Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Image formatting/Archive 1

Explanation

This proposal is mostly documenting things we already do. More specifically:

• ArenaNet images are already tagged with the {{arenanet image}} template.
• Files are uploaded with a different filename than we find them with, if the original is something like "4113.jpg".
• Most concept art pieces are already uploaded under a "Title concept art" format.
• Screenshots are already uploaded under a "Year month description" format.
• Icons and skill icons already work as described here.
• The great majority of user images are already uploaded with the format "File: User Username bla bla" and tagged with the {{user image}} template.

The only change I'm trying to implement is to make all images with both the user image template and the ArenaNet image to be kept at the main ArenaNet images category, as opposed to being all over within one of the latter's subcategories. Of course, if an user image became used at the mainspace, we would change its category (as well as its name anyway, so...)
The idea with this proposal is just to have all this information in a single place and to adopt those common practices officially as consensus, so new users have an easy way of finding everything they need to know. Erasculio 15:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I like discussions where consensus is easy to reach. It's like having a smoke break without the nicotine. Anyway, everything looks pretty straight forward apart from the use of the word "an" before "user". :) (Xu Davella 15:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC))

You explained the standard procedures for image formatting and you phrased it with proper grammar. I like it and I can't find a reason why someone else wouldn't. :) - Infinite - talk 15:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Most of this seems to be current practice already, and the few parts that aren't were decided through organisational discussion (I think). There are a couple of ways the writing could be improved and made more concise, but it's otherwise fine. Did you intend this to be a GW2W:PP extension or a normal policy/guideline? The content itself and your stated intention seems to conform to the former, but the tag at the top of the page implies the latter. pling 18:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I meant it as part of the [[Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Formatting|formatting guidelines]], which IMO are going to be kept as part of the GW2W:PP proposal but at a different article (as I had mentioned here).

(For the records, I have never understood the English usage of "a" vs "an". I thought "an" would come before any word starting with a vowel, while "a" would be used before words starting with a consonant.) Erasculio 23:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The guide is fine. wrt 'a' vs 'an' it is more about the way the words sound rather than a hard and fast rule on the first letter. I tend to say stuff over in my head when I'm writing it. If it is easiest to say with an 'an' rather than an 'a' then the 'an' is usually the right choice. 'Sounds right' is probably not a helpful rule if english isn't your first language? -- Aspectacle  23:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that sounds ok. Instead of them being "formatting guidelines", they'd simply be PPs on another page (for size/ease purposes)? In which case, we should treat this article and [[Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Formatting]] in the same way as GW2W:PP (take the guideline tag off, for one thing). I'd also like to remove the extraneous "Formatting" from this page's name. (I'd also like to do the same with other formatting articles; for example, Guild Wars 2 Wiki:General formatting is better than Formatting/General.)

On a semi-related note, is GW2W:PP 'accepted' now? Are we using that system instead of GW2W:Policy? I'm not really sure where the wiki stands on this yet, if it's standing anywhere at all. pling 00:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think people really liked talking about GW2W:PP, then they found something shinier to discuss and kind of forgot about it. Wiki business as usual. I'm following it, if not through the letter at least in spirit. I agree with changing this and the other formatting articles to better fit the practices and processes article.

(I finally decided to look up the "an vs a" thing, and it turns out Aspectacle is exactly right - what decides which one will be used is the sound of the first letter in the following word, so words with a starting vowel sound are preceded by "an". The thing is, what you people call a vowel sound is not exactly what we call a vowel sound, so it doesn't really help me that much. Oh well.) Erasculio 02:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The general rule for 'a' vs. 'an' is similar to what Aespectacle outlines. Vowel sounds use 'an' and consonant sounds use 'a'. Use/user/used or any other words that have the 'y' sound are consonant sounds. But then certain english dialects consider 'y' a vowel sound, which is often discredited by....er....language activists?(Xu Davella 12:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC))

I tried to rewrite the article, but it still seems long-winded. I'm not sure if that's because of the image system itself or the writing, but if anyone can make it more concise, please do so. pling 20:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Consistency

I see.. We don't want this one similar to Guild_Wars_2_Wiki:Formatting/General ? When both are mentioned the exact same way in that processes and practices? I think you two are reverting, because you don't like. Not consistency (which does better with formatting guideline pages. Ariyen 09:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Stating "All articles are expected to conform to the image formatting guidelines outlined below" is a bit misleading. The formatting guideline about articles can say that it expects articles to conform to what it's saying; the formatting guideline about images should say that it expects images, not articles, to conform to what it says. Differences like that are expected to exist between guidelines which deal with different kinds of things. Erasculio 09:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

