Guild Wars Wiki talk:Image use

Archive

---

• /Archive

Image Names for bounty like blessings

I have be updateding a number of the bounty like blessing buff images from GW:EN however there seems to be little conformaty on the nameing scheme used for thease images. could i get some clarification on what naming styleshould be used. i am thinking someing similar to the following (using the word buff to refer to a bounty like blessing from now on to keep wording easier)

• for each (race) they are
  • Asura
  • Norn
  • Ebon Vanguard
  • Deldrimor
• for each size they are
  • small
  • medium
  • large
• For Buffs that share the same name
  • Hunt Point Bonus the image should be Hunt Point Bonus (race) size
  • Boss Bounty the image should be Boss Bounty (race)
  • Hunt Rampage the image should be Hunt Rampage (race)
  • Time Attack the image should be Time Attack (race)
• For the Unique Race Buff they should be left As is

If this is fine i would like to go ahead and upload all the Images as the correct names, adjust all image links to use them, then mark the old images for deletion MafooUK 12:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That seems to fit GWW:NAMING as I can tell. The races are probably proper nouns, but you should probably get some input on that.

BTW, what are the different sizes for? Backsword 07:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The different Sizes are depending on the size of your hunt point bonus normal mode 4/7/10, hardmode 5/10/15 use small/medium/large

Could do with some feedback on the names Asura and Norn are fine for Race but Deldrimor and Ebon Vanguard are seprate groups within there respective races (Dwarf and Human/Tyrian)

MafooUK 16:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's more "faction" or "group" rather than "race". -- ab.er.rant 00:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

yes i agree faction, but it was simply a word to represent replacement MafooUK 19:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

nooo now where am i gonna store all my porn i cant keep it on my userpage«º¤¥Ω☼Vørråx☼Ω¥¤º» 04:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

New draft

Guild Wars Wiki:Image use/Draft 20071210 - looking at shared user images (like the flags and hero icons, etc) and an addition about talk page images. - BeX 07:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

SVG

Whats our policy on SVG images? ~ SCobra 15:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Do SVG images work on this wiki? I don't think so - but if they do, they should be treated like normal images imo. poke | talk 16:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems i'm not allowed to uplaod a .svg. What would the wiki require for svg's to work? ~ SCobra 17:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It need to be activated in the MediaWiki code for minor SVG support. poke | talk 18:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what .svg images are and their advantages. Anyone care to explain to me? — ク Eloc 貢 21:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

.SVG is the future image it will pwn all jpg, gif, png and other web extensions and come with a lot more advantages, see this ~ SCobra 21:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

no.. SVG is not comparable to png or jpg. The important point about SVG is that it is a vector image format for the web. I would never try to compare a vector graphic with a bitmap graphic as it's a very different thing. To its core, SVG is a xml-based structuring language to display vector-based images. poke | talk 22:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hibbergibber ;) - anja 13:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear

If an image is originally a screenshot, but has been modified - say, to illustrate alternate paths through a mission - is it still considered a screenshot? Similarly: suppose I am trying to put up a 'good' map for a quest, so I take a screenie of the shortest route, but that character has a lot of 'fuzz' on her map. So I use sharper map images from other characters and composite the image. Is it still considered a screenshot? I'm guessing "yes" to both questions. Looking through the archive, this has sorta come up before ("Heavily Edited Screenshots") but the discussion turned largely to the dual-tag sitaution. As long as the policy is being redrafted, could/should it be clarified that any image whose source is a screenshot has to have the screenshot tag? (AUNTMOUSIE) 20:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned images

Some images that aren't included or linked on a page are tagged and deleted on a weekly (or daily) basis, depending on how bored the taggers are. This is generally accepted, or perhaps not opposed, because there haven't been any complaints yet. Because it is something that we do, should we include a line or two explaining how and why orphaned images get deleted?

Images that are not included or linked on a page, and therefore don't show up under the "Links" header on image pages or the Special:Whatlinkshere, may be tagged under the general deletion process a certain amount of time after appearing on Special:Unusedimages. To make an image appear as though it is included on a page, it can be put on Guild Wars Wiki:Not orphaned and will not get deleted.

