Editing User talk:Trig Jegman
From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Disclaimers and Notices== | ==Disclaimers and Notices== | ||
Archive list: | Archive list: | ||
| Line 57: | Line 56: | ||
===Gamma=== | ===Gamma=== | ||
---- | ---- | ||
When colors differ between optimized and non-optimized images, it is, from my understanding, <s>usually</s> (often; it depends on how the image was exported, correct me if I'm wrong) the optimized result that contains the intended colors. The original images, when exported without unchecking certain options, sometimes contain gamma-correction metadata to determine the image's brightness; however, browsers often don't display this data properly as it is intended for editing. See {{User|Wildgoosespeeder}}'s comment on my talk page, {{User|RAP}}'s [[User:RAP/PNG|FAQ]] for previous discussions on the topic, and [https://hsivonen.fi/png-gamma/ this article] for more details. Compare the color of Luigi's clothing with the other images of Luigi from NSLU. While in some cases the gamma correction is needed, this particular image ([[:File: | When colors differ between optimized and non-optimized images, it is, from my understanding, <s>usually</s> (often; it depends on how the image was exported, correct me if I'm wrong) the optimized result that contains the intended colors. The original images, when exported without unchecking certain options, sometimes contain gamma-correction metadata to determine the image's brightness; however, browsers often don't display this data properly as it is intended for editing. See {{User|Wildgoosespeeder}}'s comment on my talk page, {{User|RAP}}'s [[User:RAP/PNG|FAQ]] for previous discussions on the topic, and [https://hsivonen.fi/png-gamma/ this article] for more details. Compare the color of Luigi's clothing with the other images of Luigi from NSLU. While in some cases the gamma correction is needed, this particular image ([[:File:Luigi - New Super Mario Bros U.png]]) seems it could be accurate without it. Edit: After looking at more images, I understand that it is much more complicated than I originally thought (gamma makes some images accurate and others inaccurate), see my comment on [[MarioWiki:Proposals]] for more details. --{{User:Supermariofan67/sig}} 23:26, February 15, 2020 (EST) | ||
::I entirely agree that images typically look better without the gamma correction involved however both Steve and several other administerative staff have affirmed that we are not to optimize it just because it's more accurate to the actual display of the source. [[User:Trig Jegman|Trig]] - 08:12, February 16, 2020 (EST) | ::I entirely agree that images typically look better without the gamma correction involved however both Steve and several other administerative staff have affirmed that we are not to optimize it just because it's more accurate to the actual display of the source. [[User:Trig Jegman|Trig]] - 08:12, February 16, 2020 (EST) | ||
:::Gotcha, that's understandable. I have found a way to optimize images without removing this particular iCCP metadata, therefore preserving colors. I tested it on [[:File:NSMBDS Goomba Artwork.png]]. --{{User:Supermariofan67/sig}} 12:47, February 16, 2020 (EST) | :::Gotcha, that's understandable. I have found a way to optimize images without removing this particular iCCP metadata, therefore preserving colors. I tested it on [[:File:NSMBDS Goomba Artwork.png]]. --{{User:Supermariofan67/sig}} 12:47, February 16, 2020 (EST) | ||
| Line 84: | Line 83: | ||
===Gamma correction template=== | ===Gamma correction template=== | ||
---- | ---- | ||
Is it okay if this design is okay for the template that you asked to be created as per [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive | Is it okay if this design is okay for the template that you asked to be created as per [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 55#New Template:Gamma Image|this proposal]]: | ||
<pre> | <pre> | ||
<div class="notice-template" style="display:flex;text-align:center;background:#debffb;margin:0.175em 2% 0.75em;padding:0 1em;border:2px solid black;color:black"> | <div class="notice-template" style="display:flex;text-align:center;background:#debffb;margin:0.175em 2% 0.75em;padding:0 1em;border:2px solid black;color:black"> | ||
| Line 110: | Line 109: | ||
:::::Thanks a lot! - Trig - 17:07, February 25, 2020 (EST) | :::::Thanks a lot! - Trig - 17:07, February 25, 2020 (EST) | ||
::::::Should we move forward on this now? {{User|Porplemontage}} said that everything looks okay, and {{User|Wildgoosespeeder}} might not respond for a while since he's not very active anymore. --{{User:Supermariofan67/sig}} 17:28, February 27, 2020 (EST) | ::::::Should we move forward on this now? {{User|Porplemontage}} said that everything looks okay, and {{User|Wildgoosespeeder}} might not respond for a while since he's not very active anymore. --{{User:Supermariofan67/sig}} 17:28, February 27, 2020 (EST) | ||
