SmashWiki talk:Images/Archive 1

Maybe merging with Help:Uploading media? Or not? – Smiddle ( Talk • Conts ) 15:13, March 1, 2007 (GMT)

• Dunno. Whatever. – Smiddle ( Talk • Conts ) 15:13, March 1, 2007 (GMT)

I love how the rules are even on the file upload page and yet people like the Super Smash Mutants continue to post pictures of spiderman and the ninja turtles on their smashwiki page >=[. --Janitor 23:26, May 24, 2007 (GMT)

Clan Logo

Is there no chance to upload a clan-logo?

Tham 10:30, May 25, 2007 (GMT)

No. We want SmashWiki to look like an encyclopedia. Therefore, real photos are acceptable, though. – Smiddle ( Talk • Conts ) 13:39, May 25, 2007 (GMT)

That's ridiculous! An encyclopedia is thorough, which often includes images. Wikipedia is a million times more thorough than SmashWiki and go browse around on there; go to some company website and I bet you million bucks that they have pictures of company logos (beit drawn or photographic). If an image is representative of a group or organization then it is part of the encyclopedia entry! Sure if it was some randomly found image with some names pasted on it, I can understand, but if it is a uniquely designed logo created to represent the crew, then it IS relevant and appropriate. Hard print encyclopedias often don't have images because they don't have space or time to print black-and-white images for their printing, and also, they don't have the ease of updating content as quickly as an internet run encyclopedia which can make images risky because they can be out-dated quickly and such, but as an internet encyclopedia, images are very relevant! AnujSuper9 13:27, June 14, 2007 (EDT)

Discussion

Can we put this into effect soon? It's been up for a while, nobody's opposed it, and it's pretty solid.Smoreking^(T) _(c) 21:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

An Image Raid

I was recently going through MarioWiki and realized it has pictures for everything. Even Smash-related stuff: trophies, stages, even Tabuu's attacks. I think we should go on an image raid, uploading the images where they have better ones than us. I'd do most of it myself, but I'm getting increasingly busy in real life and could use some help. Any volunteers? Miles (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Licensing issues might appear if we just upload all their images here.Smoreking^(T) _(c) 18:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There's only one licensing issue, and that's that we use Nintendo's intellectual property on a free-use wiki. We're fine. --Sky (t · c · w) 18:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I would be completely willing to help.--MỸŠŦЄЯỸЊӘҒҒ ^TALK 21:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's their project for SSB related pages. Happy hunting. Miles (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Categorization

Hey, if it's not already part of an existing policy, do you think that you could put something in here about categorizing any inages that you upload? I just got done categorizing 700+ images ONLY OF TROPHIES IN BRAWL. Categorizing the rest of the lot WILL be a major pain, and I don't think we want people adding to it. Just a suggestion. --Bek (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Go ahead and add it to the policy. Miles (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't even need concensus because uncategorized images pose a copyright problem. --Shadowcrest 20:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

NPI

This part doesn't exactly make sense. What specifically is wrong with PI's? Even if they use server space, wikia's can handle it. Users are still going to upload them, so why not just allow them? They're not doing any harm.Smoreking^(T) _(c) 17:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the idea is that we don't want this place turning into an image hosting site. That said, I think one personal image per user would be acceptable, located at Image:Username. Toomai Glittershine eXemplary Logic 18:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

While I understand the concerns about "this place turning into an image hosting site" in principle, frankly, I'm not sure I see any basis for that particular fear. Having been a member of several wikis all of which were at least as, if not more, productive than this wiki (even PvX, which has massive internal issues is still fairly productive) and all of which allowed personal images with more or less restriction, I can say with a fair degree of certainty that there's not a huge risk of any terrible calamity resulting from allowing personal images. Now I'm not necessarily saying that we should allow personal images, because there aren't exactly huge benefits to so doing, I'm just saying that this fear about SW becoming an image hosting site is largely unfounded in my view. Evidence to the contrary would be welcome. – Defiant Elements +talk 03:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It's much the same principle as the Smasher namespace: police it or let it run amok. I prefer to keep this issue under control than spend all day deleting people's extra PIs that will surely be uploaded. Miles (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your position, because you seem to contradict yourself with "I'd rather it be under control" and then talk about how you'd rather not spend time deleting them. --Shadowcrest 00:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

