Guild Wars Wiki talk:Image use/Archive

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Can we get some positive ideas flowing here? I wanna get this policy polished up/changed and ready for implementation so skill icons and the like and start being uploaded rapidly. — Jyro X 13:55, 8 February 2007 (PST)

I like the skill icons from the Wiki better. Not only would we not have to bother with having to figure out whether we can use fansite kit content here, they also look better and are released by Rainith under the GFDL. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 13:59, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Signature images/char pics?

Allowed, or not? Blastedt(talk)GuildWiki page 14:02, 8 February 2007 (PST)

That's a conversation for the signature policy discussion. And character images are being discussed I believe either in the guilds section or user page section. — Jyro X 14:18, 8 February 2007 (PST)
See Guild Wars wiki:Sign your comments (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Policy on user images

In my opinion, user pages ought to only have text and images that originate from articles. If people want images, they ought to upload them elsewhere. --Life Infusion 18:31, 8 February 2007 (PST)

See the discussion at Guild Wars Wiki talk:User page (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Port over the Image use policy from GuildWiki?

We could port over the Image use policy from GuildWiki. As far as I can see from looking at the history, no edits of substance were made by anyone who has not released their edit to the GDFL. Thoughts? --Rainith 02:46, 10 February 2007 (PST)

Fine with me. (talk) 09:50, 10 February 2007 (PST)
Done, I made a few edits, mostly changing "GuildWiki" to "the Official Guild Wars Wiki." --Rainith 04:22, 12 February 2007 (PST)
Looks good. Can't think of anything missing. On the other hand, I'm not quite sure what to look for anyway. :P ~ D.L. 08:04, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Items Screenshots

I'm fairly tired of seeing items screenshots with characters in their underwear. Can we be a little more serious and have a policy on that? It's not that I think characters in underwear are offensive (it's fine for showing armor details by pieces, for example), but I think it really looks like a juvenile joke to showcase weapons like this. --Theeth 08:58, 12 February 2007 (PST)