When the entire content of the article outlines the process for image formatting, it isn't necessary to say "all images are to conform to this". Anyway, I think that kind of wording comes with an added negative, and it's one of the things I'd like to actively avoid. pling 16:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The same information is on formatting article as on there. If you change one, change the other - Consistency - and being smart. Not to mention (as I am on my talk), that If you look at the article history of the pages being displayed, we don't add pages that are being discussed. Same with pages being linked together, etc. So that's why I did that - until pages are settled then merge. Seems hasty to do this before when there's a consensus on your processes still in works. That's pretty damn disrespectful out of several of you. Isn't this wiki founded on positive and respect? To be honest out of all of that, I see none and So I tried to only fix it like that, until the Processes discussion is settled as of at this moment - it is not settled yet. -.- so, that whole work on other articles is pretty much disrespect. Ariyen 17:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Pling, we have discussions as per that link to work on implementing things (Though long on main page/editcopy talk - it did get solved). So, things like that will never be avoided. They just happen. If you want that, go to a nearly empty wiki and you might succeed better. It's not as bad as on wikipedia on their discussions and those are Really really long. A lot longer than here. Ariyen 17:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're looking for consistency, then you would have to write some guidelines for policy writing. I prefer consistency when it comes to skill tables or page layouts, but for policies, the most important thing is that the message is clear and precise. I'm not saying that consistency isn't needed, but it's not a major determining factor. (Xu Davella 01:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC))

I agree, but I think we can have the formatting images and articles as similar as possible without destroying the message of being "clear and precise". Both can definitely include the introduction line (like not much can really be changed) as both, the formatting images and articles, are mentioned on practices and processes. Ariyen 03:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to rewrite the general formatting page later; it seems to be older than this page and GW2W:PP, but it doesn't need any major updating. pling 09:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

One change

There's something in my initial proposal that was lost with the subsequent rewriting, and since it's part of the only change I'm trying to implement, I would like to discuss it. Originally, in the section about user images, I had writen:

• "Guild Wars 2 images must also receive the tag {{arenanet image}} (and not {{arenanet image|screenshot}} or any other variant), regardless of image type (screenshot, concept, etc)"

Now, the article reads:

• "if copyrighted by ArenaNet, be tagged only with {{ArenaNet image}}, regardless of image type (screenshot, concept art, etc)"

There is one small difference - I had intended for only GW2 images to receive only the {{arenanet image}} template and nothing else. GW1 images would still receive the {{arenanet image|gw1}} template, in order to keep GW1 content apart from the GW2 content.
Does anyone oppose changing it to "if from Guild Wars 2, be tagged only with {{ArenaNet image}}, regardless of image type (screenshot, concept art, etc)"? Erasculio 16:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

This is reference to userspace images? If so, then I don't see how separating GW1 and GW2 images would matter. Either way they aren't intended for mainspace if they are tagged with user image. Venom20 16:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The idea with moving all user images to the ArenaNet images main category was to free the subcategories of content that isn't that important. Since the ArenaNet images main category is almost empty anyway (almost all images are within one of the subcategories), moving all GW2 user images there would keep everything under the proper license while still allowing users to navigate the subcategories and find there only "proper" images.

I would like to keep GW1 user images still within the Guild Wars 1 images category, though, just to avoid confusion - if both GW1 and GW2 user images are within the main ArenaNet images category, people may confuse which image belongs to which game. Erasculio 17:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. So to clarify, all userspace anet images will receive {{ArenaNet image}}, except for GW1 images in the userspace, these will receive {{ArenaNet image|gw1}}? Venom20 17:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I had fixed it to not include the word "exclusively", because it is not exclusively on user spaces as we have used an image or two on article pages, etc. right? (it's been undone though.) Ariyen 17:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

@Venom: That's what I'm suggesting, yes. Erasculio 17:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm good with that. i'll go back an update the images I removed it from if there are no other objections Venom20 18:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Move