People upload some that they're not supposed to now -- like people who still make un-notable Smasher articles. If we just say they're allowed, it'll get much worse; users will upload many more personal images than any limit we try to set on it. The current setup is the least of the available evils. Miles (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Then don't set a limit? Then you don't have to delete anything, which I feel you are basing your whole point on.

Additionally, DE stated above that these evils you vaguely mention are unproven thus far- do feel free to provide examples of the dangers of personal images. --Shadowcrest 01:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I... er... um.... Hmm. I suppose we could try it with restrictions for a while and see if any problems come up. I'd accept that. Miles (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Any objections before I edit the policy to reflect this change? (Edit: By which I mean allowing personal images.) --Shadowcrest 22:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "this change"? Your post isn't very clear. Toomai Glittershine The Stats Guy cntrbs 23:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Changing the policy to allow ONE PI per user would be fine with me. Miles (talk) 00:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

^Per Miles.L33t Silvie ^{I see wat u did thar...} 01:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

What's the difference between allowing users an unlimited number of PIs so long as they name them correctly and whatnot and allowing them one? Server space clearly isn't a real issue, and, as I pointed out above, there's no real danger of SW becoming an image hosting site. So really, what's the difference? Think about it. If you set a limit, every single time you see a user upload a PI, someone has to look at the upload logs and check to see whether they already have an image and, if they do, the image has to be tagged and deleted. That's a lot of unnecessary work if you ask me. – Defiant Elements +talk 03:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Other wikis have always allowed PIs, but SmashWiki has never allowed them, so there is a difference between allowing unlimited PIs and only one. Up to this point, users haven't been allowed any, and whenever they've uploaded one it's been deleted and they've been given a stern warning. If we were to suddenly announce that actually PIs are allowed, without limit, there could be a massive influx of them as users upload every single image on their computer. SmashWiki would be overrun by lolcats and kitlers. I don't see any reason to change the rules at all - the purpose of having an account here is that it's useful for editing the wiki, and PIs don't make people better editors. I know that makes me sound like I don't know the meaning of the word "fun", but SmashWiki isn't so we can have fun, it's an encyclopaedia of all things Smash. PenguinofDeath 07:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter that SmashWiki hasn't allowed personal images before. Even considering the truth in that statement, what does it really matter if someone uploads one image or two or five? A scenario wherein new users randomly upload all of the images is extremely unlikely, and even if they do.. so? It's not going to crash the servers and nothing is going to break, so really.. who cares? Is it really so important that people not be allowed images on their userpage? Will the wiki be negatively impacted because some user puts a lolcat on their userpage? In my opinion, the answer is a resounding no.

While it is true that an account makes it easier to edit the wiki, there's another reason people make accounts, and that is to establish an identity. If I were an IP, would any of you feel like you know me as well as you do? It's not like the material in my posts would be different... but in your eyes I still wouldn't be me anymore. So what is the problem with allowing images that allow people to express their identity?

Penguin, you state that having personal images doesn't make people better editors. But answer me this: do people become worse editors because they like to have a pretty userpage?

