Playing around with some of my own tile work, I've been able to discern some personal subjective impressions regarding the frequency and number of tiles used to suggest the same thing.

For example, you use a single tile for a side walk, and repeat it over and over, and before long, I get bored with seeing it. If you use two tiles (say one cracked and one not cracked), I start to get an impression of a place that's lively and unpredictable (like a late-80s NES game). I see three different tiles (not cracked plus two cracked in different ways), I start to feel a sort of arcade-y quality. like something made to draw my attention. At four tiles I begin not to notice the tiling anymore. And at five... it starts to seem real. But not real in a good way, more like real in a "sensory overloaded I-walk-down-the-street-and-hardly-notice-anything-about-it" kind of way.

I use the same site for several things, including my game maker (I couldn't find stable hosting for it anywhere else).

Honestly I think the site is coming into its own as a starting point for learning. Now honestly PixelJoint would probably be a better home for this kind of project. I notice that the materials there are very good, and I'm linking to several of them from the wiki. But I hope people understand that neatly organized information has value. Search is good for getting the latest information about something you have basic familiarity with, but the world's internet forums are no match for Wikipedia when it comes to gaining intellectual foothold.

If I see something like this happen at PixelJoint, I will probably take the wiki down. I am also open to handing the wiki's backup over to PixelJoint proper, if they want to host it. At the very least, I think WikiPixels is a good name and that its logo should be preserved, because it was very gracious of its author to make it.

I am adamant that extensive, well organized reference material is key to the usefulness of a wiki such as this. Putting all the palettes you can find on one page, or even giving them separate articles, is not a bad thing. But one thing the wiki should not be subject to is immature trolls. I've seen them in action on other wikis for other topics, and they literally strangle their evolution. It's controversial to ban them but I think it's for the best.

In some ways the wiki is treated like my personal resource but it's simply not my nature to stockpile private information. If I'm going to exert my mental activity in novel directions, then I want it to be of use to others. I understand their needs may differ and I'm willing to negotiate to the extent that the resource in question continues to serve my own intellectual need. Although I can be gracious I am no altruist.

I do want people to participate, so long as they respect my contributions. In general I think contributed information represents well-intentioned mental effort which should be respected.

The peculiar nature of clusters is the main reason I enjoy making pixel art. However, by their very nature they are impossible to study, only refine.

But we see things fundamentally differently. So I won't waste our time anymore.

I think a lot of amateur pixel artists (read: people who like drawing NES sprites) would find the painted metal perspective rather useful. If I didn't think it a useful epiphany I wouldn't have written about it. You need to understand that a lot of people who like pixel art will never have the mastery of form required to say, shade clothing accurately. They don't have the ability because they lack fundamental interest in the actual process of considering how one fold determines another fold. These simple rules are enough for them to shade small sprites, which is all they should quite frankly ever aspire to (and all they will ever stick with besides). If everyone had talent in the visual arts, there wouldn't be anywhere near as many demos and half-baked engines with bad art. But if we can just raise the caliber of that bad art a little bit, I think it'll be worth it.