While I like Image formatting it is not proper Etiquette. I feel Formatting/Image is better for creating more subpages (If needed) It'd keep the pages together and better sorted. Ariyen 16:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion on one page; since you commented first on Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:General formatting, I've responded there. pling 17:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is for this of it's move too, but both have same thoughts so all discussion pertaining to both can be on Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:General formatting‎‎ I guess. So.. We all discuss there? X-S Ariyen 17:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no point in having two discussions about basically the same topic (subpaging vs. proper page titles); this should have been already clear to you, after you took the time to copy and paste the exact section introduction... poke | talk 19:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Echoing Pling, you are. I already know - hence my response below his. Check the conversation over there‎ and please content, not person. Thanks! Ariyen 19:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Redirects

I'm curious, is there any reason for redirects on images, such as skill icons redirecting to skills, etc, other than as a hold-over from GWW from before there was such a thing as |link=? Maybe it's just me, but sometimes I do actually want to get to the image page, which is tough enough with the infobox making the icon unclickable (which I'm not thrilled with either), but the redirect too when I break down and type the URL manually just feels like insult to injury. The reason this was done on GWW was so you could click the image and get to the skillpage from, for example, icon-only skillbars, but the |link= parameter makes that entirely unnecessary these days. So... Does anyone have an actual reason to continue this practice? - Tanetris 18:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The skill icon should be clickable from the infobox, yes definitely. And I agree that if we build our templates the way that we link to the pages directly (like {{Skill icon}}), then we don't really need the redirect any more. poke | talk 18:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't really like link=, because if I want to get to a file, I have to search through the transclusion list for the file name (or type out the url manually). Redirects are better in that I just click the image and click the "redirected from" link. That's probably easier for more casual users who might not even know about the transclusion list. (Also, unclickable images are evil.)

But yeah, if we do use link=, there needn't be a redirect on it too. pling 19:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The way I see it, if we have the usage of the image (I'm going to say skill icons because it's the biggest example) using |link= to the skill page, remove the redirect and remove the blank link= from the infobox template, you could click the icon from the skill list, get taken to the skill page, and click the skill icon there to get to the actual image page. This is the same number of clicks as old-style redirecting (click the image, get taken to the skill page, click the 'redirected from' link), with the added benefits that clicking the image to get to the image page makes more sense, the skill page looks cleaner without the 'redirected from' line, and it saves you the extra click entirely if you're already on the skill page or using the image somewhere (in your userspace, for example) where you decide not to |link= it at all.

Unclickable images are definitely evil though. - Tanetris 19:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sounds fine. pling 20:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Am with Tane on this, sounds good. Also saves agitation when clicking on the icon in the (current) skill lists. Whatever happens when we introduce DPL can be discussed then. - Infinite - talk 01:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Year and Month

I'm about to go on an image reformat rampage (at a pace that is excruciatingly slow), but just a quick question: Are we listing images for the month it was uploaded, or are we actually going to source these images to determine which demo/media release it came from and then get the date from that? Some of the images are relatively old and I'd like to tidy them up, preferably before the game is released. --Xu Davella 11:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I do believe it is by month of source. - Infinite - talk 14:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Confusion

With regard to the user image uploads, I must confess that I found it a little confusing for the first time tonight. The guideline gives the impression that the file when uploaded should include the 'File:' opening, and they indeed should ultimately end up as such, but it should not be included in the image name in the upload process. Doing so results in a warning that doesn't avert the issue or clarify the result, which is that the file will be named File:File-Username Filename.ext. If the project page is up to be changed like any other page, I'm inclined to change the language to specify user space versus upload process on this soon. Cheers (and sorry for the extra file). Redshift 00:12, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Link here from Special:Upload

It's a mess right now. A lot of people uploading recently don't/didn't even know about GW2W:FORMAT. I think having a read before uploading link added there would help the issue a bit. --zeeZ (talk) 10:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

JPG/PNG for icons

I talked to a bunch of people the other day about uploading new skill icons (which I now have) and it was discussed whether I should convert them to jpg before uploading or keep them as png. While discussing this, it was generally agreed upon that I should probably keep them as png regardless of jpg being the standard. Due to this I wonder, why is jpg the suggested (or required judging by the wording) file format? The one benefit I can see is a couple of kilobytes disk space saved. But keep in mind we're buying those few kilobytes with image quality and an over-all inferior format. JPG only really shines on big images with slowly shifting colors. It is really bad at images where the color changes a lot every pixel.

• PNG is lossless, a JPG is not. Unless you're saving the JPG with 100% quality, it will never look as crisp. If you do, you lose most of the disk space saved.
• PNG scales better (since mediawiki has to re-compress a scaled JPG).
• PNG supports alpha, should the need ever occur.