LOL. I completely agree with you, but I think that it would be better address that in the formatting guide for weapons. I'm not sure, but I would guess that would be written up in Guild Wars Wiki/Formatting/Weapons, when someone gets around to writing it. --Rainith 09:02, 12 February 2007 (PST)
I completely disagree. ;) In my opinion, stripping down will result in the best visibility of the shown item, in most cases. Armor is often obtrusive or distracting when you want to show an item held in a character's hand. Also, the contrast between the item of interest and the background should be as high as possible. In that context, the character and what he/she is wearing are background. Armor usually is darker than skin or underwear, and lot's of weapons are dark, too. And I won't even mention clipping issues with some armor/weapon combinations. ;) --84-175 (talk) 09:16, 12 February 2007 (PST)
Well most of my image are with armor and I rarely get any probleme. I pay a lot of attention on image and most shot can be taken with armor without much trouble.--Aratak 09:18, 12 February 2007 (PST)
It should be policy to not wear armour when taking photos for images, it results in the best photos and then all the photos will be uniform. Currently all the unique images are taken either by myself or BeXoR: - We've gotten the ball rolling and I think they all look very good. -- Scourge 16:25, 12 February 2007 (PST)
I know I shouldn't say this but on guildwiki, I'm probably the user with the most weapon's images. Most of these image have armor and it doesn't change the quality of the images. Except certain shield that cause trouble.--Aratak 17:57, 12 February 2007 (PST)
Why dont you bring some of them over if they are good??? Another reason which I just thought of (after seeing some of your pics) is that most of the weapons are dark, and having no armour on will allow the darkness of the weapon to contrast to the lightness of your undergarments.-- Scourge 19:42, 12 February 2007 (PST)
Many images I did are from friends, guildies and ramdom people pming me. They did not give me permissions to upload it here. I'm sure if I could find them they wouldn't see any probleme but I can't make that choice for them. I'm writing my thesis at the moment and it cuts a lot on the time that I can play or edit wiki. I just don't have time to go trough all the image I have uploaded to find wich one I have done from my weapons. Also I think it's premature to write article when we not even sure what we have the right to upload and the format is still un sure. I also see your point about dark weapon but that is just a problem with warrior weapons I beleive. Most casters have amor that are light in colors and its really easy to change the color to be different from the weapon.--Aratak 06:31, 13 February 2007 (PST)
I prefer taking them without armor in the background because they are completely unobscured and the coloring of the armor doesn't taint how you interpret the weapon, or blend in with it. If I can, I even try to keep the character model completely out of the image altogether. I don't want to see the character, I want to see the item! - BeXoR 02:05, 14 February 2007 (PST)
I agree with allowing characters in underwear. Most armor in Guild Wars is showing lots of skin anyway, I don't see why we should start cluttering cropped images with armor textures. ~ D.L. 03:32, 14 February 2007 (PST)
Why stop there. Let's hack the dx feed and erase all texture but the weapons. Anyway my first idea was to not have any restrition exepte a clear background and cropping the weapon correctly.--Aratak 07:35, 14 February 2007 (PST)
Emily has said she will try to provide us with weapon renders in the future so this shouldn't be too much of an issue anymore. - BeXoR 11:59, 26 February 2007 (EST)
Do we really want to have pictures of only the weapons, though? Maybe it's just me, but I think that having a char actually holding the weapon helps a lot to actually visualize what the weapon looks like (even if it's only the hands and part of the leg that shows in the picture). For example, a Twin Hammer differs from a Gavel of the Nephilim not only from the design of the skin, but even from the size (the former being a huge monstrosity, the other resembling a toothpick). This particular aspect of the weapon would be lost by having merely pictures of the items themselves. Similarly, take this image, Image:Lunto's Pincers.jpg; if those daggers were just hanging in midair, without any hands attached to them, I'm not sure I'd be able to tell even how those would be held, "Is this the blade or is it the handle; will my char's hands cover this part here or there, is this thing facing up or down or is it sideways?" So, I'd be in favour of having the items actually being wielded instead of just renders of their skins, for the reasons above. What does everyone else think about this? --Dirigible 19:35, 26 February 2007 (EST)
If you guys decide that you'd prefer to have the weapons wielded for screenshots, I can just as easily take these render shots as well. Just let me know. For that matter, if you'd like to have both an image of the weapon and another of it being wielded, that can be done as well. --Emily Diehl 19:40, 26 February 2007 (EST)
I think that would be best (ie: both alone and weilded), although it should be discussed more. The advantage being having both an uncluttered view of the weapon, and seeing it to scale with a character. This would also eliminate the "underwear shot" found on GuildWiki that is used so no armor blocks the weapon image, as well as eliminating vanity shots (ie: the rendered images could possibly be all the same character, or just one per profession). --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 19:44, 26 February 2007 (EST)
I agree with Barek, it would please both sides of the camp. I think having a character in the picture helps to show the size of a weapon. And it is always preferable to have a character of the profession the weapon is for holding it. I think that if you take the pictures with the weapons being wielded, as long as the armor is neutral (default profession color, and plain armor instead of ornate with dangly bits hanging off and such - assassin shing jea or ritualist shing jea are nice plain armor examples) and doesn't obscure the weapon, and each shot is taken from the same angle, then it would look nice. And the white background is always a great thing. And then having the weapon render on its own would help with weapons such as scythes where the main detail is only seen when it is viewed from the top. - BeXoR 19:50, 26 February 2007 (EST)
I can do that for you guys. Just build the weapon pages, and when I see an image that needs filled in, I'll nab the shots and stick them in where you have the link for the needed image. As always, if you want anything very specific that I may not get by looking at the page or image title itself, just put the information on the item's talk page and let me know the details there. --Emily Diehl 20:31, 26 February 2007 (EST)