===Proposal clarification=== | ===Proposal clarification=== | ||
---- | ---- | ||
You made several mistakes when you archived recently-completed proposals. First, you passed a proposal with only three votes. Per the proposal page, "Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion." Second, you marked a proposal which won as one which had no quorum. However, the proposal had more than three votes, and the rules that say that a proposal must be extended if no option wins by at least three votes, or that the winning option must win by the majority else it gets extended, only apply to proposals with both two options and more than ten votes, or proposals with more than two options, respectively. The proposal doesn't meet the criteria for these rules, and thus it won. Third, you marked a proposal with no quorum when it should have continued. The proposal applied to the rule of needing a majority due to having more than two options, and it had more than three votes, thus it should have continued. Finally, when archiving proposals, you should use the {{tem| | You made several mistakes when you archived recently-completed proposals. First, you passed a proposal with only three votes. Per the proposal page, "Any proposal that has three votes or less at deadline will automatically be listed as "NO QUORUM." The original proposer then has the option to relist said proposal to generate more discussion." Second, you marked a proposal which won as one which had no quorum. However, the proposal had more than three votes, and the rules that say that a proposal must be extended if no option wins by at least three votes, or that the winning option must win by the majority else it gets extended, only apply to proposals with both two options and more than ten votes, or proposals with more than two options, respectively. The proposal doesn't meet the criteria for these rules, and thus it won. Third, you marked a proposal with no quorum when it should have continued. The proposal applied to the rule of needing a majority due to having more than two options, and it had more than three votes, thus it should have continued. Finally, when archiving proposals, you should use the {{tem|ProposalOutcome}} template on the proposal's talk page, or on the page they're archived on like [[MarioWiki:Proposals/Archive 55|here]]. {{User:Doomhiker/sig}} 09:48, February 27, 2020 (EST) | ||
::My apologies on that. I'll take responsibility on the Shy Guy, but I was not sure how to classify the won as no quorum because of the duplicate votes in place. Because I could not really determine what won per se (even with looking at the rules), I assumed it was no quorum. As for the third, I don't know what you man for the placement of that template. [[User:Trig Jegman|Trig]] - 09:57, February 27, 2020 (EST) | ::My apologies on that. I'll take responsibility on the Shy Guy, but I was not sure how to classify the won as no quorum because of the duplicate votes in place. Because I could not really determine what won per se (even with looking at the rules), I assumed it was no quorum. As for the third, I don't know what you man for the placement of that template. [[User:Trig Jegman|Trig]] - 09:57, February 27, 2020 (EST) | ||
:::I made a mistake with the regular Bowser Stature proposal. I was counting the duplicate votes as well when it came to the majority wins rules, so the proposal won instead of continuing or being no quorum, so sorry about that. Though what I said about the Black Shy Guy and Gold Bowser Statue proposals still pertain. Anyways, for the template, you just need to place it under the {{tem| | :::I made a mistake with the regular Bowser Stature proposal. I was counting the duplicate votes as well when it came to the majority wins rules, so the proposal won instead of continuing or being no quorum, so sorry about that. Though what I said about the Black Shy Guy and Gold Bowser Statue proposals still pertain. Anyways, for the template, you just need to place it under the {{tem|SettledTPP}} template. Like this: | ||
Header | Header | ||
{{tem| | {{tem|SettledTPP}} | ||
<nowiki>{{ | <nowiki>{{ProposalOutcome|passed/failed/vetoed/canceled/no consensus/no quorum|votes (if necessary)|argument}}</nowiki> | ||
(The rest of the proposal itself) | (The rest of the proposal itself) | ||
The [[Template: | The [[Template:ProposalOutcome]] gives more clear instructions (and is where I took the example for the template). I hope this makes it more clear. {{User:Doomhiker/sig}} 12:43, February 27, 2020 (EST) | ||