So, with that said. I uploaded the new skill icons as PNG, as had been decided upon discussion. I am now looking at item icons and again would much prefer to upload them as PNG (and in fact already have). Is there a reason I should not? I'd like responses other than "cause the guideline says so", cause a guideline can be changed. — Rhoot 07:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

inventory icons do not need to be tagged as screenshots. See formatting for icons. Rudhraighe 08:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Huh, I could have sworn it said JPG for both skill icons and item icons... In that case, never mind me. Still, it's a bit funny. At the moment the skill icons are PNG, while the guideline says JPG. Meanwhile, item icons are JPG while the guideline says PNG. I'm gonna see if I can sort out item icons a bit over the next few days. — Rhoot 08:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I must admit though, I have no idea why you brought up tagging as screenshots. — Rhoot 08:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

i was too busy uploading item icons so i just cut and pasted from my inquiry earlier yesterday it was a quote intended for me ;) Rudhraighe 08:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Just go all-out png on the icons. We shouldn't be differentiating images with a file extension anyway. If anything we should suffix images with what they depict, though icons should have priority at all times. Because that's what we're automatically most acquainted with. - Infinite - talk 10:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Right now, we have two copies of most skill icons - one copy in jpg, another in png. We should adopt one of those two as the "official" design and remove the other, in order to not confuse people when they try to upload new icons. Erasculio 21:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I think all people who have said anything at all have voted for the PNGs. The only thing that's missing is getting the JPGs removed and updating this page. — Rhoot 21:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Border on skill icons

As you may or may not have seen, skill icons in the data files feature a black border (File:Fiery Rush.png). In some cases they've made it artistic (File:Heal as One.png comes to mind), but in most cases it's just plain black as in the first example. The question is, how do we want to handle this? Should we crop the icons before uploading? Extensive use of {{borderless}}? Let the border show? Maybe a hybrid?

Personally I thought it looked nice with the borders (at least the non-straight borders) but I'm leaning more towards ditching them as they aren't visible to players in-game. — Rhoot 16:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I like {{borderless}}, as I've asked if we should handle the icons like that to avoid reuploading cropped icons. I'm supporting that template. - Infinite - talk 16:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I support the no-crop uploads and using the template for fake-cropping. I've always been a fan of storing game textures like skill icons in their original format, without any modification. —Dr Ishmael 16:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree as well. Alfa-R 16:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Agree. We can probably just build {{borderless}} right into templates where it makes sense (e.g. {{skill icon}} and {{skill infobox}}... Which, I'm seeing now, Alfa-R has already done. Good initiative, Alfa-R!), and leave it up to a case-by-case basis for other uses, whichever is more appropriate. - Tanetris 16:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm really not fond of keeping the icons with the borders. Does anyone believe we will ever use the skill icons without the borderless template? I honestly can't think of when something like that would be useful. Erasculio 21:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's harder to get people to contribute if they first need to crop the icons before uploading. — Rhoot 21:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Gallery of full definition skill icons? - Infinite - talk 22:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The only source of icons with that border is the .dat, isn't it? So someone who's uploading an icon from a game screenshot would not have to crop the thick black border; in fact, having the border would be troublesome, as the widespread borderless template would actually remove parts of the icon itself unless it had the border.

In less words, I think it would be harder to get people to contribute if they first need to add the borders before uploading. Erasculio 22:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe all the skill icons were uploaded now? Or at least the known skill icons. Either way, I feel Rhoot/Galil should probably just upload the remaining icons into his sandbox until we can assign them. I don't think the borderless icon is integrated into anything else, though; item icons don't have a border. - Infinite - talk 23:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I was more thinking about any new icons that might get added to the game at some point. But sure, I'll upload the rest of the skill icons one of these days. — Rhoot 23:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Do we want the borders for anything, though? We can get rid of them through the bordless template, sure; but if we are not going to use the border anywhere, instead of using the borderless template everywhere it may be wiser to just remove the borders. Erasculio 00:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's ambiguous, but I'm in favour of uploading the with-border icons. We don't need separate versions of the same icons that way. As for future icons without border; we could add a parameter to the borderless template to override it with a certain setting? This way new icons that haven't been uploaded from the .dat file can still be displayed without additional borderless "cropping." - Infinite - talk 00:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate Icons

I have noticed some duplicate inventory icons, for example, some runes I am working on, the Superior Rune and the Minor Rune. I am wondering; upload the same image and name, Superior Rune of the Noble, Superior Rune of the Nightmare, and so on. Or, just upload once and name Superior Rune, then just like to that in each rune type page. I also noticed this on some weapons. Suggestions? Kenrid 07:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally, to avoid possible confusion we should at last upload the icons as if they were unique, whilst we have this discussion. - Infinite - talk 09:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