I disagree with your last statement, Penguin. I don't come here because I want to see the mainspace improved. While it is wonderful that that is happening, editing mainspace is not something I typically do other than to fix grammar or revert vandalism, as my editcount will tell you. I don't come here because I feel obligated to. I am well aware that I am perfectly entitled to come and go as I please; there is no binding contract that keeps me returning to the site, not even my status as an admin. No, what keeps me coming back is that I find improving wikis fun. That's basically what keeps most of us coming back; we enjoy it. To those of you who only come here because you feel obligated to, I advise you to find a more enjoyable use of your time; life is too short to waste. To me, arguing points for the betterment of the wiki is an entertaining and worthwhile use of my time, and so I do it. If I could only edit mainspace for the rest of my life, you'd probably never see me again. We are an encyclopedia of all things Super Smash Bros., but in essence most of us come here to have fun. So what's the problem with allowing people to upload personal images? --Shadowcrest 03:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I come here both because I want to see the mainspace improved and because I enjoy editing. While I don't want SmashWiki to go the way of Wikipedia, which is imposing and faceless because there are far too many users for any of them to really stand out from the rest, I feel that there are lots of far better ways for people to express their identity on the internet than through their SmashWiki account. Yes, we are all individuals, and yes, no one remembers IPs but everyone can recognise Shadowcrest, but I don't see that and immediately think "that's the guy with Zelda's Light Arrow and TPDwDoG on his userpage". If I'm the only person who thinks that the policy doesn't need changing, it should be changed. PenguinofDeath 08:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

"I feel that there are lots of far better ways for people to express their identity on the internet than through their SmashWiki account." Such as? Sure, I could go to Myspace or Facebook or deviantArt, but then I lose the part about I enjoy editing wikis. Unless you are suggesting I go to another wiki that does allow personal images, which doesn't really make much sense.

This is slightly irrelevant, but other people do recognize me if TPDwDoG is mentioned... :p

I am not exactly saying that you would recognize me from my userpage images, though for talented and stylish users that may well happen. But I am saying that perhaps you could get a better idea of me through my userpage. (Note that this is all highly idealistic.)

But even in the face of the idealistic nature of the above paragraph, I still have not been shown convincing arguments about the problems of personal images.

I suppose you are the only person arguing against personal images, but I don't really find that a problem. Actually I am kind of surprised someone other than myself or DE commented on a policy for a change; I run into the problem wherein I ask if anyone has any comments, nobody even bothers to reply, I make my change because if I don't nothing will ever happen, and then I get yelled at by opportunistic users who are like "you didn't have consensus!!1!" :( --Shadowcrest 14:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just keep things as they are - don't allow uploading of personal images, but allow use of images from off-site? That gives users the chance to use personal images without having to upload them (and having to keep them organized). Toomai Glittershine The Stats Guy cntrbs 14:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

@ Shadowcrest: I recognise you if TPDwDoG is mentioned, I just don't think of it when I see your name. I'm not suggesting you go to another wiki, I'm saying that it would be pretty easy to set up a SmashWiki group on Facebook. That would allow people to express their identity without losing the "I enjoy editing wikis" part. I doubt that the above example would be particularly popular, but you know what I mean - it would be possible to do something like that. Also, a talented and/or stylish user will probably already have a way of showing off their talent and/or stylishness on the internet, so they can just provide a link. And I'm glad to be of assistance (even if the only way I'm assisting is to stop people from yelling "you didn't have consensus!!1!").

@ Toomai Glittershine The Stats Guy: Are you referring to a system in which users can upload images onto another website (such as Photobucket, Flickr, etc...) then provide a link to the image on their userpage? If so, isn't such a system already in place? If that's not what you mean, then what do you mean? PenguinofDeath 16:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is such a system already in place, and I think we can keep it like that. There was discussion somewhere else that off-site image use was also to be discontinued, but I can't find it at the moment. Toomai Glittershine The Table Designer cntrbs 16:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

"it would be pretty easy to set up a SmashWiki group on Facebook." You're right- I could very easily set up a group on facebook for you guys to join. However, this is still a bad idea. Not only do I lose the enjoyment of contributing on Facebook, but- no offense- I don't want you guys to know my address and my cell phone number, sorry.

The system of off-site image linking is horrible. It is such an easy thing to abuse in so many ways- I could easily put up a very large picture of goatse on the main page without even having to upload the image. Not only can it be abused by inappropriate images, it allows people to ignore copyright. If they really are getting rid of it, good.