Hmm? Is this even needed? Should we even be deleting orphaned images (and why no opposition if we shouldn't)? -- Brains12 \ Talk 20:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we should delete unused images because of exactly that: they are unused. Also it might be good to mention that people should add {{not orphaned}} to their image page to prevent it from being deleted or to show that they really want it. poke | talk 15:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we have gone a bit over the top with orphaned images, and I think we need to setup a routine (not a rule), like, after 2 months unused images are likely to get deleted. Just so we have a basic rule to go by (for deleters) and for information (for users). And then include that statement on this page, so we have something to point to at least. Not a part of enforcable policy, but a general guideline. - anja 16:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

"a basic rule to go by (for deleters)" - Please say taggers, not deleters :P poke | talk 16:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Taggers, deleters, whatever. As long as it works. :) Can DPL help us with this? With providing a list, I mean. - anja 16:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict x3) Anja crashed my FF with that post. Anyway, yeah, this was what I was asking for before I went on my Orphan spike run. Maybe some kind of simple guideline? --People of Antioch 16:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think DPL can differentiate whether an image is used or at least that's what I got from this discussion. --Kakarot 16:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, however it would be possible to have a list created by a bot which is updated every day for example. poke | talk 16:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to exclude those that already have a deletion tag placed on them? --Kakarot 16:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be possible. poke | talk 16:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned Icons

On another note, there's a whole bunch of icons from the .dat files that are not being used. Should we tag them all for {{not orphaned}} so we don't have to go digging through again for them? --People of Antioch 00:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I was actually thinking of something for them the other day in the way of a weapon icons gallery just so they would be removed from the unused images page. I've been working out if they would have to be added manually or if I could use dpl to do it; I've already got a simple setup using dpl made up but haven't saved anything online as of yet. --Kakarot 02:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been hearing that term "dpl" being thrown around a lot lately. What is it, is it like a bot or something? --People of Antioch 02:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Poke would be one of the best to answer that since he has the best understanding but I have made a possible Gallery of bow icons as a starting point. --Kakarot 02:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

See all about DPL here. It's kinda like a page generator. See our lists for examples of it in action, say the List of necromancer skills or Guild Wars Wiki:Projects/Images needed/Ascalon (the DPL codes are in the templates). -- ab.er.rant 07:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Aren't all icons displayed on one of the inventory icons project subpages? So they wouldn't be orphaned. poke | talk 11:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Not all, for example for Bows it only has a small selection of actual images and if the bows use the same icon it just shows one orphaning the other versions. The Unused icons used to be a lot higher since bows was the one that there was more unused which is why I chose it for my example. --Kakarot 14:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

What about adding another subpage with those images which are duplicates because of different item names? poke | talk 14:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That's where I was planning on putting my example from above, I had thought to just put the duplicates which is why I was thinking it would have to be done manually but I decided to use dpl instead to show all icons. One thing I did want to do with the dpl gallery was remove the image extension from the name below and change the it to a link to the actual items respective page since the image name is usually what the article is called anyway but couldn't figure if that was possible. --Kakarot 14:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer a manually made subpage in the icon project space. By doing that we can be sure that the images are not needed. But that is probably a job for one of those people who are really into that topic (*looks at Zerpha*) poke | talk 15:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, go ahead and "poke" him since you appear to be good at it =D --Kakarot 15:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I made one now. I included most bow icons from you sandbox (excluding several already mentioned ones) and the icons seen on the list of unused files. —ZerphaThe Improver 23:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice :) poke | talk 23:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks Zerpha, does that mean I can delete my sandbox gallery now? --Kakarot 02:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Suppose yes. As mentioned, i copy-pasted your list and removed several bows afterwards again that should already be shown on the project's "bow main page", so deleting it shouln't cause any of these bows to appear in the orphaned images list again. —ZerphaThe Improver 14:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Ok deleted, although there are still six icons in unused including four bows - Azure Recurve Bow, Ascalon Longbow, Ascalon Shortbow, Ascalon Axe, Aegis, and Feathered Flatbow --Kakarot 14:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

ok thanks for mentioning them, except for the Aegis (weapon) icon i likely removed the others with my last edit when trying to remove already shown ones. Fixed that. —ZerphaThe Improver 14:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Help?

← moved to Help:Ask a wiki question

Frustrated, I need help.

