Unused files

[Walkazo]

You mean when there's a blank space except for the name in black, with a regular linked name under it? I'm think that just means the cache needs purging. It's the same reason why images are still on the list even if they've been placed on an article. It should fix itself eventually.

Also, guys, remember that when you mark things for deletion, you need to give a reason. Like "replaced by [[File:X.pg]]", or "unused PI" or something like that. Otherwise the admin trying to delete the image has to look it up themselves (i.e. check to see if there was a PI template before the delete template was added, etc.), which slows things down.

EDIT: Okay, most if not all of the obvious PIs have been deleted.

 

[Pyro]

I've began to tag some of the images for deletion w/ reasons.

EDIT: What should I do with File:Gordo.jpg? It used to be used, but now our Gordo page is pending deletion. It's a good image, too.

 

[Walkazo]

Maybe it could be used on the Unibō page to show how the enemy's similar but different.

 

[MCS]

So how's the progress on this going currently?

 

[User4042]

Maybe it could be used on the Unibō page to show how the enemy's similar but different.

Was taken off by Fizzle (User_talk:Fizzle)

 

[Walkazo]

Maybe it could be used on the Unibō page to show how the enemy's similar but different.

Was taken off by Fizzle (User_talk:Fizzle)

Clearly, he must die for such an act.

(not)



I just put the image back - but I made it small, so the page isn't being dominated by something it's not actually about, as it was originally.

 

[MCS]

Well, I'll assume you admins are taking a break from this project, since Walkazo didn't respond to my question. Nonetheless, I'm glad those Paper Mario bestiary images were tended to - they took up a good chunk of it.

 

[Ray Trace]

Oh yay, there's all the Mario Party 8 +more images I forgot to tag "delete" with. I'll tag them right away.

 

[Ray Trace]

I finally tagged all images I know for sure got replaced. That took a while

 

[Walkazo]

Thanks a bunch! Especially for getting the links for all the replacement images.

 

[Ray Trace]

You're welcome!

I can try doing the Luigi's Mansion files next, since I know exactly what replaced them. In fact, I'll try getting most as I can tomorrow. Not today, though, I'm tired from all of that search and find things.

EDIT: Keep in mind that I'm fully aware I haven't tagged things such as the Gimme a Brake picture yet. That's because there are several versions of that game and that I'm going to save it for later.

 

[Dardy]

I'd like to help.. and in my opinion there is few steps:

1.First look at the file itself.. check if it has a {{not-unused}} or something like that
2.Go to the page that may use that file check if a better version exists
3.Last but not least go to the monobook.css and search for the page name
4.If nothing bad.. Mark with {{delete}}

 

[MCS]

That sounds fair. The unused files are still pretty cluttered at the moment (over 250), even after the fact that a ton were deleted already.

 

[Walkazo]

Mark with {{delete}}

Just using {{delete}} isn't good enough, nor is just saying "unused" for the deletion reason. If you've found a solid reason for why it's not useful, say so - otherwise the deleting admin's gonna have to go and investigate a second time to find it out for themself.

 

[Dardy]

Important thing to do is check for redirects as linking to redirects of images WILL NOT BE COUNTABLE on the image itself check this for File:SMS_ScuttleBug.JPG

 

[Walkazo]

Good point.

And that's why anyone moving images around MUST update the links and then mark the redirect for deletion, and try to keep image moving to a minimum to begin with: most renames I've seen are really frivolous...

 

[Hobbes]

Okay, I am having conflicts regarding some of the "replaced" images. Why is this image better than this one? Lately a lot of images have been "replaced" for extremely-similar screenshots, and the old ones have been marked for deletion. Why should we change the image if both are the exact same resolution and have the same quality? (actually, in the case I mentioned above, the colors in the first image look way better). I was about to deleted them, but I want a good reason as to why we need to change them.


And why couldn't you just upload a version of the same image? It would save everyone a lot of trouble, especially since they are about the same images.

 

[MCS]

Okay, I am having conflicts regarding some of the "replaced" images. Why is this image better than this one?

You linked to the same image twice...Or was that intentional?

Lately a lot of images have been "replaced" for extremely-similar screenshots, and the old ones have been marked for deletion. Why should we change the image if both are the exact same resolution and have the same quality? (actually, in the case I mentioned above, the colors in the first image look way better). I was about to deleted them, but I want a good reason as to why we need to change them.


And why couldn't you just upload a version of the same image? It would save everyone a lot of trouble, especially since they are about the same images.

Hmm, those are some good questions.

 

[Hobbes]

My bad, they were so similar I couldn't tell them apart. Here's what I meant:

Why is this image better than this one?

 

[Shoko]

If they are the same file type, then yes they should always be reuploaded. But it's a different story with say a PNG replacing a JPEG.

 

[MCS]

If they are the same file type, then yes they should always be reuploaded. But it's a different story with say a PNG replacing a JPEG.

Very true. And even though it may not look like much of a difference, Tucky, the jpg does look just a tad more pixellated than the PNG which BLOF uploaded.

 

[Hobbes]

If they are the same file type, then yes they should always be reuploaded. But it's a different story with say a PNG replacing a JPEG.

My bad, I hadn't noticed that.

 

[MCS]

Images can't be reuploaded if they have different extensions, and it's simply more practical to make a new screenshot than add transparency to the existing image (which usually end up looking like shit, anyway).

Indeed. Very rarely transparency comes out perfect; I tried to make some MW images transparent when messing around in GIMP, and there turned out to be a very thin, barely noticeable white line, which comes up on a ton of transparencies.

 

[Shoko]

Indeed. Very rarely transparency comes out perfect; I tried to make some MW images transparent when messing around in GIMP, and there turned out to be a very thin, barely noticeable white line, which comes up on a ton of transparencies.

That is due to a minor color inconsistency around the edges of an artwork. Whenever a colored layer is put behind a transparent artwork, you will never get the identical image back if you were to simply select an area to give transparency. See the quick screenshot I took below for a visual example.

This was an image of a Goomba with a blue background. Even though the background appears to be a single shade of blue, pixels around the edges which vary slightly in color appear when using the "Select by color" tool.

When artworks are retrieved from an official source, such as a press kit, then transparency there is always perfect. This is because the image came straight from a PSD (Photoshop) document, and was saved without the background when the SDK was used to make the image. The following is the same Goomba artwork, but with official transparency:

Third-party websites may obtain these images, modify/resize them and put them on their pages, where us users may uploaded them to the wiki from there. Giving good transparency from that point may be difficult. Unlike GIMP, with Photoshop you can actually opt to fade the edges slightly when giving transparency. This is handy, for example, if you were trying to get rid of those visible blue pixels in the example above. Also I made this visual a few weeks ago which gives an example of bad transparency (left) and good transparency (right).

So to summarize, please avoid giving transparency to artworks unless it is "good", which means no visible outline around the border when viewed against a black background.

 

[Ray Trace]

Unlike GIMP, with Photoshop you can actually opt to fade the edges slightly when giving transparency. This is handy, for example, if you were trying to get rid of those visible blue pixels in the example above. Also I made this visual a few weeks ago which gives an example of bad transparency (left) and good transparency (right).

Actually, GIMP can smooth out the edges too using a feathering tool. This is how this picture of Wario gets good transparency due to a feathering technique my sister uses.