I've added an example of what we were talking about here to the Battlepick page. Is this what you were thinking? If so, do you want me to continue to supply the images and let you guys fill in the content, or would you like me to wait until the pages are up to add images? --Emily Diehl 21:12, 26 February 2007 (EST)

That looks awesome. It should be fine for you to keep creating the articles like that. Just make sure you put a stub tag at the top so we know to fill it in. - BeXoR 21:15, 26 February 2007 (EST)
I'd like to start thinking how multiple skinned weapon images can be formatted, like basic Ele staves, Ancient Scythe and Daggers, Steel Daggers, etc. Even though they are the minority in terms of weapons, multiple skinned weapons have become more prominent in Nightfall than in past campaigns. I think Battlepick looks great, btw. — Gares 21:21, 26 February 2007 (EST)
Doh, I knew I forgot a stub somewhere. Alright then...I will follow that format for weapons and fill them in as I get time :) --Emily Diehl 21:25, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Coming a bit late to this 'cos I didn't know it was here, but I'm not sure that an equipped shot is really worth the effort. How it looks when you hold it depends on loads of different variables including height, armour, profession (anybody who says that only primary professions should equip stuff gets slapped with a wet fish), angle of viewing, height of character, current action etc etc. Having an equipped shot for every single weapons page would be a big effort, is it really worth it? --NieA7 17:59, 27 February 2007 (EST)

In game images/Categories

What if we created a few new categories for articles that needed images/official renders added to them? Category:Needs image could be used for any article that was missing an image that was intended to be there by the formatting guidelines. Category:Needs official render could be a sub-category of the Needs image category, and any set of pages (Weapons pages, Bestiary pages, Armor pages, etc...) that had an in game image, but not an official render, and the formatting guidelines for that type of page called for renders when available, would be in there. Then Emily (or whomever at ANet) could just look at those categories and use them to see what was needed. This way we can still make sure that if a user creates an article for the Lich Lord we could easily get an image put in there, even if Emily was busy/on vacation/fed up with those demanding wiki people/whatever...

A third category Category:Needs map could be created for boss or mission articles.

The downside that I can see for this is that it would require some legwork to keep things in the right category, think the Needs SoC confirmation category on GuildWiki, but slightly more complex. Any thoughts/opinions? --Rainith 00:52, 28 February 2007 (EST)

Great idea! The image categories can be placed inside the templates. Those categories can be added automatically if the parameter for the image or the map is not provided. As for "Needs SoC confirmation", since it's for a list of skills, might be difficult to do it without heavy manual work. -- sig 02:47, 28 February 2007 (EST)
I'd be all for you guys making a category like this. It would be nice to be able to watch the category page and see what images are needed rather than having to search around for them. --Emily Diehl 15:20, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
I think this would be a great idea. As Aberrant says, for some missing images, like maps, we can use ParserFunctions to include the article into the "needs map" category.
While I'm not 100% sure if it would be a good idea, is there any way we could use a template for this? I have 2 ideas:
  1. We use a template like {{needs image}} that only contains the [[Category:Needs image]]. This doesn't really differ from Rainith's suggestion at all.
  2. We use a template that does the above but also includes a small image that won't be noticeable to new readers, but will be noticeable to more seasoned contributors. I was thinking of something like this.
What do you guys think? LordBiro 15:46, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Biro, you just want to create a new icon. lol.
Anything that can give Emily a centralized location for her to see which articles need images. Icon, category, or something different, as long as it helps her has my full support and I will help with whatever is decided. — Gares 15:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
I think that this is a really great idea. I'd say to roll with it and let me know what category the images will filter into so I can watch the page. --Emily Diehl 16:02, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
What can I say? I'm an icon junkie :P LordBiro 16:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
A list on a page (say, Guild Wars Wiki:Official renders project) could work too, and might be better organized (and less harsh on recent changes) than using categories. --Rezyk 16:22, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
There is an advantage to using the template + category + icon approach, though. Imagine if Emily were to upload an official render for "Armour X" (and what a cool set of armour that would be!) but she forgot to update the article itself by removing the template from it, then the icon would remain on the article. Later on when BeXoR was scouring the wiki, as she is prone to do, she might notice that the article has an official render but it still has a "needs official render" icon on it. She could easily remove the template then.
If we used a list, then it would be harder for someone else to pick up and correct. LordBiro 16:34, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Both situations the images are auto-categorised. All you have to do is go through the category of things that need renders and if there's a picture there switch the template over to the Anet-image one (I've forgotten the name). - BeXoR 16:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
I'd say there are even other advantages with categories bigger than that one. As far as consensus goes, I won't oppose categories, but I believe we'd be missing out on a lot of good organizational potential of a list on a page. --Rezyk 17:01, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
I can't figure out whether a consensus was reached on this proposal, nor do the categories seem to exist. Was it decided against or is there a list somewhere or has it just stalled? Eerie Moss 10:01, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
Nothing was decided here. A new discussion started a few days ago at Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Images#Content?, which also touches on the topic of categories for images, but nothing concrete yet. Feel free to bump the discussion there if you want. :) --Dirigible 21:13, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Scaling PNG

