I'm not sure how everyone else feels about this, but personally I think that the site is becoming badly oversaturated with GIFs and that it's a serious problem which detracts from the quality of the articles.
To that end, I'd like to propose a GIF Restriction Policy, which would set limits on how many GIFs are appropriate per article (depending on the length of the article in question) and would determine when a GIF would be more appropriate or illustrative than a still image. For example: A GIF of McGonagall transfiguring the bird into a goblet is a useful way of illustrating what that particular spell does, whereas a normal image would fail. On the other hand, a GIF of Grindelwald repeatedly jumping out of the window is not demonstrating anything that a still picture can't do just as well.
- I personally don't find anything wrong with the use of the GIFs, and feel a restriction policy to be unnecessary. A GIF of Grindelwald jumping out of a window will convey what he's doing better than a still image of him in mid-air or something, however unimportant the action was. I think it would be best to just review each GIF when they are uploaded and if it's that bad in quality, a discussion could take place to change it instead of edit-warring.
- To that end, I don't think a GIF needs to be perfect / coloured identically to each other. There are still images that look better than other still images. Take the ongoing Abernathy issue today. The still image of him looks like he wasn't ready for the camera, and his face was frozen at the wrong point. The GIF looks way better, and it conveys what he's doing properly. Taking it case by case would be simpler than a policy being enforced. - Kates39 (talk) 17:38, August 21, 2019 (UTC)