File talk:Porygon2-Origin.png

Deletion

Oppose deletion of this and all related images, as well as the recent enforcement on infobox images. I personally think that it really shouldn't matter if a post-smash appearance is used in the infobox unless the post-smash appearance is drastically different in design, such as ToTK Ganondorf and Zelda. There are plenty of Pokemon who made no appearances between Melee (such as Unown, original Porygon, and Scizor) and Ultimate, and most of the time their reappearance was as a spirit or trophy, so if we delete these images now, then in a future smash game the pokemon is represented as a collectible again, all this means is that these images would have to be uploaded again, which is incredibly inconvenient.

There is also the case on what if a character's smash design significantly influences their home series design, such as Roy in Heroes taking his combined Binding/Awakening design from ssb4 (including objects not present in his original Binding Blade design, such as the long headband or extra armor on his ankles and wrists), or Pit and Palutena using their Brawl redesigns in Uprising, or Meta Knight's wings growing for his smash appearances and staying that size for his later appearances.

To bring this back to the original changes with Daisy's image, I would actually rather change it back to her Mario Party Superstars art; it's the exact same design and pose as her Mario Kart 7 art, but with better lighting and hair textures that are more reflective of her Smash design than any art of her predating smash, even if in an incredibly minor way of a simple graphics upgrade.

I would personally say that the infobox image can definitely use art from a post-smash appearance, and I'd prefer it to be on the same console as the most recent smash game due to matching graphics, but it does not have to be nor should people feel obligated to make it be the literal most recent appearance. Unnamed anon (talk) 05:58, July 30, 2023 (EDT)

I should just delete this image because this shouldn't be an argument and I don't know why this image wasn't tagged with speedy delete in the first place, but I'll humor the argument here.

"I personally think that it really shouldn't matter if a post-smash appearance is used in the infobox unless the post-smash appearance is drastically different in design"

This has been the long standing way we handle the infobox images for general character articles in a debate settled long ago, where the primary image is supposed to be the official appearance that primarily influenced their latest Smash appearance, that newer users apparently missed the memo on. By definition, that precludes any images from games that came after their most recent Smash design for obvious reasons that shouldn't have to be spelled out. Something to note also, is that general character articles are supposed to be explaining to the reader why the character is the way they are in Smash, and give a general overview of each of their Smash appearances, they are not general biography articles, as we are not a general Nintendo wiki. People far too often treat these articles as the latter, as alongside constantly updating the main image with art from newer games, they often go waaaayyyyyy too into detail in their origin section by fully explaining the plots of their games and all their appearances in even shit that came after their latest Smash appearance (some severe offenders that recently got addressed, with far more needing to be cleaned up). If people want fleshed out bio articles on characters, they should be visiting their articles from their respective relevant wikis that we already link, not try to turn SmashWiki into a general Nintendo wiki.

"then in a future smash game the pokemon is represented as a collectible again, all this means is that these images would have to be uploaded again, which is incredibly inconvenient."

And? We don't hold onto stuff just because it might see use in the future, and it takes just a minute to upload an updated image over an old one, this is absolutely not an argument for keeping these images. Should we go upload every other pokemon's official art because they might show up as a pokeball pokemon in a future Smash game? Future proofing is one thing, holding onto unneeded content that might see a use in the distant future is just hoarding. Also you're going to complain it's "inconvenient" to reupload the image later if it's actually needed... as if what you're advocating for isn't creating more work by having to constantly "update" these infobox images whenever new official art of the character comes out?

"There is also the case on what if a character's smash design significantly influences their home series design, such as Roy in Heroes taking his combined Binding/Awakening design from ssb4 (including objects not present in his original Binding Blade design, such as the long headband or extra armor on his ankles and wrists), or Pit and Palutena using their Brawl redesigns in Uprising, or Meta Knight's wings growing for his smash appearances and staying that size for his later appearances."

This is not an argument for updating the infobox images (especially in the latter two examples when they went on to influence their later Smash designs), and is something that should be mentioned later in the article, not overtake the priority of explaining the character's appearance in Smash, when Smash is our focus.

"To bring this back to the original changes with Daisy's image, I would actually rather change it back to her Mario Party Superstars art; it's the exact same design and pose as her Mario Kart 7 art, but with better lighting and hair textures that are more reflective of her Smash design than any art of her predating smash, even if in an incredibly minor way of a simple graphics upgrade.

It is not reflective of the character's Smash design; even subtle changes in a mostly static character's design in later games will not be reflected in their Smash appearance that predates it. Also opening up any avenue to change the official art used on the basis of "it looks better" is opening the wiki up to entirely subjective arguments that will do nothing but bog the wiki down. Stick to the simple line of "use the image that best represents the character's Smash appearances, which by definition will preclude images that postdate their latest Smash appearance". The only exception to the "don't use art from after their latest Smash appearance" rule should be when the Smash team obviously got prerelease material to influence the character's Smash design with (such as Luigi's article using his Luigi's Mansion 3 art is fine, as his Ult appearance was based on his appearance there, including using the Poltergust G-00. Omega Tyrant 06:45, July 30, 2023 (EDT)

I tagged these as "Candidates for Deletion" instead of "Speedy Deletion" specifically because I wanted to see discussion. While I admit that I'm not the most active member, I've been a SmashWiki editor since 2018 (and a reader for several years before then) and I've never before heard of this "debate settled long ago". Before the changes made to Daisy, Sonic, Shulk, etc. a month ago, I've never seen this rule enforced. Instead, it seemed to me and many other editors that - if not in policy, then certainly in practice - origin images must clearly represent the design(s) used in Smash. This implied that post-Smash artwork was still kosher as long as the design was unchanged; the only times that I saw artwork from newer games being reverted was if (a) the newer artwork didn't show the design as clearly as older artwork (e.g. a character's pose obscured a large portion of their body) or (b) the design was different from the one used in Smash.