I see the scaling PNG issue still hasn't been fixed in MediaWiki 1.9.2... I wrote a fix for it quite a while ago, which I submitted to Gravewit, which he ignored and I never even got a reply. I'm hoping the current system operator isn't as ignorant, so if there is interest, I will update the fix for 1.9.2, to get PNG images to scale just as good as JPG, even with the alpha channel, which would also mean we wouldn't need several copies of the same images such as Image:Monk-icon-small.png / Image:Monk-icon.png. — Galil Ranger 10:51, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Check out Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for technical administration. I think theres something about it there. - BeXoR 12:05, 26 February 2007 (EST)
I would have to double check, but I believe the relative border sizes of the small and regular profession icons are different, so resizing the regular size to the smaller size would produce a slightly different result. I don't have the file on this computer though, and I can't quite remember off the top of my head :P Besides, it doesn't use up any more or less bandwidth having a different icon for each size, and the space taken by small icons is negligible. LordBiro 18:33, 26 February 2007 (EST)
Translation - there isn't really a point =P However, look at the Guild_Wars_Wiki:Requests_for_technical_administration and the section regarding ImageMagick, as it's an already made piece of software that does this (and some other lovely things), which means not having to worry about patching it, which always nice (I hate patching php scripts, since I administer several phpBB forums, it usually has issues). We've already requested that it be added to the wiki, and we're just waiting for ANet to upload it. Pepe talk 20:55, 26 February 2007 (EST)
I see, that's good news atleast. PNG support is what rules Web 2.0 and without support for resizing, I feel it's not possible to use the format to it's full extent without uploading several copies of the same images. — Galil Ranger 13:00, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Skill icon file size

this isn't related to the policy, but I didn't figure out a better place for this. I noticed that the skill icons are of very variable file sizes. Many are extremely huge. Could someone upload them with the minimal possible file size so that detail is still not lost. -- Gem (gem / talk) 05:38, 28 February 2007 (EST)

