File talk:War Supplies.png

Make it better
I would if you had extracted it transparent instead of with a white background.... -- Wyn  talk  00:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Mkay :) – User Balistic B d-dark.pngalistic 00:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There you go – User Balistic B d-dark.pngalistic 00:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * i think wyn's last version looks best...- [[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 22:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Versions
Just pointing out the skill icon for Well-Supplied and War Supplies' inventory icon are similar but not the same. The good looking one is Well Supplied's, the crappy looking one is War Supplies'. Also apologies for the double revert...crappy net refresh... ~Celestia 09:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * they look exactly the same to me.(as in subject matter not as in quality because i think the well supplied icon looks better then the icon we are using because ITS THE SAME ICON.- [[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 09:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to say that this obsession for "which is correct based on the DAT file" that's been going on all over GWW lately is starting to drive me crazy. I understand that our purpose is to document the game, however, There is absolutely nothing anywhere that says we can't make it look good. Celestia, are you going to replace all the celestial miniature icons because they're not the exact icon that was extracted from the DAT file, but in fact have been touched up to make them more presentable (I know cuz I'm the one that did it)? Please.. the "actual" icon looks like crap. I know.. you all are gonna say I'm prejudiced because I uploaded the other one (based on the one that Balistic got out of the DAT file). PLEASE.. let's be a bit reasonable here. No one says anything about people cleaning up screenshots... in fact it's encouraged. Why are the icons any different? -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  10:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * i think when it comes to images came from the dat and looks like shit<a well polished icon that people can recognize.- [[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 12:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The wiki is here to document things as they exist in game. The wiki does not exist to document what you think is prettiest, Wyn. Zesbeer: if it's recognizability you're concerned about, then how about we use the icon that people will actually recognise from the game? --Santax (talk · contribs) 17:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, then I'll go revert all the miniature icons as well. Oh, and all the item renders... those don't actually exist in game, or the NPC renders.. they don't actually exist in the game either, they are compiled with a separate program. Just how far do you want to take this stupidity? -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  19:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh please, can we have a normal discussion here or do I have to protect the file until this calms down? &mdash; Why 19:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I just don't deal well with stupid, but I'm done. -- Wyn [[Image:User Wynthyst sig icon2.png|19px ]] talk  19:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * its rare that i agree with wyn but in this case i think she is right. and why you say you want a normal discussion well i dont think a normal discussion can be had here seeing as people want whats in the dat. vs what looks good and can and would be identifiable. - [[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 20:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * also i really dont understand why someone would rather have this site look like shit then have it look the best it can be, i feel that with this precedent we should go and revert everything like wyn said and make the main page flash yellow and red Oh wait we cant have a main page or any of these pages seeing as they dont come directly from the dat. - [[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 20:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Whah, I personally don't really have much of an opinion on the matter. I think it would make sense to use the touched-up version, since the other one seriously does look like crap on a white background. The question is if the "nice" version helps identifying the item more or equally much as the original crappy version. If yes I see no problem in making it nicer. Nicer is nice. &mdash; Why [[Image:User Why s.png|User talk:Why]] 22:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As much as I usually disagree with Wyn, this "it's from the dat so it is the only valid option" argument seems really foolish. I'm in favour of the touched up ones, the "purity" of the dat ones is dramatically overrated. 58.110.131.113 22:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I just pointed out that that is not the correct one, looking at the page's history it seems people don't realise that...I agree that the "real" one looks like crap, but knowing some of the purists here, I reverted it. Look at the history, not one person mentions they reverted it because it was actually the wrong icon, the closest was Santax who realised that. I simply made it clear why it was being reverted. Take a breather, dude... ~Celestia 10:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @Celestia how is it the wrong icon?! THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME one is just a higher rez version. cut out from the skill icon.- [[Image:User_Zesbeer_sig.png|link=User talk:Zesbeer‎]] Zesbeer 12:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Better icon, imo. Adhering to what we get from the .dat can be useful, but in this case, as they are clearly both based off the same image, we might as well go for the nicer image. --JonTheMon 12:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)