In any case, I still haven't been presented with a convincing reason why personal images shouldn't be allowed. They're harmless and serve no negative purpose, so seriously, why not? --Shadowcrest 01:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, allowing PIs will mess up the "other concepts" section of the images policy.

1. Some PIs are just croppings of other images, which would be considered redundant.
2. The distinction between a "personal image" and "fanart" is almost nonexistant. It may be nigh impossible to define one.
3. The policy states that images "belong" to the wiki once uploaded, and I'm sure a bunch of users won't like it if their PIs get stolen in some way, or even used by someone else.

Number 1 can just be cut to allow PIs, but 2 and 3 are a bit harder. I'm not sure what the legalities are of changing number 3. But number 2 is the biggest problem that I see. As soon as PIs are allowed, people will upload fanart. I would call it an inevitability. And some users are guarenteed to try and shoehorn fanart into mainspace articles (such as replacing official Nintendo art).

And then there's categorization. I wouldn't think we'd want PIs in the same categories as other images. Most likely, PIs should be in a category such as "Personal Images". But chances are that some users who upload them won't put them in that category (most likely the same ones that would upload a bunch of them), meaning a lot of extra gruntwork for someone else.

I'm not saying that PIs are a taboo. I'm just saying that I think we'd have to deal with a lot more crap than we do now. Toomai Glittershine The Stats Guy cntrbs 02:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Is not a problem, because as we've covered server space is not an issue at all. Nothing will break if someone crops a pic and uploads it.
2. I'm not quite sure what is meant by fan art, but if I am guessing correctly it wouldn't be a problem unless it is a copyvio.
3. That is a burden on the user uploading the image, not a problem with personal images themselves. If they don't want it released, they shouldn't upload it, and if they have a problem with it after uploading they can just ask for it to be deleted. Not a problem.

Why would they have to be categorized? Who would ever need to search for all the personal images uploaded? The only thing all the images would need is copyright information, but that should be done with all images regardless of whether or not they are personal images, so they would be just as much work as they already are.

Also, I would like to argue that the admins have to put up with more crap than if they were allowed, because we have to delete everything that is deemed a personal image, whereas we wouldn't have to do anything if they were just allowed. --Shadowcrest 04:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The TPDwDoGH has spoken. But still, the deletion troubles may not be over that easily. What if, say, a bunch of people started uploading, I don't know, porn? I agree with the allowance of PI's, but I can't see the deletion patrols lightening up.L33t Silvie ^{I see wat u did thar...} 05:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't allow obscenity ofc. As for borderline things, let the admins handle it- we pick good people to be sysops on purpose. Just tag things appropriately and we'll get to it soon enough.

Also, please don't think that I am right / going to win this argument just because I'm an admin... it's very self-deprecating and is almost offensive to me :( --Shadowcrest 05:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you'd still end up with a lot of work, actually, as people would upload things that violated other policies. You probably wound't have as much work as you do now in terms of deletions, but you'd have to check the upload log far more regularly. Overall I don't think it'd be a bad thing, I just don't think it's necessary, but if the policy was to be changed the most important thing to keep in mind is that it's got to be simple. The rules are pretty simple now, but some people don't understand them, even when they're sent a link to the policy page. I'm not saying that the current policy is garbled, just that it should be almost offensively simple, just to avoid any confusion. More simple than Simple Wikipedia. PenguinofDeath 08:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

In the same way that Shadowcrest has not seen a convincing argument against the allowance of PIs, I have not seen one for it. The only reasons I can see right now are "It would make things easier", "Let's see what happens", and "Why not?". Now, maybe I'm biased because I natually don't like change, but those don't seem like very strong arguments to me. Toomai Glittershine eXemplary Logic cntrbs 13:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

@Shadowcrest: Didn't mean it that way, I was just supporting allowing PI's, which was your argument.

