====Change 1 discussion====

===Change 2===
(insert details here)
{{Support}}
{{Oppose}}
{{Neutral}}
====Change 2 discussion====

===Change 3===
(insert details here)
{{Support}}
{{Oppose}}
{{Neutral}}
====Change 3 discussion====

etc.

{{clear}}

Once a proposal is made, the voting period begins (see voting regulations below). Voting period for a proposal ends two weeks after it starts, at 23:59:59 UTC on the 14th full day of voting. An administrator can veto a proposal at any time, although such action should always be justifiable and agreed upon by multiple admins. Administrators should not use this right to add more weight to their own opinions.

Restrictions

Users may propose many different changes or additions to the wiki. The following things, however, may not be voted on:

  1. Proposals which target specific users (such as bestowing or removing ranks or rights).
  2. Proposals which violate the law, as specified in the general content policy.
  3. Proposals which seek to overturn a recently (within the last 8 weeks (or 56 days)) approved proposal.
  4. Re-submitted proposals which were recently (within the last 8 weeks (or 56 days)) rejected, and which have not been significantly altered.

Current Proposals

Revise image standards (sprite-based images, Virtual Console, etc.) (February 25th, 2021 - March 11th, 2021)

Greetings, puffballs and others. In the past, we've had a number of discussions about what constitutes a Good game screenshot on WiKirby, and going by "native resolution" as a default rule has been the de-facto standard for some time now. However, recently, a few hiccups here and there have led me to realize that the current standards are a little too tight in places, and a little too ill-defined in others. As such, I'd like to propose an amendment to the image standards by making the following the new guidelines for what constitutes a Good game screenshot:

Sprite-based games

Screenshots of sprite-based games are Good if and only if they are "pixel perfect"; meaning the pixels are rendered at a 1 to 1 ratio from game to screenshot. It does not matter what is used to capture the screenshot (native console, Virtual Console, emulation, etc.), as long as this is the case. In addition, these screenshots must be clean (no visual distortions and precisely cropped for full screenshots) and originally rendered in lossless format (PNG in our case).

Sprite-based games (along with full screenshot resolution in parentheses) consist of the following:

Non-sprite-based games, native or unofficially emulated

Screenshots of non-sprite-based games that are not being played on Virtual Console are Good if they match the native resolution of the console they were originally made for. In addition, they can be in a file format other than PNG as long as they are clean with no significant distortion.

Non-sprite-based game screenshots should follow the standard resolution of their home consoles, as follows:

Virtual Console games

Screenshots of games emulated using Virtual Console or any other official Nintendo emulation method can be marked as Good if and only if they match the native resolution of the console they are being played on, are clean, and are not sprite-based. They must also all be marked with the {{VC}} template (a file template marking an image as coming from Virtual Console that will be made if this proposal passes). For the sake of clarity, games that are being played on backwards-compatible devices with higher resolution (such as Wii games on Wii U) will also be treated as Virtual Console.

That should about do it. Let me know if there are any concerns with this proposal, and I will seek to make further amendments where applicable. --Samwell (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Support
  1. Support; the image standards definitely need more consistency, and this seems like a good solution. The Virtual Console template, in particular, feels like it will be incredibly useful in the long run, as we may want to provide VC screenshots later on for comparison (for example, Zero's arena in Boss Butch). StrawberryChan (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  2. These changes definitely look like they would help the clarity of our policies, and a VC template is definitely a good idea to differentiate them from native shots while still being allowed on articles. --YFJ (talk · edits) 22:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  3. Clarity is good, especially with how to deal with official upscales. ---PinkYoshiFan 22:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  4. This is a good compromise for everything we have available. Keeps things consistent, while still allowing screenshots from every console that can run each game when applicable. - Gigi (talkedits) 22:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  5. Not much new to say from me, I agree with all changes made by this proposal, especially VC template. Superbound (talk) 11:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral

Discussion

What to do with bigger but JPG images and smaller but PNG images (February 22, 2021 - March 8, 2021)

There are plenty of images on this wiki, which also includes artwork. As many may know, PNG is the best for artwork, however, sometimes it isn't the largest one available, like with Kirby 64 Cilly...