A separate icon per item, named after the item's article, is the best overall solution. Sure, the wiki complains that there are "duplicate icons," but that's never caused any actual problems that I'm aware of. —Dr Ishmael 14:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, separate icons are for the better. It's a lot easier to re-upload one icon than it is to change one icon's usage all across the wiki, if they ever get unique icons. — Rhoot 06:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

we are still in beta there are numerous icons that look like placeholders until they get around to creating original ones i agree upload icons duplicate image or not based on the item name so when the new icons are created we just update the image without all the other bloody page edits it's what i did for crafting material and ingredients Rudhraighe 06:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Extending screenshot policy

This proposal comes about as a result of me running across a high-res, high quality, but terrible angle screenshot of a Marmox in my folder. Thing is, the creature already has an image of sorts, but it's a question of which image to use so I propose we get a few ground rules made for images (above and beyond source preference)

• Screenshots should be taken with graphics settings set to their highest, as high-resolution screenshots.
• Screenshots will be cropped to include only a small space around the subject(I've usually been using 50px with the high-res screenshots)
• Target file size for a typical NPC or beastiary screenshot should be under ###kb (400kb?)
• Where possible, screenshots should be taken with lighting and background that presents good contrast and visibility for the subject. In most outdoor instances, this will be a day-time screenshot with the subject facing so that the sunlight is from the front, but to a side (if the subject is facing a 6 o'clock, the sun would be at any of 4, 5, 7, or 8 o'clock). The important point is that the features of the subject be discernible, the subject have good contrast with their surroundings.
• Where a file image from Arena-net exists, the preference is for a screenshot, but only if a quality(!) screenshot exists.

My reason for the final is simple consistency. Arena-Net is most likely not going to provide a official image of every NPC, beast, and object in the game. Therefore, whatever we do, we will need to provide our own screenshots to fill in content. Rather than have images of two very visibly different source types, and to maintain consistency, I propose we have the preference be for the more available source (which *can* be good quality, thanks to the high-res screenshot option).

My reason for the limit on file size is also simple: Screenshots can now be huge, with the high-res option. And someone forgetting to crop (or taking a close up, full-screen) shot of something can easily mean an 8-9 MB image getting added. Multiply that by the wide array of things that might get a screenshot, and suddenly we are talking about a very healthy chunk of disk for the server. As cheap as disk is, it's still a pain to backup more than a couple terabytes.

Thoughts/comments are welcome Torrenal 04:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no danger of running out of disk space (aside from abuse) since it is run by anet's servers which likely uses some kind of cloud storage. I do like the idea to try to get high resolution images if possible. There is a bug with high rez image capture where in some scenes you can have lines in the image as if 9 images were "stitched" together, so we'll have to be aware of that. I'm not sure how much the guidelines need to be amended since editors do tend to try to get the best possible images already, just that limited demo time on the BWE and low quality videos isn't conducive to getting quality images. In GWW, it's mostly (if not all) renders, so I think we might end up with that kind of scheme here too but I doubt that will happen for a long time. Yeah for now getting the best possible screenies is best. --Lania 04:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I actually disagree with adding the above to this formatting guide. Two reasons:

1. We could say we only want pictures at the best possible location at the best possible angle with optmized file size and edited through Photoshop Pro XII... But the great majority of users would be unable to do that, or unwilling to have all that work, and we would end with no screenshot at all. It's better to have a "less perfect" screenshot, and replace it with a better one when available, than have incredibly high standards and end with most articles having no screenshots for a very long time. We expect contributors to write nicely and properly, not to be new Gabriel García Márquez.
2. To the point above, someone could say, "but we could keep the quality standards described above so people know the best possible contribution they could make". IMO, that's not really necessary - it's mostly common sense to get the best possible image for any given screenshot.

Erasculio 13:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Re 1) Do *NOT* say that we 'only want/accept' images of a given quality. Erasculio: Please reread what I had stated above -- at no time did I indicate these were requirements. Only accepting the very difficult is a good way to obtain nothing. That said, listing that we prefer images of the best possible x/y/z will allow for users to seek for/provide better images. I'd settle for a low quality image over no image any day of the week.