@Toomai: Maybe so, but you never get anywhere in life if you don't take risks. I think that would apply to a wikia. Besides, it WOULD be easier, and a lot of one-time users seem to hate us for deleting their images. Who knows, if we are a bit more lenient, it might attract more contributors.L33t Silvie ^{I see wat u did thar...} 14:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

reset indent

• "I think you'd still end up with a lot of work, actually, as people would upload things that violated other policies."

I suppose that would be a valid point, but I'm not really thinking of anything that would apply. I suppose you could personally attack someone via image, but seeing as that is even more easily done via typing I don't think it could be an issue. What specifically are you thinking about?

• "You probably wound't have as much work as you do now in terms of deletions, but you'd have to check the upload log far more regularly."

Well really it's more a matter of checking RC just as frequently as users already do, so I still don't see it as much of an issue.

• "In the same way that Shadowcrest has not seen a convincing argument against the allowance of PIs, I have not seen one for it."

Fair point, but if we're going to play the "there's no reason we should/not allow PIs", I would still win because there's no point in stopping something that doesn't cause a problem. Silvie sort-of has the right idea, but I would disagree with his statement because it implies there is risk involved in this situation, and really I don't believe there is. As much as I know you all hate hearing my GuildWiki stories, we've never had a problem with personal images in the 4 years the site has been up, so really there is no reason to expect a problem here. In addition, I have also noticed users who have been driven away because they upload an image expecting no problem like on most other wikis just to have a policy shoved in their face and their image deleted; it's not pretty. --Shadowcrest 05:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not thinking of people using images to PA other users, I'm thinking of the policies on copyrighted and offensive images, particularly the former as that's the one people are far more likely to break. You're right that it would encourage people to stay, and that's one good reason to change the policy, I just think at the very least there should be a trial period lasting a few weeks where users are limited to one PI each, just to see how it goes. However, the point that people wouldn't be discouraged by having a PI deleted is so far the only point you've made that has convinced me at all. I strongly disagree with your statement "I would still win" because you wouldn't. It is illogical to replace a tried and tested system which works with one which has never been tried or tested in any way in that particular situation for the simple reason of "I think it would work better". I accept that you have experience in matters such as this - speaking of which, I haven't heard your GuildWiki stories, and if they would support your side of the argument I would love to hear them. PenguinofDeath 07:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikis vary somewhat from wiki to wiki, but, excepting extreme cases like Conservapedia, what works on one will more or less work on another. I would say that Guild Wars Wiki and GuildWiki are similar enough in most respects to SmashWiki that I would not be making use of a false comparison to say that the allowance of PIs is a similarly tried and true system and that there would be no cataclysmic fallout to a decision to allow PIs without a limit. Offensive images are few and far between (vandals rarely go to the effort and must users, even new ones, are at least smart enough not to upload offensive images -- based on my experience, it takes a fairly dedicated troll to upload offensive images), and copyrights are generally handled without too much fuss -- templates make it fairly easy to attach the appropriate copyright to images, and most blatant copyright vios are just that, blatant, so it takes fairly little effort to delete them, less, probably, than deleting every single PI.

What would the purpose of said trial period be? Placing a limit of exactly one personal image involves the implementation of a policing system that is sufficiently different from that which would need to be implemented if we were to not place a limit of any kind that I fail to see what point would be proved by having a trial period. And besides, you're not gonna be able to see any kind of meaningful difference in "a few weeks," particularly on a wiki which gets as few edits per day as this one does. Frankly, I'd be surprised if it took less than a week for people to even begin to notice any kind of alteration to this policy. And besides, if you do see any kind of difference, it's probably gonna be attributable to the fact that any new system is liable to have some hiccups at the start before people are able to fully acclimate themselves to the nuances of that new system.

