File talk:Tyrian alphabet2.png

I think this should replace the current alphabet image we have. - J.P. Talk  11:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Funny how the old image was deleted and replaced by this without a discussion after I added a deletion tag here. I think the old one is better because that is an unaltered image and the description was fine as it is. This is unnecessarily larger, thus taking up more room where it doesn't need to. I suggest we go back to the old version. -- -- Konig / talk 16:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For any who care to partake in this dicussion, the old (other) one is File:Tyrian alphabet.png. &mdash; Gares 16:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This image is clearer, more crisp. The old one looks faded. This image is also self-explanatory, unlike the old one that needs a description. &mdash; Gares 20:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I like the old one better at the moment. The background on the new one is just a repeat smear from the old background and it makes it kinda ugly.  If someone can figure out to make the background look not smeary, then I think it's fine. -- Lania [[Image:User Lania Elderfire pinkribbon.jpg]] 20:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the "faded" statement - just because one was modified to be darker doesn't make it more defined or "not faded," especially since you can't really unfade something (you can make it darker, but that won't make it not-faded, you're just darkening it). I can't even say that this is more crisp than the other one (in that aspect, it seems the same). Requiring a description or not shouldn't matter - this would pretty much be the only image that would have a self-description in the article; the Old Canthan images are not self-descriptive and the original image they came from had the meaning of the symbols. I would also like to note that we shouldn't take (unnecessarily) altered images over the original images - unless it is making the image clearer such as renders; which this doesn't - it in fact is more cluttered, larger, the background is in blocks (which makes it look terrible), and as Lania said the bit over the English letters is stretched out and smeared making it look even worse. The only thing this image has over the older one is that it is self-descriptive; which is hardly necessary when adding two lines takes up far less space than this self-descriptiveness.
 * Aside from all this, there is no need for this second image title; if it is a consensus to have this as an image, then it shouldn't be labeled "2" as there would then be no "1." -- Konig / talk 21:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer the old image as well, as it looks a lot more authentic. It's an old language and some photoshopping with completely unrelated latin characters plus that fragmentation in unregular shapes doesn't make the image better. poke | talk 21:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

(new section)
I want this as a font. Thrain contribs 21:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * -- Konig / talk 23:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)