On SW:Images, I don't see any rule that precludes images that postdate their latest Smash appearances. That's why I was unsure of this policy and didn't tag these for speedy deletion. If I'm missing something, I'd sincerely appreciate you pointing it out to me. But if it's not clearly stated here, then that'd explain why many editors make the wrong assumptions about origin images. The closest I can see is this line:

• Do not replace existing images just for the sake of it, replacing an image is only acceptable when the image is a clear improvement over the old image. Such acceptable instances include replacing an image with a higher resolution one, or replacing an image with one that more clearly demonstrates something relevant about its article's subject.

I'd agree that replacing older game artwork with newer game artwork just because it's newer would count as "replacing images just for the sake of it" and should be discouraged. However, generally speaking, newer game artwork tends to be available in higher resolution and detail than older game artwork, which is probably why editors assume that it's a clear improvement; in the case of these Pokemon images, Porygon2's Gen 3 artwork is much higher quality than its Gen 2 artwork while still depicting the same design. Hypothetically speaking, if a new Goemon game came out and used the exact same design for Goemon used in Smash but had new artwork that was bigger than 160x160 pixels, wouldn't that be preferable? I'm also going to open up a discussion on Talk:Shy Guy about the various colors for Shy Guys. --PeabodySam (talk) 12:33, July 30, 2023 (EDT)

"I tagged these as "Candidates for Deletion" instead of "Speedy Deletion" specifically because I wanted to see discussion."

If one wants a discussion to change the way SmashWiki does things, it should be in a centralized forum post, not on file talk pages that are less visible, less centralized, and may not even stick around (when talk pages are typically deleted alongside the associated page).

"While I admit that I'm not the most active member, I've been a SmashWiki editor since 2018"

The wiki been around since 2006, 2018 isn't all that old, and indeed the debate for these happened back in the early 2010s, back when SmashWiki really started enforcing that it is a Super Smash Bros. wiki and not a general Nintendo wiki (which alongside this image stuff, led to things like articles for non-Smash consoles, non-masterpiece games, and articles for trophy and stickers characters being deleted).

"I've never seen this rule enforced. Instead, it seemed to me and many other editors that - if not in policy, then certainly in practice - origin images must clearly represent the design(s) used in Smash."

Newer users doing something wrong, and then other users overlooking it until now, doesn't make it right. And this really isn't the only instance of other users letting stuff slide in the late 2010s/early 2020s that shouldn't have been (such as the terrible trivia sections on many articles, character usage in players' infoboxes and categories becoming horribly bloated, and the extreme dilution of the "notable players" sections on character articles).

"On SW:Images, I don't see any rule that precludes images that postdate their latest Smash appearances. That's why I was unsure of this policy and didn't tag these for speedy deletion."

As you can see from my many recent edits to that page in its history, that policy page left a lot of rules "unwritten", and this is just another one of those, that was resolved in talk page disputes but never written into the formal policy pages (which it really should have been, but SmashWiki has always had a problem with leaving things "unwritten" that shouldn't be). As for where these discussions took place, they did not happen in a centralized forum post (the "Proposals" forum board wasn't even created until 2016) and I cannot find the talk pages they were on, which arose from editing disputes over different editors changing the images. I would write it in now, but it would be rather poor form to do so without resolving this discussion first.

"However, generally speaking, newer game artwork tends to be available in higher resolution and detail than older game artwork, which is probably why editors assume that it's a clear improvement; in the case of these Pokemon images, Porygon2's Gen 3 artwork is much higher quality than its Gen 2 artwork while still depicting the same design.

As I said before, which art "looks better" is a purely subjective argument that we should not bog ourselves down in arguments over. Like I know for sure that it isn't an uncommon opinion for people to like the Gen 1/2 official art more than the Gen 3-onward official art (hell you have people who even argue they prefer the miscolored Gen 1 art and threw a fit when the correct art was uncovered), nor for a new render/official art to be outright unpopular (like I know people didn't like the Sonic's render from Sonic Forces). As such, there should be strict codification with handling the infobox images that leaves no room to argue using different images based on their "quality".

"Hypothetically speaking, if a new Goemon game came out and used the exact same design for Goemon used in Smash but had new artwork that was bigger than 160x160 pixels, wouldn't that be preferable?"

I would still say no, the preferable solution would be to find the current artwork used in a higher resolution, and if not, what the art is depicting is still more important than the artwork's resolution. Omega Tyrant 09:49, July 31, 2023 (EDT)