Thread:Ultrasonic9000/@comment-27441478-20161204050217/@comment-1669199-20161216212649

There's a couple of things that have been/are being discussed that I feel I should add my perspective on, otherwise everyone can assume that I am in full support of what I don't directly address in NotLessOrEqual's initial list, since I am virtually in agreement with most if not all of their proposals.

1) I agree that Users who wish to upload screenshots and videos of games should try to do so via emulation at high resolution settings if the tools that would allow them to do so are available or can become readily available to them, while other sources such as consoles should take second place or lower if no other form of suitable emulation is available. However, as Luma.dash has pointed out, not everyone who edits here has access to decent level computers and the necessary accessories that would make high quality emulation possible for them, so IF said users could provide screenshots/videos of certain games but ONLY via consoles and the like then they should be allowed to upload such content to the Wiki. But, if someone either in the present or the future has the means to replace this content with higher quality versions of itself, whether it be the user(s) who originally uploaded the lower quality version(s) of the content or someone else entirely, said user(s) should be allowed to replace the old content with newer, higher quality versions if they desire to do so, since I am in agreement with NotLessOrEqual that having screenshots/videos of games via emulation is ideal since the content within as well as gameplay would not change from the original; the only difference would be higher quality. True, one could argue that the developers behind the games wanted them to be presented a certain way when they released their games on the systems they made the games for, but I would speculate that many of these same developers would also prefer their games be presented in a way that surpasses the quality of the original hardware their games were initially released on if such options were available, since it would only be beneficial for everyone involved as it would make what's already there look prettier in screenshots/videos.

Personally, I think we should keep our interpretations of what the staff behind these games think about whatever topics we discuss, such whether to make a record of their games in certain kinds of resolution levels, to a minimum unless we have their thoughts on such topics written clear as day for all to see via official sources for the games, as it's mainly speculation, and we need to be as factual as possible. If SEGA, Sonic Team or anyone who works directly for either of them comes forward and makes it clear they want sites such as ours to document screenshots/video recording of their games in only specific ways, and if they'd be well within their legal right to enforce these wishes on anyone who were to violate these wishes of theirs, then I say go ahead and get the highest quality of screenshots/videos humanly possible if it is within any of our means to do so. I see no harm in making sure our screenshots/videos are as sparkly clean & clear as possible, especially since what we seek to do is document the subject matter contained within these and other media.

2) I suggest that a stage within the games needs to make a minimum of 3 appearances in multiple games before we consider giving said location a seperate "location" article or whatever we decide to ultimately call them. I know the number 3 wasn't among the list of numbers originally proposed, but I feel 3 is a good middle ground between 2 and 4, since 3 wouldn't be too little like 2, but not possibly too much like 4. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think most stages that appear in most Sonic games don't usually make more appearances than their first ones in their respective games in which they debut, and that only a handful of stages/locations in the Sonic games have appearred in more than 3 games or more. I can't think of very many examples off the top of my head, but I'm certain that I am at least largely correct. I don't think there's too many stages that have appeared in the games more than 3 times, including their original appearances, and we can always raise the number of minimum appearances higher if we ever feel that we may be making too many "location" articles on here.

And I think this is all I want to address, unless something else comes up.