Re 2) Never assume that because you know it, it's common sense. What is 'common sense' to you is not going to be common sense to someone new to games in general, never took an art or photography class, and is only just now thinking about helping for the first time. For that person, I don't want us to be entirely devoid of advice -- you then create roadblocks to contributions. Torrenal 17:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should re-read Erasculio - he said the exact same thing: "But the great majority of users would be unable to do that, or unwilling to have all that work, and we would end with no screenshot at all." —Dr Ishmael 00:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

A informal guide probably won't hurt, GW2 has that high res screenshot function which it's implementation is kinda finicky and its quite buggy at the moment. @Torrenal, Maybe drafting a short and easy to follow guide for imaging newbies on your userpage might help us see what you propose? Ofc just having a non formal guide on your user page would be useful for people who need the help. --Lania 04:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Apologies... I get grumpy when people ascribe to me something approximately the opposite of what I trying to say. I get double-grumpy when someone ascribes to 'common sense' something that is sufficiently uncommon not even a horse would know it. (Horse sense > Common Sense. There are things horses know that are not common knowledge to all men -- look up Darwin award winners if you disagree) -- This was a case of both bundled into one ball. It looks like Erasculio doesn't want to hinder screenshot submissions any, neither do I. On that I think we agree. I think I can phrase things properly that objections about hindering submissions should be minimal. Torrenal 05:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

My main issue: don't use the word "should". That implies that anything contrary is unwanted, i.e. you shouldn't do otherwise. Just give direct, objective instructions on how to take high-quality screenshots. And maybe this isn't the best page for it... maybe it should be on the FAQ? "How do I take super-high-quality screenshots?" And link to it from here. —Dr Ishmael 05:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

(reset indent) Hum... interesting. There was todo a long while back on the legal side of things about what a local branch of government was required to do and what was optional. This debacle is relevant, in my mind, because the legalese in question revolved around two words. "The official should perform x" was interpreted by the press to mean that the official was expected to perform x, but not required to do so. "The official must perform x" was interpreted by the press as an instance where the official was legally required to perform x. When I go now to look up 'should', I find the first definition for it as 'must'. Lesson: Never trust the press to give you the correct definition of a word. Not if it involves scandal in politics. -- I'll hunt down some word for 'this is encouraged but not required'.

Re location of the content: The equivalent pages on www.guildwiki.org and wiki.guildwars.com both place some general tips on this same page. I'm not saying that's where it belongs, only that's the existing precedent. I do see there being a distinct difference between telling someone what a screenshot is and how one is made (good for the screenshot page) and giving tips on making a best possible screenshot for the wiki, which I believes fits best under this page (or a link from this page) than on the general screenshots page. I've no dog in the fight over whether the content sits on this page or is linked from it, but I will argue against putting wiki-style content right on the general screenshot page. Torrenal 06:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Just leave "should" out, don't replace it with a different auxiliary verb. Restructure your list above to make the sentences simple imperatives.

If possible, please follow the guidelines below to take high-quality screenshots. If that's not possible, and your image is of higher quality than the existing image (or there is no existing image), please upload your image anyway - as long as it improves on what we had, it will be appreciated.

• Use the highest possible graphics settings.
• Turn on the option for "High-resolution screenshots."
• Crop the screenshot to efficiently frame the subject
• If the file size is larger than 400 kB, scale the dimensions down to reduce the file size.
• When possible, use a setting (lighting and background) that presents good contrast and visibility for the subject. Daytime is obviously better for this than nighttime, with the sun behind, but not quite directly behind, the camera (i.e. the sun at "5 o'clock," not "6 o'clock").

And there you have a guide. It tells how to do something objectively without giving any subjective impression that the reader should/must do this or we won't accept their screenshots. The lead-up paragraph before it is where you would give the subjective details. —Dr Ishmael 13:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I like the guide that's added. It really does sound too simple but sometimes just having a guide like that helps editors decide how to take screen shots faster w/o a lot of trial and error... especially for newbie photo editors. Since we seem to be going with a simple guide, shall we suggest some programs for image editing? Free ones like GIMP work very well and it's easy to use, and not everyone can afford photoshop, and image scaling on the free image editing programs that come with windows is atrocious... tho the one that comes with windows 7 is passable. --Lania 04:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Loading screen art

Do the masses want them with or without the paint splotch border? I would also assume that a category is a good idea for them. Sounds Risky | 06:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd say without. —Dr Ishmael 14:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I lean towards without. At the size we're looking at in practice, the jagged/rough border doesn't visually come across as intentional and doesn't really serve a purpose. Redshift 15:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, good! Yay or nay on a Category:Loading screen images for them? Sounds Risky | 18:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yay. —Dr Ishmael 20:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Icons and {{icon}}

