Category:User imagesEdit
I think that the user images category should be used more often and more reliably. As such, I'm proposing a rule that all personal images must be in it. Failing to put a personal image into the category would result in a reminder to do so, possibly followed by deletion if the user doesn't comply in a reasonable length of time. Personal images would also not be allowed to be placed in any category used by non-personal images (presumably all the other categories). Toomai Glittershine 
The Non-Toxic 21:41, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
- I support this. Omega Tyrant
22:05, 3 October 2011 (EDT) - Why exactly do we need a category for user images? Mr. Anon
talk 22:30, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
- We currently have over a thousand uncategorized images - at least twenty times more than uncategorized articles, templates, and categories combined. We need to start chopping that down, and I figured taking personal images out of that group would be as good a place as any to start. Having a category exclusively for personal images would also add an extra layer of division between them and other images. Toomai Glittershine The Frivolous 23:06, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
- We currently have over a thousand uncategorized images - at least twenty times more than uncategorized articles, templates, and categories combined. We need to start chopping that down, and I figured taking personal images out of that group would be as good a place as any to start. Having a category exclusively for personal images would also add an extra layer of division between them and other images. Toomai Glittershine
Edited imagesEdit
I've noticed User:Brandondorf9999 has been blocked a fair amount of times for "uploading edited images". If this has been a block reason, shouldn't there be something in the policy that prohibits such images? Mr. Anon
talk 21:05, 8 February 2012 (EST)
- I noticed that too. He had tried to make some of the background of the images white or tried to make some of them all shiny or stuff like that. ..... The Morning Sun 22:10, 8 February 2012 (EST)
If I recall correctly, most of those blocks weren't necessarily for editing the images, but for editing them in a way that made them worse (e.g. enlarging images, adding shoddy transparency) and engaging in revert wars over them. That said however I will write here that we will not accept (in the mainspace) edited images. Toomai Glittershine The Obfuscating 23:31, 8 February 2012 (EST)
- If you're including a guideline on edited images, I would also suggest including a guideline about avoiding the use of images from hacks; I know the Teetering article had an image of a moveswapped Mario, and Brandondorf got into trouble for uploading images of a "widescreen" hack. --- ReiDemon, Author Extraordinaire, 23:37, 8 February 2012 (EST)
- I was aware that many of his blocks were due to his images actually being lower quality, or for him image edit warring. However, the recent notice you added to the talk page seemed like it would be more meaningful if it had policy to back it up. Anyways, thank you for adding that note. Mr. Anon talk 23:52, 8 February 2012 (EST)
Image amendmentEdit
Fine with me, I usually add spaces in my pic names. RoyboyX Talk 19:47, 28 July 2013 (EDT)
Why do you think the amendment is extreme? Awesome Cardinal 2000 21:27, 28 July 2013 (EDT)
- Because it flies in the face of probably more than half of the images we have, and implementing your "must have spaces and avoid abbreviations" amendment would require us to rename them all without bot support (and then find and fix the affected templates).
- In addition I'm not convinced that making images easier to search for is necessary (why search for an image when you can just look in the articles where it would be, and if it's not there there's no reason for it to exist), nor that this rule would actually help (spaced/unabbreviated or not, search's dropdown bar acts the same). Toomai Glittershine The Hammer 23:56, 28 July 2013 (EDT)
Fan translation MOTHER 3 imagesEdit
Would images from the fan-translated MOTHER 3 break the "no fanart" rule listed here? Red (talk) 
13:04, 27 May 2014 (EDT)
Stage hazards?Edit
We currently have some inconsistencies with pages on stage hazards. Flying Man, Kamek, Charmander, Cresselia, Dark Emperor, Dialga, Fish, King Bulblin, Klaptrap, Meta Ridley, Palkia, Porygon, Rayquaza, Registeel, Reshiram, Ridley, Ultimate Chimera, Yellow Devil, and Zekrom all use images from their appearance in Super Smash Bros. for their infobox. However, Shellcreeper, Shy Guy, Sidestepper, Whispy Woods, Wolfen, Peckish Aristocrab, Piranha Plant, Metal Face, Great Fox, Banzai Bill, Birdo, Nabbit, and 5-Volt use artwork from their source games. And then we have Arwing, F-Zero Racers, and Pidgit, which don't have infoboxes at all. I excluded the stage hazards who fill other roles in other games (such as Chansey) since they seem to at least be consistent with other characters in their group, but we need to define whether or not stage hazards get their own artwork in infoboxes or not. TheNuttyOne 15:03, 18 May 2018 (EDT)
Replacing "inferior" images?Edit
What's the approach to replacing an image that isn't exactly in "poor quality" but I have a better one? Example:
[[Image:SSBU-Great_Plateau_TowerBattlefield.png|350px|]]
This is generally a good image of the Battlefield Form of the stage, but I think a zoomed out picture would be better fitting:
[[Image:SSBU-Great_Plateau_TowerBattlefield_ZoomOut.png|350px|]]
I don't want to just remove something claiming "my image is better" out of the blue. What are the rulings on this kind of situation? Boogs (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2018 (EST)
Native resolutionEdit
It is currently an unwritten rule that images should be taken at native resolution, having overlap with the "represent the subject as "natural" as possible" and no "hacks or codes" policy as that is the primary means of non-native resolutions. Since that policy's addition in 2012, various means of capturing non-native resolutions have become much more common:
- Emulators are much more widespread and accessible, many of which allow for higher output resolutions either through built-in cheats or built into the emulator itself
- Gameplay capture has also become more prevalent, with companies engaging in the practice themselves. Recorded video can be saved and uploaded at whatever resolution the uploader desires
- Along with the above, said videos can be viewed at whatever resolution depending on their display device and then taking a screenshot; get a "4k image" of a 3DS game by watching a video in fullscreen on a 4k monitor
As previously mentioned, these (and probably other) methods can be covered by the aforementioned policy, however it is easily up to interpretation. As such, it should be codified that images should not be at a higher resolution than the parent hardware is capable of producing under normal circumstances along with listing said resolutions: N64 = 320x240 (640x480 with Expansion Pack RAM, don't think Smash 64 makes use of it), GCN/Wii = 640x480; 3DS = 400x240 (top), 320x240 (bottom); Wii U = 1280x720 or 1920x1080 (Smash Wii U uses 1080p); Switch 1920x1080 (docked), 1280x720 (handheld); other consoles too if we extend to non-Smash titles. The primary exception to this would be images from official sources—they have direct means of producing higher resolutions as well as to preserve history.
Lastly, in the event that upscaled media is allowed, I think a policy similar to WiKirby's should be employed. Specifically the upscaled image policy in that uspcaled images take lower precedence to native resolution images and that the upscaled images must explicitly mention that they are upscaled (the means of upscaling and by how much should also be listed on the image page). I'd also suggest restrict what means of uspcaling can be used to "nearest-neighbor" (namely for sprites) and hardware upscaling (primarily emulators)—various other interpolation methods can add pixels that don't exist (running into the no edited images policy) and AI upscaling does the same but can wrongly assume what the subject is and insert pixels that shouldn't exist.