Chilly K64 artwork.jpg K64 Chilly Transparent Artwork.png
(left - JPG, right - PNG)

...or Air Ride Warpstar.
File:WarpstarKAR.jpg KAR Warpstar Small.png
(left - JPG, right - PNG)

Significant drop in resoltiuon. On the other hand, images aren't that often used to be this large, and most of them are in galleries in following size:

As you can see, it's hard to note a difference in quality, but transparency works better here.

So what do we do?

  • List both - In case something like this happens, both images will be displayed, with caption like "Smaller but transparent version od a previous artwork"
  • PNG > JPG - Favor smaller PNG over bigger JPG.
  • JPG > PNG - Inverted version of above.
  • Case-by-case basis (so nothing changes) - This is oversimplifaction of something complicated, and each case like that should be reviewed seperatly.

Superbound (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

List both

  1. This has been my de-facto way of handling this artwork, so I'll go with this option. --Samwell (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  2. Listing both means keeping both. In the worst-case scenario, convert a JPG to PNG (and upload to same filepage) to preserve both versions. —Viperision (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  3. Second choice. --DeepFriedCabbage 19:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

PNG > JPG

JPG > PNG

Case-by-case basis (so nothing changes)

  1. It is heavily redundant in my opinion to use the same image twice for things, but that said, I think that is truly situational about the image's quality overall. In more instances than not, a JPG is usually larger and cleaner, and despite having a background, is easier to make out. JPGs are also usually better to avoid situations Like this where transparency in images doesn't always look good, especially for dark mode nerds like myself. In other circumstances, the PNG may be a higher quality despite being smaller, and would look better in both galleries AND infoboxes, where JPGs generally only look good in galleries. I would stress that both have their advantages and disadvantages, and if an editor isn't sure, they can either bring it up on discord or upload both and allow the community to decide. Trig - 22:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  2. PNGs are only different enough than JPG (from a visual standpoint, at least) to where we should only replace JPG with PNG the PNGs have transparent backgrounds or if the JPG is smaller than or equal in size to the PNG. So basically, (in my opinion) if the JPG is bigger and the PNG isn't transparent, then use JPG. Otherwise, use PNG. ---PinkYoshiFan 22:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  3. Agreed on case-by-case. PNG isn't always automatically better than JPG and vice-versa; it's ultimately down to the image itself. Generally a PNG with a transparent background is most preferable for an infobox, while a JPG can look fine if a transparent version of the image isn't available. Listing both seems redundant to me. StrawberryChan (talk) 03:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  4. I've been thinking and I'm going to go with case-by-case here. These cases seem rare from what I've seen, and generally it's better to have both, but it really depends on the case. Rather than make a very black and white rule for a situation that doesn't happen that often, I would rather keep it case-by-case. - Gigi (talkedits) 16:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  5. As cases are not unified, neither should our solution. Enough said. --kirb 04:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  6. I honestly can't add any more to what's already been said. PNG is not inherently superior to JPG or vice versa, and it really comes down to the individual quality of the images. --YFJ (talk · edits) 21:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
  7. I think PNGs are generally better than JPGs, but if we have a JPG that's tranparent, we should include both. --DeepFriedCabbage 19:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Neutral Comments

  1. Superbound your captions are funny :p. --kirb 22:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

To respond to Viperision, I would intensely affirm that images should never ever not ever be converted from lossy to lossless or lossless to lossy, as it entirely butchers the quality of the image and is generally entirely ineffective at comparing multiple images. There is no harm to having two images and one being deleted, as mentioned in my vote. Trig - 22:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposal Archive

Successful proposals
Failed proposals

KSA Parasol Waddle Dee Pause Screen Artwork.png