Category talk:Guild Wars 1 images
Why are user images being added to this category? I can understand this if the images are being used in actual articles, but it's irrelevant to include the rest in the category; it unnecessarily increases the size of the category. I thought the purpose of this category was to include just GW1 images in articles so that we could easily access ones that should be replaced later on.-- Shew 16:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's due to a template? I don't know, but looking at like one of my images. I see a template tagged on it. I think that those are being tagged to show that they're guild wars 1 images as well. Perhaps a different template for a different category to keep this one from filling up so much? Ariyen 17:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- The only tags GW1 user images should need (imo) are the user image tag and the ArenaNet image tag w/o parameters.-- Shew 19:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- As it stands, the template that adds this category is a licensing template (that is, it's intended to show that it's Anet's property, we use it with their permission, and it isn't available under GFDL), which applies both to mainspace and userspace images. It might be useful to make a separate maintenance template along the lines of the image update template on GWW that could strictly be applied to mainspace images. - Tanetris 19:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- User images are tagged based on the formatting portion of Practices and processes, specifically this section. When you think about it, this is a wiki for GW2 and it should be rare that a GW1 image even be here, after all they are separate games. The majority of uses for GW1 images would be user based, thus it makes sense to have the majority of GW1 images as user images. Venom20
19:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Venom; to further illustrate his point, the majority of images in this category which are not in the userspace are waiting for deletion, and many of the user images in this category are both here and at Special:UnusedFiles. We are not really expected to have much GW1 content here. Erasculio 11:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- That seems like a good idea.-- Shew 14:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Venom; to further illustrate his point, the majority of images in this category which are not in the userspace are waiting for deletion, and many of the user images in this category are both here and at Special:UnusedFiles. We are not really expected to have much GW1 content here. Erasculio 11:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
- User images are tagged based on the formatting portion of Practices and processes, specifically this section. When you think about it, this is a wiki for GW2 and it should be rare that a GW1 image even be here, after all they are separate games. The majority of uses for GW1 images would be user based, thus it makes sense to have the majority of GW1 images as user images. Venom20
- As it stands, the template that adds this category is a licensing template (that is, it's intended to show that it's Anet's property, we use it with their permission, and it isn't available under GFDL), which applies both to mainspace and userspace images. It might be useful to make a separate maintenance template along the lines of the image update template on GWW that could strictly be applied to mainspace images. - Tanetris 19:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- The only tags GW1 user images should need (imo) are the user image tag and the ArenaNet image tag w/o parameters.-- Shew 19:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The above and the category's name[edit]
So tagging Guild Wars images, I've been wondering why this category has remained in this incorrect location. There is no Guild Wars 1, just Guild Wars. I suggest recreating the category and altering the templates unless anyone has any direct objections to doing so.
That said, the above discussion of 2010 is also questioning the use of the template in conjunction with user images. No idea how those users (would) feel now, but I agree that even user images that are Guild Wars images should be tagged appropriately; it's a legal part we have no actual say in. - Infinite - talk 17:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
