Category talk:HoM rewards concept art
From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Filenames[edit]
Filenames are a mess. The current filenames for these images have several problems:
- Those under the format "File:HoM reward 01 - Heritage Shoes, Boots, Warboots .png" have way too big filenames. Do we really need to convey that much information at the title of each image?
- The images are also a mess since we have images which are almost the same under different filenames, so in a list they appear very far from each other. "File:HoM reward 19 - Deldrimor Mace.png" and "File:Deldrimor Mace.jpg" are showing almost the same thing, with the difference that the second one is cropped to not have the text description. Do we really need to have those images twice? I don't believe there would be any problem in using the file [[:File:HoM reward 19 - Deldrimor Mace.png]] instead of File:Deldrimor Mace.jpg at the Deldrimor Mace article; the description in the image isn't something we have to take away. If you people would like to keep those somewhat duplicated images, though, I would suggest changing filename so each pair of images has almost the same filename, only the smaller one would have a "cropped" sufix.
- The images under the smaller filenames are going to cause problems in the future. We already have an example with File:Seathunder Pistol.jpg and File:Seathunder Pistol.png: each item is likely going to have at least three images, possibly more (a screenshot, a concept art and an icon). If we name the concept art or the icon just based on what they are showing (such as "Seathunder Pistol"), we are going to have multiple images under the same name. I suggest we apply the Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Image formatting guide and adopt the "concept art" and "icon" sufixes to the pertinent images.
Thoughts? Erasculio 12:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Just for the last point, is concept art anything that's not a screenshot or a skill icon? If that's the case, then there are a lot of files that do not follow this naming convention. File:Focus.jpg for example, and every other image in the Concept art category page. (Xu Davella 13:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC))
- That's not exactly what concept art is, but almost everything at the concept art category needs to be renamed due to other reasons (see [[Talk:China GDC 2010|this discussion]] for an example of necessary changes). While no one has bothered to rename the old images (and I'm too busy for that right now), the new pieces of concept art could follow the proposed scheme. Erasculio 13:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Unless I'm reading this wrong, you are saying that the title names are too long and you want to add a suffix. That would make them longer. Although I agree that they may need to be distinguished from an icon and other images. Why not just have the icons with less descriptions? "HOM reward 08 - icon" and "HOM reward 08 - item" would still contain the same prefix as the in-game item image and the icon. Items that come in an order should be relayed in that order. The items that contain the "HOM reward xx" prefix relay that order while keeping the 3 proposed images together (concept art, icon, item image). While I have nothing against the cropped images, they do not contain any information about the order in which the rewards are received. While the order can be manipulated on the page itself, it is far easier to just label the images as such (and more accurate). In regards to the Heritage names, the file names are long but they are not fabricated names like the images in slideshows. The names are exactly what anet has called the reward. It can be shortened (ie footwear, headgear, etc), but at the loss to documenting accuracy. The current prefixes contain 2 parts: a categorizing title and a sequential number. The title can be truncated to lose the word reward and thus have "HoM xx" to contain the same information. Just my $0.02 Venom20
13:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- "you are saying that the title names are too long and you want to add a suffix": not really, I'm saying we need to redo the filenames so they are shorter, and add a suffix while still making the result shorter than they are. We don't need to convey all that information at the filename - we have entire articles to explain exactly what those images are. A simple "Heritage footwear concept art" is more than enough - the corresponding article already explains what the armor is, that it's a reward from the HoM and that it's the third (or whatever) given reward, plus the category helps. Erasculio 14:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, I see. Let's examine other concept arts. Since you pointed out the [[:Category:China_GDC_2010|China GDC 2010]], lets take examples from there. All of these are concept arts, but unless my eyes deceive me, none of them have a "concept art" suffix added. They also all appear to have a distinctive prefix (save one): GDC-2010-China. Why is the prefix here? "We don't need to convey all that information at the filename", while this is true, it is nice to have much information. Why