Requesting edits for locked pages.

On the subject of converting JPG's to PNG's, I'd actually encourage that for some uses like screenshots, for the reason that when MediaWiki generates thumbnails, it will keep the file type, which in case of JPG's is killing the quality. The smaller the image, the more noticeable the compression-artefacts.
 
Dr. Mario's Drunken Holiday Elixir said:
I've added transparency to images before, but I am wary of the limits of this. The best transparency I do removes a slight edge, although there are no glaring artifacts if you put it in a black background.

Like these

Transparent
MarioHoops.png


Not transparent
20110520194016%21MarioHoops.png


But I wouldn't like to revert since the top one has its uses and it doesn't have the common artifacts that is often present when other people try to remove the white background. So, I call it a sacrifice.

But yeah, about this whole jpg-png, it's extremely vague because we often replace low-quality .jpg screenshots with .png screenshots, but I suppose we can save the .pngs as .jpgs to save space, but is it worth it? Also, you have to consider that .png is the most desirable format for sprites, moreso than .jpg, so all .jpg sprites ideally need to be replaced with .png.

So in the end, maybe you can write about higher quality reuploads being fine to avoid misunderstanding.
Click to expand...
I'd still argue that the second one looks better than the first one, with its choppier, artificially-narrowed edges. If people want to remove the backgrounds for their own uses, they can, but we really shouldn't be messing around with official artwork in any way.

Besides "add transparency if you can do it well, but if it looks like shit, then don't do that" is more of a "Don't Shoot Your Foot Off" idea than something requiring some long, rambly rule about subjective file quality thresholds.

You misunderstood what I was saying about PNGs. If you have a PNG, upload it as a PNG; if you have a shiny new PNG screenshot for something we only have a shitty JPEG screenshot of, yeah, replace it. But if all there is period is a JPEG, don't download it, open Photoshop or whatever and re-save it as a PNG, and then upload it again without any other modifications besides the file name and format. So, like, all the artifacts and crap it already amassed during its life as a JPEG are still there, and therefore all that was really accomplished was increasing the file size and tricking people into thinking they'll get a nice PNG when in reality, they're still getting JPEG-quality artwork.

Lakituthequick said:
On the subject of converting JPG's to PNG's, I'd actually encourage that for some uses like screenshots, for the reason that when MediaWiki generates thumbnails, it will keep the file type, which in case of JPG's is killing the quality. The smaller the image, the more noticeable the compression-artefacts.
Click to expand...
I see what you mean, but the points made by some of the old image buffs in the proposal also make sense, which is what I was going by earlier.
 
Lakituthequick said:
On the subject of converting JPG's to PNG's, I'd actually encourage that for some uses like screenshots, for the reason that when MediaWiki generates thumbnails, it will keep the file type, which in case of JPG's is killing the quality. The smaller the image, the more noticeable the compression-artefacts.
Click to expand...

I remember GIF sprites look crappier as thumbnails than PNG sprites, especially a thorough comparison here. Static GIF sprites should ALWAYS be replaced by PNGs
 
It slipped my mind to post about this before, but the direct links to the Golden Sun Wiki are rather spotty. On Isaac's article (let's use "Isaac" as an example), I can't just do [[GoldenSun:Isaac|Isaac]] like with any other link, since that'll just take me to a 404 page. I have to add /wiki in between the link for it to work properly. This can be fixed, right?
 
Porplemontage manages the interwiki stuff, so let him know about the problem and he can fix it (it's a pretty easy fix at that).
 
This rule by the proposals page:

Anyone can comment on proposals whether logged-in or not, but only registered users can create or vote on proposals.
Click to expand...

The proposals page was semi-protected recently, I bet you remember that! 8)
 
Shouldn't we lift it to let anons discuss or...?
 
Yeah, it became the target if a rather persistent vandal so I just semiprotected it indefinitely to wait it out, rather than for a week or something and then risk having to do it again. I thought about lifting it a couple weeks ago due to that rule, but I dunno, part of me feels like if you want to have a say in how the wiki's run, then just get an account: it's not that unreasonable, and it could even be a good motivator to join (it was for me back in the day). But I wasn't sure if everyone would agree, so I didn't remove the rule on my own whim, and just left it on the "to do" list for when I had enough time and motivation to debate it. But I have a habit of procrastinating, so it's no wonder someone else took notice before I circled back around to it.
 
Whee, procrastinating is a problem for everyone here, apparently, lol.