SmashWiki talk:Artwork

I guess the first question is: Why do you claim that "The purpose of the artwork of a character is to show users what inspired the design of said character"? That is not at all what I would consider it. The purpose of the general character articles are primarily to document the character as they appear in their home series, and then cover a few basic points about them in the Smash Bros. series. This implies that any artwork we have would be either relevant to them in their home series or relevant to them as they appear in the Smash Bros. series, and doesn't necessarily have to be both. Toomai Glittershine The Prismatic 23:20, 25 August 2014 (EDT)

Well, I agree insofar as information goes (which is why there's a "latest game" section in the infobox plus, like you said, info in their description about what they're up to these days), but for artwork, I think it's more important that users fully recognize the character that they're playing in the latest Super Smash Bros. game. Let's say a new Paper Mario game is the most recent game, and we upload artwork of Mario from it and place it in the infobox. Would that really be necessary, when we could have more recognizable artwork of him from 3D World? Blue Ninjakoopa 00:21, 26 August 2014 (EDT)

forcryingoutloudtheclowncarinnsmbuisthesameasnsmbw

I mainly agree with this... although the Zelda thing seems unreasonable. Link's appearance closely resembles Skyward Sword's Link (really it feels like a cross between Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword. So... Skyward Princess or Twilight Sword, I guess.), even though Zelda and Ganondorf's don't. Why wouldn't we use the most recent artwork of Link that also matches his design, even if Zelda and Ganondorf's designs don't? Obviously Sakurai doesn't care, or Zelda would use her appearance from Skyward Sword, and Ganondorf would be replaced with Demise. ...a new Nuttais approaching... 17:14, 26 August 2014 (EDT)

I think Link's Skyward Sword artwork should stay, but it shouldn't be featured in the infobox. For any character, we could have "most recent artwork" placed in the description/history section if it's too different from the character's appearance in the latest Super Smash Bros. title. Blue Ninjakoopa 21:38, 27 August 2014 (EDT)

On the topic of artwork.

I figured this would be the best place to put this, owing to its non-localised nature. Now then:

Some of our Melee character pages, such as Ice Climbers (SSBM) and Pichu (SSBM) have images within the "Attributes" section from the now-offline "Nintendorks" webpage on Melee; others, however, lack this image, such as Link (SSBM) and Marth (SSBM).

Obviously, this creates an inconsistency we don't want to see on "groups" of pages. While attaining images for the other characters would be trivial (thanks to The Wayback Machine), I'm thinking a better course of action would be to simply excise these images, as they add little to the articles in question.

I'm hoping to get some input on this first, though, as to see whether or not keeping them and adding the companion images is worth our time.

That's all.

--- Monsieur Crow, Author Extraordinaire, 21:03, 27 August 2014 (EDT)

For consistency I agree they should be removed altogether, especially since they're just cropped from the 1P Mode endings with text added near the bottom. Blue Ninjakoopa 21:38, 27 August 2014 (EDT)

Just a forewarning: If no one raises any serious objections to this, I will remove all such images from articles and tag them with the deletion tag tomorrow (Monday, 1 September 2014).

--- Monsieur Crow, Author Extraordinaire, 18:07, 31 August 2014 (EDT)

A heads up

I'm not neglecting this proposal, I'm simply waiting until the Wiki's activity dies down. There are several images being uploaded since the release of SSB3DS and since this is still a proposal and not policy, it can't act as a guideline, so there's no point in bumping at the moment. When activity recedes, I'll press for more input. Also know that I'm open to amendments. Blue Ninjakoopa 20:13, 19 September 2014 (EDT)

And this can't be put in SW:IMAGE?

Per title. Qwerty (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2014 (EST)

That makes the most sense to me; After all, this is an image-related policy and doesn't go into an extremely different topic than SW:IMAGE. Nyargleblargle (Talk) 14:40, 4 May 2015 (EDT)

Make official or not official?

Bump. Dots (talk) The Marine 18:14, 12 January 2015 (EST)

Bump again. Serpent∞King (talk) 01:10, 3 October 2015 (EDT)

Consensus seems to be a bit too split to know for sure, actually. Personally, I think the best option is a section in SW:IMAGE. Nyargleblargle Let's go Mets! (Talk · Contribs) 15:59, 26 October 2015 (EDT)

Formal discussion

Since there's very few actual support/opposes, I figured it would be best to start this. Nyargleblargle (Talk | Contribs) 10:52, 15 November 2015 (EST)

Support

1. Support ONLY if we don't add to SW:IMAGE. Very neatly written, very descriptive, a very good proposal! INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 10:57, 15 November 2015 (EST)

Add to SW:IMAGE

1. A summarized version of this would fit right into the policy, and this topic doesn't deviate too far from what the Image policy covers anyway. Nyargleblargle (Talk | Contribs) 10:52, 15 November 2015 (EST)
2. Support ONLY if we don't make this a seperate policy, as this could go well with SW:IMAGE. INoMed ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 10:57, 15 November 2015 (EST)