do these images have a prefix? None of these images have descriptive titles (I wouldn't call "17" very descriptive). In regards to redoing file names, how do we determine which images get to bee less accurate? Again, the current titles are actual names not "The filenames are unofficial, as they are based off of the uploaders' conclusions from the art.", from [[:Category:China_GDC_2010|here]] Also, is the question of length only pertaining to mainspace articles? Or are there objections to file name length throughout the entire wiki. Also, how many characters constitutes a valid image name? Venom20 14:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- "Since you pointed out the China GDC 2010, lets take examples from there": as noted at the [[:Talk:China GDC 2010|discussion]] about the GDC images, their naming scheme is a mess. Pling's proposal was to rename everything "File:Description concept art", which was not opposed. In other words, it's another problem, pretty much like this one, and thus not the best source of examples. Erasculio 15:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- I just picked an example that had been mentioned, we could always refer to the Gw2-artbook-xx series or the MattBarrett_xx series for other conventions. Many sets do not contain the suffix "concept art" as the category appears to take care of that. But for organizational reasons, all seems to have a prefix to assist in categorization. Perhaps I should be taking this conversation to the formatting page, but I feel that all images should contain a prefix to assist in categorization and filing (within the category). They should have actual descriptions that contain words (actual titles > fabricated ones though). While it may be nice to affix suffixes (ie concept art, icon, etc), I don't feel it necessarily required (unless for reasons of ambiguity). Venom20 15:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- I just picked an example that had been mentioned, we could always refer to the Gw2-artbook-xx series or the MattBarrett_xx series for other conventions. Many sets do not contain the suffix "concept art" as the category appears to take care of that. But for organizational reasons, all seems to have a prefix to assist in categorization. Perhaps I should be taking this conversation to the formatting page, but I feel that all images should contain a prefix to assist in categorization and filing (within the category). They should have actual descriptions that contain words (actual titles > fabricated ones though). While it may be nice to affix suffixes (ie concept art, icon, etc), I don't feel it necessarily required (unless for reasons of ambiguity). Venom20
- "Since you pointed out the China GDC 2010, lets take examples from there": as noted at the [[:Talk:China GDC 2010|discussion]] about the GDC images, their naming scheme is a mess. Pling's proposal was to rename everything "File:Description concept art", which was not opposed. In other words, it's another problem, pretty much like this one, and thus not the best source of examples. Erasculio 15:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, I see. Let's examine other concept arts. Since you pointed out the [[:Category:China_GDC_2010|China GDC 2010]], lets take examples from there. All of these are concept arts, but unless my eyes deceive me, none of them have a "concept art" suffix added. They also all appear to have a distinctive prefix (save one): GDC-2010-China. Why is the prefix here? "We don't need to convey all that information at the filename", while this is true, it is nice to have much information. Why do these images have a prefix? None of these images have descriptive titles (I wouldn't call "17" very descriptive). In regards to redoing file names, how do we determine which images get to bee less accurate? Again, the current titles are actual names not "The filenames are unofficial, as they are based off of the uploaders' conclusions from the art.", from [[:Category:China_GDC_2010|here]] Also, is the question of length only pertaining to mainspace articles? Or are there objections to file name length throughout the entire wiki. Also, how many characters constitutes a valid image name? Venom20
- "you are saying that the title names are too long and you want to add a suffix": not really, I'm saying we need to redo the filenames so they are shorter, and add a suffix while still making the result shorter than they are. We don't need to convey all that information at the filename - we have entire articles to explain exactly what those images are. A simple "Heritage footwear concept art" is more than enough - the corresponding article already explains what the armor is, that it's a reward from the HoM and that it's the third (or whatever) given reward, plus the category helps. Erasculio 14:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Unless I'm reading this wrong, you are saying that the title names are too long and you want to add a suffix. That would make them longer. Although I agree that they may need to be distinguished from an icon and other images. Why not just have the icons with less descriptions? "HOM reward 08 - icon" and "HOM reward 08 - item" would still contain the