I looked over Help:Ask a wiki question and GWW:IMAGE and even GWW:SIGN but I can't find info on how to upload the image itself. E.g. I wanna add a screenie of my character just as it is- not as a link. I tried creating a page but what do u exactly type in? Thnaks. Ninjas In The Sky 11:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I think our help sections are too well hidden. Help:Editing should have what you are looking for, but basically you link to the image to show it, like this [[Image:Image name.jpg]]. [[Image:Image name.jpg|100px]] will change its width to 100px, if you need to resize it :) - anja 11:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

First, thank you for being the first to help me. Although, my question is not in resizing-for example, how could I just upload an image like this: http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u1/elamisia2/gw626.jpg ?

Oh, sorry, missed half of the question ><. Typing without thinking ftw. To upload an image, click on the link on the left hand nav, below the search box. It says "Upload file" :) - anja 12:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Hope u visit my userpage and see teh eqbur kewl layout :P Thanks, I couldn't have done it without your help. Ninjas In The Sky 12:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Linking to wiki.guildwars.com images from other sites

Is this allowed? I think the Image Policy should refer to that. Personally i was interested to find information about the skill icons not just any image. Only information i found was in this discussion's archive and the suggestion back then was to talk with Anet guys, which doesn't really cover anything cause the Image Policy article wasn't updated appropriately. I mean its not nice that anyone that wants to learn this bit of information to bother them every time. Eth 07:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the linking would be from other places, a policy would be useless in that regard (we can only police ourselves in the wiki, after all). In any case, i would think the wiki has a way to avoid hotlinking?--Fighterdoken 08:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to embedding the images in another page, i.e. via <IMG> tags? If so, that's generally frowned upon - you're leeching the bandwidth of ArenaNet's servers. Better would be to go download the Fansite pack from the official website, which contains the skill images so that you could host them on your own web server.

If you mean just putting a link on your site leading to the image's page, there's no reason you can't do so. For instance, you could link to http://wiki.guildwars.com/index.php?title=Image:Accumulated_Pain.jpg&redirect=no all you want, or even http://wiki.guildwars.com/images/3/30/Accumulated_Pain.jpg if you just want the raw image. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Texmod Images

I think images uploaded for Texmod should have their own tag/template thing. Me and Pyron Sy recently uploaded all the sample pics for the mods from whatever site they were at and hosted them here. We used the "Texmod_modname.jpg" format and I thought it might help distinguish screenshots from modified screenshots. ~Farlo Talk 07:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That was already discussed here and I don't think it requires policy changes for the low number of images. It is good if people name the files like that but not required imo. poke | talk 07:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

On another note, doesn't {{texmod image}} need the same copyright info as {{screenshot}} (e.g. notification that it isn't released under GFDL)? -- Brains12 \ talk 13:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not change existing policies without consensus. Also for the {{textmod image}} (why does this exist in the first place? Also the texmod image is probably copyvio..); the images are screenshots so {{screenshot}} is needed anyway for the licensing (and is used as far as I can see). poke | talk 14:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need that extra template and category either, since those images are just images used in the Texmod-related articles (which are more or less just normal articles). It's not of a scope great enough to require specific mention in policy. -- ab.er.rant 02:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Poke and Ab there. If it is a screenshot of the game, the screenshot template will suffice. Though I do believe the images should be hosted here, as they'll be more likely to expire anywhere else. --People of Antioch 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Images in violation

For images that are violating in a simple way, such as incorrectly cropped to include copyrighted interfaces or misnames, could we please put in a guideline to get people to fix it themselves instead of berating the original uploader. I think it's fine to point it out and ask someone to change it, but when they get defensive a lot of drama could be avoided if the original complainant just fixed it themselves. Misery 15:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding the use of cropped images

I have over time (some quite recently) obtained all armors available for my female dervish. I will over the couple weeks or so be taking several thousand screen shots of all dye combinations possible up to 3 dyes. 4 dyes would require several hundred thousand shots by itself and I don't want to spend quite that much time doing this. This is mainly because I want to know, and while I'm at it I may as well share. My question is, since I will be using these on a userpage, but they are screenshots, what tag do I need to use?

I will arrange them in this format.

