Thread: Suggestions, ideas, and problems

Originally Posted by Archaic

Server space =/= server stress. A larger file size takes more bandwidth to serve to you, but we're not stressed for bandwidth, we're stressed for server load.

Well, okay.

Like I was saying, Screenshots will ALWAYS have Quality Loss so what's the point of having them strictly in PNG over JPG when there's almost no visual difference between them?

And yes, I've already read the FAQ which says: "because it looks better."
That is an aesthetic, self-defeating reason which makes it harder to avoid the 2MB limit.

Originally Posted by Arima

Well, okay.

Like I was saying, Screenshots will ALWAYS have Quality Loss so what's the point of having them strictly in PNG over JPG when there's almost no visual difference between them?

And yes, I've already read the FAQ which says: "because it looks better."
That is an aesthetic, self-defeating reason which makes it harder to avoid the 2MB limit.

219KB is no where near 2MB to worry about.

Originally Posted by Force Fire

In normal view, they look fine. But when shrunken to thumbnail size, PNGs look better than JPGs. Says so in the Archives:FAQ.

Basculin's page still says that Rock Head is one of its standard abilities, but has anyone actually confirmed this yet? I think it is probably a Hidden Ability.

One way to confirm this would be to use an action replay to change the Rock Head Basculin's gender to female (since the traded one is always male) and breed it with another pokemon (barring Ditto) to see if the ability is passed on to the offspring (since you can do that with Hidden Abilities).

http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Talk:Basculin_(Pok%C3%A9mon)#Rock_Head

Originally Posted by Force Fire

In normal view, they look fine. But when shrunken to thumbnail size, PNGs look better than JPGs. Says so in the Archives:FAQ.

Honestly, that is one of the most absurd reasons I've ever heard of.
Because having to worry about the appearance of thumbnails is undoubtedly a moot point.

Originally Posted by Arima

Honestly, that is one of the most absurd reasons I've ever heard of.
Because having to worry about the appearance of thumbnails is undoubtedly a moot point.

Except that every image on every page of Bulbapedia is a thumbnail as far as the software is concerned. So it is far from a moot point.

Originally Posted by Arima

Honestly, that is one of the most absurd reasons I've ever heard of.
Because having to worry about the appearance of thumbnails is undoubtedly a moot point.

Originally Posted by Werdnae

Except that every image on every page of Bulbapedia is a thumbnail as far as the software is concerned. So it is far from a moot point.

This. Seriously. Have you not noticed that all of the images on Bulbapedia are shrunken down to thumbnail size?

Originally Posted by Arima

Honestly, that is one of the most absurd reasons I've ever heard of.
Because having to worry about the appearance of thumbnails is undoubtedly a moot point.

EVERYTHING is in thumbnailed form at one point or another.

Originally Posted by Force Fire

This. Seriously. Have you not noticed that all of the images on Bulbapedia are shrunken down to thumbnail size?

Sprites aren't thumbnailed.

Originally Posted by Pika3323

EVERYTHING is in thumbnailed form at one point or another.

...

Sprites aren't thumbnailed.

...Those are two quite contradicting sentences.

Perhaps it would be more technically correct to say every non-sprite image is thumbnailed at some point.

Still, it's evident that thumbnails are important.

I'm surprised at what I'm seeing here.
I'm making an argument for efficiency, yet it's not going well just because it is clearly stated in the FAQ that screenshot PNGs are preferred over screenshot JPGs. So much so that it is treated like a regularly-enforced policy.

Because of that, I firmly believe that the FAQ is WRONG because that one policy sets an Example for Inefficiency.

There is little to no difference in visual quality between screenshot PNGs and screenshot JPGs, BOTH in full and thumbnail size, so why waste space with screenshot PNGs?
Why waste effort in saving and submitting screenshots in PNG and why waste more effort in enforcing that policy every time someone submits a screenshot JPG by deleting it and replacing it with a screenshot PNG?

There is a difference in the thumbnails and as many people have said, a lot of the images in the articles are thumbnails and it does effect the quality of said images. We prefer PNGs. It doesn't make us wrong. It doesn't take more effort to save in PNG as you are saying. Even if we were to replace all of them with JPGs, I don't want time being wasted uploading thousands of images all over again. There's your efficiency. As for size? There are PNG optimizers available.

Originally Posted by Arima

I'm surprised at what I'm seeing here.
I'm making an argument for efficiency, yet it's not going well just because it is clearly stated in the FAQ that screenshot PNGs are preferred over screenshot JPGs. So much so that it is treated like a regularly-enforced policy.

Because of that, I firmly believe that the FAQ is WRONG because that one policy sets an Example for Inefficiency.

There is little to no difference in visual quality between screenshot PNGs and screenshot JPGs, BOTH in full and thumbnail size, so why waste space with screenshot PNGs?
Why waste effort in saving and submitting screenshots in PNG and why waste more effort in enforcing that policy every time someone submits a screenshot JPG by deleting it and replacing it with a screenshot PNG?

As a site, in order to preserve quality it has been decided that all screenshots must be formatted using non-lossy compression. Any images using lossy compression do result in a noticable quality difference. When looking at anime pages, I can almost always tell when a screenshot is or has been converted from a jpg, even at a glance. And the difference in quality is not minor. There is not "little to no difference". And don't say that it's being deleted, converted and reuploaded. The admins are obtaining an original png from sites which allow us to use their images.

In this case, the Archives Advisory Council, effectively the highest power on the Archives, has decided that quality is vastly more important than filesize.

Originally Posted by Arima

Why waste effort in saving and submitting screenshots in PNG and why waste more effort in enforcing that policy every time someone submits a screenshot JPG by deleting it and replacing it with a screenshot PNG?

What I'm wondering is why are you continuing to waste effort on continuing the discussion? You had a suggestion. You raised your points. You were answered no, and given reasons why not. Accept it! The reasons that they're raising are valid. Please stop wasting everyone's time with this.

Originally Posted by Arima

I'm surprised at what I'm seeing here.
I'm making an argument for efficiency, yet it's not going well just because it is clearly stated in the FAQ that screenshot PNGs are preferred over screenshot JPGs. So much so that it is treated like a regularly-enforced policy.

Because of that, I firmly believe that the FAQ is WRONG because that one policy sets an Example for Inefficiency.

There is little to no difference in visual quality between screenshot PNGs and screenshot JPGs, BOTH in full and thumbnail size, so why waste space with screenshot PNGs?
Why waste effort in saving and submitting screenshots in PNG and why waste more effort in enforcing that policy every time someone submits a screenshot JPG by deleting it and replacing it with a screenshot PNG?

There's also a limit to how big the files can be. So the files won't reach a 17MB png file I had.