same prefix as the in-game item image and the icon. Items that come in an order should be relayed in that order. The items that contain the "HOM reward xx" prefix relay that order while keeping the 3 proposed images together (concept art, icon, item image). While I have nothing against the cropped images, they do not contain any information about the order in which the rewards are received. While the order can be manipulated on the page itself, it is far easier to just label the images as such (and more accurate). In regards to the Heritage names, the file names are long but they are not fabricated names like the images in slideshows. The names are exactly what anet has called the reward. It can be shortened (ie footwear, headgear, etc), but at the loss to documenting accuracy. The current prefixes contain 2 parts: a categorizing title and a sequential number. The title can be truncated to lose the word reward and thus have "HoM xx" to contain the same information. Just my $0.02 Venom20
- That's not exactly what concept art is, but almost everything at the concept art category needs to be renamed due to other reasons (see [[Talk:China GDC 2010|this discussion]] for an example of necessary changes). While no one has bothered to rename the old images (and I'm too busy for that right now), the new pieces of concept art could follow the proposed scheme. Erasculio 13:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
(Reset indent) To clarify what I did, I uploaded the shorter-named set of images because I didn't see Venom's set uploaded (which were actually still being uploaded at the time). And I didn't crop the text (or the X in the upper right), I just viewed the image itself ("View background image") without the overlays, so it's exactly the image they uploaded rather than a screencap. At least, that's what I assume Venom did, but I'm not an expert in anything artistic on the computer.
Anyway, to your points: I agree with adding the suffixes. It's already ambiguous in that they're both the same file name with only a different extension. I'll move my images to the suffix scheme myself. --ஸ Kyoshi 
16:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Done. @Venom: This isn't ignoring your argument; if we end up siding with you then we have the same amount of work to do, and otherwise the work is already done.
- Anyway, as far as prefixes vs suffixes, having some kind of clarification in the naming is good (I think you agree with that). However, for something like this, the "HoM reward" part is on the page where you would find the image, and that's where information on the item itself should be. The image itself is concept art, so the title describes the image rather than the item, which isn't really necessary if we add a redirect from images to the pages they go on, like we did on GWW. (I personally think it was probably nice for non-editors trying to link from galleries.) --ஸ Kyoshi
16:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- While both prefixes and suffixes have merit, their arguments can both be the same for or against them. With suffixes it can be argued that the addition of, for example, concept art is helpful at distinguishing it from other images. At the same time it can be said that the fact that they are in their own concept art category already does that job. Similarly, prefixes assist in determining the image's origin (ie HoM reward, GDC-2010, etc). For instance, here is a page in the concept art category. As we can see the category is quite large and to find the images all related to the same even would be cumbersome, this is unless they share the same prefix (or the categories on the image's page have search words (worse idea than prefixes IMO)). Both prefixes and suffixes share redundancies with the pages that the images are on; however, sometimes a small amount of redundancy is a good thing.
- In regards to the images I uploaded. I don't do the computer image thing very well, so yes, I cropped the images myself by taking screenshots and using GIMP. I didn't think of showing background (good idea). For some reason I thought it was flash. I'm not partial to one image style over the other (kyoshi's should be all uniform so it might be smoother to use these). I had asked in #gww, but no one seemed to be interested in the names of the images. Venom20 17:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- The thing is, the origin of a piece of concept art is not that relevant. The importance of the Hall of Monuments concept art pieces is not due to where they come from (the HoM page), rather due to what they are documenting (the Hall of Monuments rewards). All other divisions do not follow any given theme; in other words, the GDC concept art is just a mix of unrelated pieces, with the same being true for the artbook pieces and etc. There isn't much reason for someone to try to find all concept art pieces that were first released at the GDC, and besides there's a lot of redundancy between different sources of concept art (the professions reveal images were seen at GDC, at the Manifesto trailer, and etc). Even if someone were trying to find all concept art from a given event, the category system is already in place to do that.