• For single dyes it will be "Female Dervish (Armor Name) (Which piece) single dye"
• For doubles I will see what kind of filesize I end up with, but am planning on "Female Dervish (Armor Name) (Which piece) duel dye"
• For triples I will obviously be unable to fit approximately 1000 pictures in a 2MB files size, and such an image would take several thousand pixels of horizontal space. So I will split them into subcategories based upon the first dye resulting in "Female Dervish (Armor Name) (Which piece) triple dye (first color)"

If I am unable to make the sets of two, and the subsets of the threes under 2 MB I will have to extend the naming scheme with numbers at the end (IE part1 part2).

I may end up not doing the sets of 3 dye right away because of the time involved in doing so, however I plan to eventually complete them. Kelvin Greyheart 01:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

First, to answer your question, the most appropriate tags you use for screenshots used in your user page would be both {{screenshot}} and {{user image}}.

Second, rather than putting them all in your user page (which is really too much images for any user space), we already have Category:Armor galleries with some of them containing dye charts. Of interest to you is that the previous decision on dye charts is that we would prefer to keep things simple and not clutter a page with color combinations. We wanted to just focus on which areas can be dyed, rather than wanting to cover all possible permutations (forums have already done the dye combinations better imo). If you wish to bring this up for discussion, try raising this issue at Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Armor art galleries. -- ab.er.rant 02:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

GWW:IMAGE#Moving images section

is kinda wrong now. Shall we remove the section as image moving is nothing 'special' (i.e. clicking the move tab will move it, just like any other page), or should we update it to clarify that images can (now) be moved? -- Brains12 \ talk 20:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

remove imo. poke | talk 20:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say remove it although I'd have no problem updating it to include the way to move images either. --Kakarot 22:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

But a policy shouldn't contain a manual how to do something imo.. poke | talk 23:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As poke says. Also, given we have no policy on reupploading, which is the same without the benefit of maintaining history... Backsword 22:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy I3?

With the recent addition of image moving capabilities, would it be feasable to add a speedy I3 option for image redirects? I personally think it would be the image version of speedy R1, but I might be too overzealous in this action. Any ideas? -- Wandering Traveler 03:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

definitely not. A lot image redirects are helpful to maintain the correct usage and so the redirecting page should not be removed. For other pages where there is no use for that page, R2 qualifies fine - and the normal deletion process always works. poke | talk 15:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, oversaw that. Alright, sounds fair then. -- Wandering Traveler 15:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hotlinks

"All images used on the official Guild Wars Wiki must be uploaded here. Do not hotlink to images on other websites (including the official site)."

I think that's a little outdated - I've seen a fair few hotlinked images around, and I can't think of a reason why every image must be uploaded here. It makes sense that mainspace images are uploaded, i.e. stuff from the game and whatnot, as it's better to complement an article with an actual image rather than just a link (although that's just more of a "better" rather than a "must"), but I wouldn't think it's necessary for everything (i.e. in other namespaces, or in the mainspace depending on the image/link). -- Brains12 \ talk 15:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, especially for the user namespace it is a helpful way to allow personal images without raising licensing problems. poke | talk 15:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait, when you say "hotlinked" are we talking about something as simple as [IMG]http://urlhere.com/image[/IMG] which would include the image on to said page? --Antioch 16:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No, they mean external linking to images. I think this should be removed because some things that may need to be linked to cannot be uploaded or really shouldn't be uploaded, especially things related to talk pages. Perhaps it should be adjusted to say "articles in the main space should not include hotlinks to external images". Misery 16:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm still a bit confused. Are these the embedded images? Or simple text links --Antioch 16:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Text links. Afiak GWW doesn't support embedded external images, which is probably a good thing. Misery 17:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, don't we do that already anyway? --Antioch 17:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Eh, do what?? And yes, it's about links direclty to images; that is called hotlink. poke | talk 21:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The policy says I couldn't do this. Can you see any reason to disallow that? If I am doing it on a talk page it is better than an inline image and if it were something like a mudkip I couldn't upload it anyway. Naturally the policy was likely designed to prevent crappy external links all over mainspace pages instead of pretty images. Misery 21:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Link parameter in image inclusions