Since we no longer redirect icons to their articles of the same name, we need to remove the use of {icon} from the formatting guideline as well. Only apply {icon} when the icon is actually redirecting somewhere (such as profession tangos). - Infinite - talk 23:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Why would we want the profession tangos to redirect? Put another way: Why would we want any image to redirect ever? - Tanetris 23:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. The current consensus to remove redirects only spanned in-game icons, I believe. If it spans all icons we could subsequently remove {icon}. - Infinite - talk 23:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm 99% sure that I asked Poke that he remove the template from file pages at the same time as removing redirects, so if he ever gets around to doing that botrun, yeah, we can probably just delete the template outright. For the moment it serves the purpose of categorizing the redirects, for something to build the botrun list off of. That said, I agree it doesn't need to be in the formatting guideline now. - Tanetris 01:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

2 months later, the template has been eradicated. There may still be some images that redirect, but none of them used the template, so they won't be easy to detect. —Dr Ishmael 17:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Original skill icons

Hey everyone, Stephane gave me a subset (~240) of the skill icons to upload on the wiki. The thing is that while those are of higher quality (uncompressed), they are cropped to their 96x96px part essentially focusing on the important part but also cutting of a few minor details that sometimes are outside of that area. While I personally would prefer the higher quality over the uncropped icon, I wanted to make sure to do whatever the rest prefers. Also it might be a problem to have only that subset in a cropped format while the others are still here with their border. Stephane told me he would try to organize the other icons as well, so maybe it would be worth to wait until we have them all available before replacing the ones we already have. He also offered me to get the produced in a different format if desired, so I could also ask him to not crop them before.
I originally wanted to replace the icons today or tomorrow, but given the differences, I’m going to postpone this for now until we have decided what to do with them. So, what do you think? poke | talk 17:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Depends... my preference is for uncropped, but I think there was a consensus for corpped stuff. If we are only displaying cropped, I don't think we lose anything by going to the higher quality stuff. Torrenal 17:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the consensus was for uncropped. I would much prefer cropped originals over the uncropped DXT-compressed icons we have now, though. I'm in no hurry though, so get the few missing icons first and ask for the uncropped icons. If he can't provide those, I'd still prefer these over our current ones. — Rhoot 17:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Removing backgrounds from screenshots?

Ran across this couple of gems lately: Mini Svanir Icebreaker, Mini Wolfborn, Mini Modniir Ice Sage. The anomoly they each share is their backgrounds were removed.

Q1: Do we make it require that backgrounds be removed from screenshots?

Q2: Do we make it standard practice to allow removed backgrounds?

My responses to the above two questions would be:

A1: Absolutely not. This simply is not feasible for any creature or object containing transparent or mirrored surfaces (dunno if we have mirrored surfaces beyond water, but if we did, it wouldn't work for many of the same reasons that transparent won't). EG: Draithor's Wurm, Champion Ralena, Kasha Blackblood, Anton, etc... Having the background gives the user essential information for determining that the object is indeed transparent. Further, not everyone is equipped to remove backgrounds from screenshots. Making it a requirement would stifle contributions.

A2: For similar reasons to A1, the background gives context about lighting, which is important in understanding the colors of the object you are looking at. It can also, in the instance of NPCs and monsters, give useful context about their location. In the case of Miss Mipp, the detail that the green select circle can be seen well behind her is a cue to her size -- she is tiny. Conversely, Bjarni stands with his feet touching that circle -- he is big. Lighting is however the more important aspect, as is the case with Bryllana Deepmind -- perhaps her armor is dark as it looks. Without the background however, you'd be unable to tell that its dark where/when the screenshot was taken. Perhaps the armor has bright colors that were obscured by the dark. Further, because transparent content would require backgrounds, we would be inconsistent in stripping it for all items *except* screenshots of transparent subjects. Inconsistency is generally undesired. By retaining backgrounds for all screenshots, we can remain consistent in this aspect.