- In other hand, the prefix has two main advantages: it helps to have multiple images from the same thing ("X concept art", "X icon" and "X" for the screenshot) and it allows people to find images through the search feature, by using the theme they are looking for and the expression "concept art". Doing so makes it easier to search through the many concept art pieces and makes it unnecessary to give each image multiple categories. Erasculio 17:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- For the argument on the use of prefixes; categories really are more effective at collecting relative information into a pool, rather than having it expressed in the title. This is especially true when some of the images from the GDC for example, can be sourced from other areas as well.(Xu Davella 18:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC))
- In this case that isn't really relevant. We have a category for the HoM prefix that Venom added, and a category for the concept art suffix that I added on. The only reason the addition of the suffixes I added helps is that it's easier to distinguish between images (for example, the weapons in the rewards all had icons, but the icons were named the same thing with a different file extension: e.g. Seathunder Pistol.jpg for the concept art, Seathunder Pistol.png for the icon). It makes little difference in searching for things if we have categories for whatever "type" of thing we want to find, and while that may need work, it makes more sense to me than to make really long file names and have no organizational tools. However, in the case of things that otherwise wouldn't have multiple files under the same name, I agree that we don't need the suffixes or prefixes. --ஸ Kyoshi 20:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- In this case that isn't really relevant. We have a category for the HoM prefix that Venom added, and a category for the concept art suffix that I added on. The only reason the addition of the suffixes I added helps is that it's easier to distinguish between images (for example, the weapons in the rewards all had icons, but the icons were named the same thing with a different file extension: e.g. Seathunder Pistol.jpg for the concept art, Seathunder Pistol.png for the icon). It makes little difference in searching for things if we have categories for whatever "type" of thing we want to find, and while that may need work, it makes more sense to me than to make really long file names and have no organizational tools. However, in the case of things that otherwise wouldn't have multiple files under the same name, I agree that we don't need the suffixes or prefixes. --ஸ Kyoshi
- For the argument on the use of prefixes; categories really are more effective at collecting relative information into a pool, rather than having it expressed in the title. This is especially true when some of the images from the GDC for example, can be sourced from other areas as well.(Xu Davella 18:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC))
Take two[edit]
So... Do we really need to have this and [[:File:HoM_reward_10_-_Fiery_Dragon_Sword.png|this]]? I think one of those two kinds of images could be removed. Erasculio 22:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- One is minus text...both are necessary... Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 23:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
- Why? Currently we are using the version with text at the Hall of Monuments article, and the version without text at the item article. If the text is important, why don't we just use the version with text at the item article? Likewise, if the text is not important, why don't we just use the version without text at the Hall of Monuments article? Erasculio 00:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- The text is documented on the item page. It's not necessary and it makes the images look cluttered. Plus they also has that little "x" in the upper right. --ஸ Kyoshi 00:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think we should use the one without the text. The text is is already somewhere (i.e. Fiery Dragon Sword) and we don't need the information twice. --Riddle 18:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- The text is illegible on the HoM page, if people want to read more about the item, they have the choice of clicking on the picture, or going to the item page. It makes more sense to visit the item page, so I say delete the text version and place the textless versions on the HoM page. Manifold
19:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- The text is illegible on the HoM page, if people want to read more about the item, they have the choice of clicking on the picture, or going to the item page. It makes more sense to visit the item page, so I say delete the text version and place the textless versions on the HoM page. Manifold
- I think we should use the one without the text. The text is is already somewhere (i.e. Fiery Dragon Sword) and we don't need the information twice. --Riddle 18:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- The text is documented on the item page. It's not necessary and it makes the images look cluttered. Plus they also has that little "x" in the upper right. --ஸ Kyoshi
- Why? Currently we are using the version with text at the Hall of Monuments article, and the version without text at the item article. If the text is important, why don't we just use the version with text at the item article? Likewise, if the text is not important, why don't we just use the version without text at the Hall of Monuments article? Erasculio 00:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Not all...[edit]
images in this category are concept art (icons). The icons should go into a sub-category of its respective main category. I.E: "HoM rewards icons". Or am I wrong in assumming this and have missed the update where consensus was reached on keeping them all in this category? (Erasculio is very busy with the images already, so I wouldn't be surprised if I have missed it.) - Infinite - talk 15:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