Is bandwidth such a concern now? Several programs can optimise JPEGs without having to re-save them, I don't think we should go any further than that. --NieA7 06:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Bandwith might not be a problem to the server, but large lists of skills require the user to load a lot of stuff too, which for some users might be frustrting. For example I am sometimes tied to a crappy connection and quick reference pages are a pain even with small file sizes. -- Gem (gem / talk) 07:21, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Good point, I wasn't thinking that way around. I still don't think that re-saving JPEGs is a good idea though, they never come out very well. What it really needs is someone with access to the server to run all uploaded JPEGs through an optimiser first. Pictures aren't uploaded all that frequently so it shouldn't be too much of a strain. Question is whether it can be done technically or not. --NieA7 07:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Is there a difference between optimizing and re-saving? With PNGs I would say not necessarily, since optimizers can remove information from the PNG metadata (PNG stores additional image information, like Gamma settings, in the metadata). While JPEG optimizers might do this too, I don't think JPEG metadata counts much towards the size of the image. LordBiro 08:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Can the server run something to remove the metadata from files? -- Gem (gem / talk) 10:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, there's a big difference. JPEG is a lossy format (unlike PNG), so every time you re-save your image as a JPEG you lose more and more information (and get a correspondingly worse and worse image). Optimising a JPEG simply cleans up the image data without re-compressing (i.e. re-saving) it, resulting in a smaller file with identical quality to the original. Removing metadata is only part of it, the rest is optimising the JPEG image against the strict JPEG criteria (loads of programs and digital camera's don't do a very good job of saving JPEGs). IrfanView can clean JPEGs on the PC, but the best results I've ever seen are with !JPEGClean for RISC OS. Not much help for here I realise, but if there's a program that does it for RISC OS there must be one that does a similar job for Windows and UNIX. --NieA7 10:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Rules of thumb

Why does it say "Do not adjust the contrast of screenshots." ? I always do that for my screenshots because moving images are not "viewed" the same way as a screenshot (my screen is set a bit darker when playing games). On the other hand I use some sort of auto-balancing function for that, don't think anyone would actually notice it... --Erszebet 07:21, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't really agree with the rules of thumb, they seem outdated. We now have a license for the wiki that allows new contributions to be GPL'd and ArenaNet copyrighted contributions to be freely used on this wiki. I don't think we need to be as restrictive as this. LordBiro 07:24, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
The rules of thumb are outdated, I ported it over pretty much straight from GuildWiki (where I was the author so it was ok). I'll go through it and adjust stuff this weekend, I've been meaning to do that for a while, and kept forgetting.
As for the contrast part, ask Gordon as he just added that one. --Rainith 12:20, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't think we should be brightening screenshots of Mandragors in the Desolation, Jade Armors or the scenery in the Echovald Forest, and I don't think we should be darkening screenshots of Chaos Axes, Stormbows or the Shiverpeak Mountains. -- Gordon Ecker 02:45, 25 March 2007 (EDT)


I updated this as it was rather out of date (from pre-ImageMagick and pre-arenanet image template specifically). This has (up 'til now anyway) had very little interest shown in it, or at least generated a rather small amount of controversy. If there are no objections voiced in it before then, I'd like to make this policy by this Wednesday (3/28). --Rainith 02:02, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Last call for objections. :) --Rainith 23:40, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Just wondering if it would be appropriate to mention something about off-site image usage here. It might partially address ArenaNet's concern on custom skins that was mentioned by Emily. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 23:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Agreed, I'll put a section in about hotlinking images when I get home from work. --Rainith 16:58, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Added a note in Rules of thumb, third one from the top. You think that is good enough or should there be a separate section devoted to it? --Rainith 23:16, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Looks good to me. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 23:59, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

As it currently stands, I think that the proposal is comprehensive, easily understood, and I support its acceptance as official policy Fox 17:04, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Ok, been more than 24 hours since the last minor change. Changing to policy now. --Rainith 23:35, 29 March 2007 (EDT)


Can we outline somewhere in the policy that quest maps should follow a standardized naming scheme, for example if the quest is: "The Afflicted Guard" the map for the quest would be "The Afflicted Guard map.jpg" Dirigible has already uploaded a heap of maps using this naming scheme, I was just wondering if it could become policy now? -- Scourge User Scourge Spade.gif 19:41, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Seems to me that is something that should go in Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Quests. --Rainith 18:17, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