MediaWiki 1.14 introduced this uhm.. "nice" feature - let's call like that for a while. We can now specify link target when including images on pages. You can see an easy example to the right; the image directly links to my user page without going to the image description page. You do this by simply writing: [[File:User Poke Test.png|link=User:Poke]].
Okay, the bad part about using this is GFDL. Our license requires, amongst other things, attribution for all contributions. For images this is done by the image description page; listing license information (in case of non-GFDL images, like ANet images) and giving a list of all users that uploaded an image. Now by using the link parameter, we make it impossible to get to the description page, so it is a violation of GFDL.
Now my question: What should we do about this? Should we just allow it and ask users to not overuse it, or should we completely disallow it? What do you think? poke | talk 15:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If it violates GFDL, I don't see how we can't not "overuse it". Also, I don't think we can rely on people's knowledge of GFDL as most aren't aware of the basics - too many copyright problems for little or no advantage. Disabling it would probably be best. -- Brains12 \ talk 15:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how it breaches GDFL at all, attribution can still be reached using , either by making a link and clicking it or by typing the image name manually into address bar. It doesn't make the description page "impossible to reach" any more than redirecting an image to a special page does. Misery 16:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh look, it was uploaded by poke for personal use. Misery 16:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The thing is that you need to go on the edit page and look there for the image name; which can be very complicated depending on the page. poke | talk 16:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, a redirect will leave a link to the file page at the target, so it is different to using link=. -- Brains12 \ talk 16:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's not convenient, if you happen to want to know the attribution of an image from one specific instance which happens to be linked, but it's not impossible to get there and it doesn't break the GDFL. Perhaps what you mean to say is that users should be banned from using the linking code in their signatures, which are likely to only appear linked, but that would only be for convenience for checking for copyright violations. Misery 16:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Try redirecting an image file to a special page such as your contributions, there is no return link in that case and it requires you to add an target=pagename&redirect=no manually to your address bar to get to the page to remove the redirect. Misery 16:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Mediawiki.org states, that the link attribute "should only be used with images that don't require attribution." But even if this would brake the GFDL, this actually wouldn't be a new issue. Existing templates, such as {{Navimg}} or {{Skill infobox}}, effectively hide the links to (background) images already and also might be used to hide links to images from ANet. Imho, it shouldn't be too "bad" as the copyright notices are still available on this site, it might pose a legal copyright issue though. -- Ring 00:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe we should frown on the use of this "feature" at all. -- Wyn 00:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

So what should we do about this? poke | talk 17:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If Meta's correct with its 'important note', we should disallow this feature. Are we completely sure that it does violate GFDL? Also, Ring brings up a good point about the infobox - is that violating GFDL too? -- Brains12 \ talk 18:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I tried to look at that now from a completely different side. I thought about where we could put the image information on, and then I thought of the infobox when I noticed something similar to the image issue: When we use templates, we actually have a very similar situation. We don't reach the template description page, and with that its history and attribution information, when we transclude a template; just like we don't reach the image description page when we use an image with a different target (or no target at all). So if we talk about missing attribution information about those images, we would have to talk about the same issues with templates.

But there is one difference about the template usage. When you click edit on a page, you get a list (which is most times correct) of all transcluded pages; for images we don't have such a thing. So if we could list the used images along with the templates, then there would be no problem at all. poke | talk 18:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Is that possible? :P -- Brains12 \ talk 18:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Fyi. I'm working on an extension. poke | talk 00:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, extension is working and ready for being added. Discuss here. poke | talk 20:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, time to bring this up again! The extension was added, and shows all image usages correctly, so this is not an issue any longer. We could probably even advertise this feature now. poke | talk 21:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Change to Image Policy

Since Wynn has modified {{user image}} template so that adding username to it helps the User Image category to look more clearler, {{user image|username}}, i think it should be added to the policy page aswell, so that future images will be categorised (is it even a word) also in the same way. Wynn, Poke, Why and me are on a project to add these templates to all images in this wiki, including {{screenshot}} and {{arenanet image}} as needed. I actually already created a page about this matter and added it to Policy page, though i should have asked about it in here :P - J.P.Talk 11:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So would something like {{screenshot|{{subst:BASEPAGENAME}}}} or something of the like work? --Antioch 15:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a maintenance update to text, not an actual real change in policy. Just make the change, I doubt anyone's going to argue about it. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It says that straight edits are not allowed. I'll wait for few days, if no one oppose it until then, i'll do the edit. - J.P.Talk 17:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Changing policies is not allowed without a proposal, but changing wikitext on a policy page is allowed if it does not actually change the policy described. For instance, there is no need for a proposal to correct a spelling mistake on a policy page, etc. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 18:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Changed it; and just to clarify JP, the change doesn't apply to the ArenaNet/Screenshot templates. poke | talk 17:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I just thought too that someone might get it wrong, but there are hell of a many missing those templates, that's more like what i was after. And as another correction, the thing isn't about all images as i said above, it's about user images. For now... - J.P.Talk 18:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned images, again