The above are *my* answers to the two questions. Others may agree or disagree. I'd like to see where we each stand before I put some content on the main page formatting page reflecting what is decided here. Torrenal 00:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with you - the background gives so much context to the image that removing it essentially removes the soul of the image. —Dr Ishmael 00:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Strongly agree. The use of generic and/or backgroundless images on GW1 was a big loss in image quality, in my opinion. Manifold 01:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Official renders are a special case, mostly because they are usually generated by an external tool at much higher resolutions than a player can attain in the game (although, I don't know exactly what Anet was able to provide for the GW1 renders). For things like armors, weapons, and other objects, I would actually prefer official renders - armors because even in GW1 there was a huge amount of detail in the armors that was difficult to capture with normal screenshots, and objects because they sometimes blend into the background and it's often difficult to get good angles on them with normal screenshots (which will be even harder if they never implement a first-person view in GW2).

For NPCs, however, I much prefer the in situ images at GuildWiki over the official renders at GW1W. —Dr Ishmael 01:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It's really all about the intended purpose. In an ideal world, we'd have a combination of "just the object/NPC" and "action shots" for any equipment or character: the first makes it easier to compare like-images while the second is better for seeing the game as it's played (I agree with Ish's use of the word "soul" in this context).

In GW1, to decide whether to spend my cash on D-weapons, O-weapons, or T-weapons, I created this gallery; you can see that the background images distract from being to see the differences in this situation. In contrast, the infobox icon in the Charrslayer Bow article is soulless while imagine we had a screenshot showing Urgoz Bow at the end of its animation.

To answer the original question: I think there's a need for high-quality, backgroundless screenshots as well as standard-quality images that capture the sense of the game. I would support a consistency requirement for the primary image in infoboxes (perhaps no-background for equipment and yes-background for NPCs), but I see no reason to say that this wiki should always favor one over the other. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Ishy: High quality shots can be provided for by players. File:Iron Dagger.jpg. When you look at that weapon please make note of two things: It is from the smallest class of weapons in the game. The Wiki starts by showing you a scaled down preview. As for renders, look up gw1:Zodiac Bow and tell me if a screenshot would do more justice to the bow than the render provided -- I want to see how the weapon looks in game, not a graphic designers screen. No objection to having the detail in a secondary image, but I would want to the primary image, in the info box and galleries, to be what the player sees in game. On your Video, TEF, it's labeled "Broad Head Arrow", not "Urgoz Bow", so I'm not too sure what you're pointing at. Neat animation all the same. Of your Gallery, TEF, the only two screenshots I object to as it is (need to be retaken) are the oppressor staff (insufficient contrast with the background) and the oppressor hammer (armor draws attention from the weapon). Everything else has reasonably good contrast with its background, and as a whole it demonstrates how a variety of weapons can have proper backgrounds for high-contrast screenshots. The scythe for example, has a non-conforming background and angle, but the background gives good contrast with the main elements of the weapon, and the angle provides a good profile of the blade. Like NPCS, some of the best weapons lose something when you axe the background (eternal sword, storm bow, zodiac bow, celestial staff, etc, etc).

It might be relatively easy to remove the background, but how do you remove the character holding the weapon? (Please don't say "Photoshop over the hands") Torrenal 03:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I know I had a parenthetical in my comment mentioning the high-res screenshot option in GW2, and how it partly removes the benefit of official renders, but it seems like I accidentally cut it out during my zero-point copy-editing. Oh well.

To remove the character, you do the same thing you do to remove the background - use TexMod to replace all the textures. Background textures go white, character textures go transparent. —Dr Ishmael 03:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Has tex mod improved over where it was 4 years ago, or do antivirus programs still all delete it on sight? The big start I had with wikis was screenshots. Part of why I want a background included is that very few people are equipped to remove them. I don't want to stifle contributions by requiring in the format something most people cannot or will not do, and if the front facing pages lack backgrounds it becomes much harder for them to say 'I can do that'. After that initial image, I expect background free content will wind up being provided as additional images, as they are clearly preferred by some. With that in mind, I'd suggest designing weapon/armor pages around allowing for extra images. Some weapons appear to have interesting animations, (or are those animations merely profession specific? Do all necromancer stave attacks get a scythe blade?) that may merit capturing in galleries or views.Torrenal

(reset indent) there appears to be some split on this. If I read the mood right, it is at:

• NPCs, monsters: keep background.
• Minis: ?
• weapons: split - interest exists for both. Proposal to use 3rd party software to get character & background free renders.
• armors: split.

- Torrenal 19:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Context is important for all of these imo. I like seeing how a particular weapon, for example, looks on an actual character, not just how it looks as a separate entity. Backgroundless renders should be complementary to in-game screenshots, not replacements. pling 19:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)