With regard to SC's statement that he "would still win," I think that he may be referring to the fact that when you're dealing with a privilege or "freedom" where there is not a compelling argument for or against that freedom and no consensus as to the proper course of action, generally you side in favor of allowing that freedom rather than restricting it "unnecessarily." – Defiant Elements +talk 15:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

reset indent Since no one has attempted to respond to DE for 2 days, I would like to make a change to the policy saying that any number of personal images are allowed, as long as they are not obscene, disruptive, or a copyright violation. I will make this change in a few days if nobody argues. --Shadowcrest 19:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Last call for any comments- I will probably change the policy tomorrow. --Shadowcrest 16:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I just wish we could have some sort of solid limit on the number of pictures, but as always enforcement is an issue. Miles (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal Image Size Limit

We haven't put a limit on the number of PIs that any one user can upload, so long as they're all used, but should we put some sort of limit on how much space they take up? Like, 1Mb? I can't really see a need for a personal image to take up any more space than that. PenguinofDeath 08:50, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

Agreed Miles (talk) 20:01, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

What's the point? I personally cba to check images, and it's not like Wikia cares. Shadowcrest 21:28, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

Quantity of personal images

This sort of thing... is this really acceptable? I stopped worrying about PIs because I understood it would be like my PI -- a single image used to represent oneself. But is uploading of a bunch of icons and such like this really appropriate for this wiki? Miles (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

I was about to send a stern message about that. Toomai Glittershine The Emissary 20:29, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

I guess in general though we should have some sort of written rule. Going something like: "Having too many images for your own personal use increases clutter in the image space and, depending on what the images are, may be confusing to some users. If you think you are reaching this limit you should ask an admin whether it's okay to upload more.". Toomai Glittershine Le Grand Fromage 20:39, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

Sure, something of that ilk could work fine. Miles (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2011 (EDT)

Perhaps implementing a rule forbidding PI uploading if a user's userspace edit percentage is too much? Such as, if a user's userspace edit percentage exceeds 50%, they are prohibited from uploading images for personal use until their userspace editing percentage falls below 40%?

As an alternative, we can implement PI limits based on editing percentages. Such as, if you have more than 50% of your edits being userspace edits, you are allowed no more than one PI. If over 40%, no more than three. If over 25%, no more than five.

As for one more alternative, perhaps a general rule stating "While you are allowed to upload images for personal use in your userspace, you are expected to contribute constructively to the Wiki in return. If you are believed to be uploading too many personal images while not contributing constructively enough, you may be warned and have your excess personal images deleted."

I believe that as long as a user contributes constructively to the Wiki, they can edit/decorate their userspace as much as they want (including adding PIs). As such, I would oppose adding a hard limit for PIs on all users. As for my proposed rules, the first two may not be desirable as edit percentages can't be used accurately in determining how constructively a user contributes, with it being possible for a user to be a constructive contributor while having a high userspace editing percentage. If we are to implement one of them, I would support them being more lenient in the percentage limits than strict, and I would be willing to work out the exact numbers to use (the numbers I provided in my proposals are just quick examples).

Personally, I would support the general rule I proposed, as excessive PIs seems to be a case by case problem rather than a real Wiki problem, with Zeldasmash being the only user thus far that is uploading excessive PIs while not contributing constructively enough to "earn" having that much PIs. Omega Tyrant 11:45, 18 March 2011 (EDT)

I highly agree with the concept that constructive users deserve more userspace freedom, though we have to be careful that "you may get into trouble for a high userspace ratio" doesn't get interpreted as "userspace rights have to be earned through contributing" (or in other words "you get into trouble for being bad" versus "you get rewarded for being good"). I support the general rule. Toomai Glittershine The Eggster 12:56, 18 March 2011 (EDT)

What happened?

When I upload a file, it appears to not exist and this error message appears:

A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

(SQL query hidden)

from within function "SearchMySQL::update". Database returned error "145: Table './ssbwiki_wiki/searchindex' is marked as crashed and should be

repaired (localhost)".

Did I miss something while I was gone or what?--PSIWolf (T • C • E) 07:40, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

Go complain to Porplemontage. Toomai Glittershine The Golden 09:35, 20 August 2011 (EDT)