I'm not entirely sure we should continue deleting orphaned images. I think there's more benefit in keeping them - for example, in the case of user images, a user may want to put an image back on a user page after inactivity or simply getting bored of it for a while. In other words, images have the potential to be reused.

There's also the matter of the amount of effort going into this, i.e. tagging (checking for links and so forth) and deleting. I think the benefit in keeping them outweights the benefit in deleting them, which just seems to be cleanup for the sake of cleanup; the 'freeing up space' reason is no longer a reason since files are preserved in the history whenever deleted, and have been for a while now.

Thoughts? -- Brains12 \ talk 19:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

How we can be sure that an image is going to have any use in the future? That's why i think we should have a time limit of some kind. It's one month right now am i right? I think it's wayyyy too short. I think something like six months would be better.

Or then we should just tell people to add {{not orphaned}} on images they might use in the future again. - J.P.Talk 19:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is any benefit in keeping them, thats what the {{not orphaned}} category is for. Any that arent tagged as such have probably been, properly named, "orphaned". I don't see the point in keeping what won't be used. If one forgets, the upload tab is a couple clicks away. -- Wandering Traveler 23:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say a small amount of the image-using community is aware of that template, and I think an even smaller amount would remember to actually use it.

You mention the benefit in keeping them; what's the benefit in deleting them? Keeping them is a non-action, while deleting them is quite an effort- and time-involved action. -- Brains12 \ talk 23:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Somebody is trying to delete all my big monster skill icons.  :( --Jette 06:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Brains. Space isn't an issue. — Galil 06:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Do we allow emails in images?

Because this caught my eye. - J.P.Talk 22:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh, are you sure that is a real email? In any case I see it as less of a concern because a crawler cannot find it. If someone is dumb enough to give out their email, they are dumb enough to give out their email. Misery 22:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't the answer to that question be the same as: Do we allow email addresses in user pages? --Draygo Korvan 22:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to ask. Sorry :P - J.P.Talk 22:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I still love you JP. I know we remove some emails from staff pages and ask a question pages, but that is because they don't actually help the situation and usually people don't realise what they are opening themselves up to. Misery 22:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) We don't disallow users making public their e-mail. We do, however, request for e-mail removals when we think the personal information of the user in question is compromised and he didn't realized it (ie, on support requests), but if he willingly makes that information public, then he is free to do so.--Fighterdoken 22:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Fan art sub-category?

We currently have no other way than {{ArenaNet image}} to tag fan art with noticable Guild Wars content. And that category should only be for official renders and other images from Guild Wars or NCSoft websites. Other tags don't fit for these either. Should we create something like {{ArenaNet image|fan art image}} for these? - J.P.Talk 06:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

CC NC

Can CC NC Images be used here? o.O Kaisha 22:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. I believe that as this site is owned by ANet, NC (non commercial) won't work here. I seem to recall that was why things couldn't just be copied wholesale from GuildWiki when this site was started. --Rainith 08:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh... I was wondering, cause I can't find that much gfdl images to use far as butterflies. :-( Kaisha 20:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

References

If player path is default to red and alternative paths have different colors...which would be the standard marking of foe's patrol path? E.g.

Yoshida Keiji talk 08:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, we don't like having the path dots from the mission map (prefer it clean) - the exception being if the path is difficult to follow (e.g. Ascalon, maguuma). Also having a note with arrows to neighbouring explorables/missions is unnecessary in most cases since the label under the map in the infobox is adequate. File:User Chieftain Alex Chieftain Signature.jpg Chieftain Alex 09:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Tag for Render?

Is there any tag for images that would look better Rendered due to background? E.g.

Yoshida Keiji talk 09:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)