In-game names in images

Trying to keep the adminboard clutterfree. A user uploaded and placed pictures in an arcticle (this one), a problem I now see arrising is that there are in-game names visible in the pictures. I couldn't find any discussions about this in the GWW-namespace. So here it is. IMO, it shouldn't be allowed, since it is possible to take screenshots of people ingame who are not at all OK with their character name being visible in a non-User/Guild namespace article on this wiki. Your thoughts? -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 14:49, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Really? I would have thought the problem would be a different one - that of vanity shots (think the GuildWiki armor section) to get their names on the wiki. I'm against having names in shots - but it's not always possible to get rid of them. Case in point (the first image at that link): since it's about using the CTRL key to see enemies converging, it will by definition have character names in it. However, I'd like to hear someone else say that - since that picture was uploaded by a guildie and has the names of most of the people I regularly play with in it, I don't really trust myself to be unbiased on this particular case.
As far as character names of people who don't want to be pictured in the wiki: tough. I understand wanting privacy, but all in-game content is the property of ArenaNet, so it really doesn't matter if we have their permission or not. It's really that simple, IMO =P MisterPepe talk 14:59, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
I think that in game names should not be visible unless the account holder gives permission. Ofcourse it's bothersome to verify it if someone claims that they have the permission, but even if we don't verify them, there should be a rule against posting them without permission. In most cases it's easy to use paint or what ever to hide the names as they do not hold any information in the image. -- Gem (gem / talk) 16:55, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
I see no problem with names in images if they are required to for what the image is meant to demonstrate. All parts of the image belong to ANet so there is no problem posting them. "Vanity"shots are a different matter IMO and should not be allowed outside of user pages. --Rainith 17:01, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
When used to demonstrate something the name should still be from an account whose owner gives permission. There is no reason to use a specific nameanyway and there are lots of people willing to let their name be used. -- Gem (gem / talk) 18:02, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Do the images belong to ANet? I thought that screenshots and machinima fall into the same category as collages, photographs of copyrighted subjects and other similar derivative works, with the graphics belonging to ANet, but the "camera angle" and other unique elements belonging to the "photographer". I don't think we could just swipe any Guild Wars screenshot from the internet. -- Gordon Ecker 19:40, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
Quote, Terms of use: Our art assets — be they concept art, in-game screenshots, verbal content, or renders — are all copyright materials. Their use is strictly prohibited unless approved in advance and in writing by ArenaNet... All in-game images are the property of ArenaNet
Yes, they're ArenaNet's. Hence, the user who took the picture and the users in the screenshot itself have no claim over the picture or its content whatsoever. MisterPepe talk 20:03, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
That is true, but we can still be fair to people even if we don't have to. Asking permission to publish someones in game name is what every reasonable user should be doing, so I would like to set it as a policy. -- Gem (gem / talk) 14:19, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
I actually completely disagree with you. They have put those names out there, in the game, where anyone who is playing can see them. Having to ask to use them adds an unnecessary burden that we would then have to deal with.
The only place where I would say images with names should not be used are the vanity shots as I mentioned above and if someone were to place an image with names in an article about scammers or bots or something similar. --Rainith 14:59, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
I'm not sure if you see my point. Yes, the names are available to anyone in the game if they see you or even by random guessing names. However, having a name in the wiki increases the chance of random spammage if on a highly viewed page. It's not that we werent allowed to put names for any reason, it's just fair to a player to not use his in game name without permission. -- Gem (gem / talk) 05:06, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

<ri> How much random spammage do you get? I personally have never gotten any completely random spammage and I have had my character(s) names listed on GuildWiki for quite a while (I don't remember exactly how long I've had characters listed, but it has been over a year). I have gotten messages from people with questions/complaints about wiki related issues, but never anything "random" and I see no reason why it should be any different for anyone else. --Rainith 12:11, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

(EC) I'm not sure if you see Rainith's point =P While it might be courteous to ask someone for permission before posting their name in an image, it's really far too much trouble to try and regulate, and we're under no actual obligation to do so. To use programmer-speak (=P Sometimes, it's the best way to say things), it adds a layer of complexity that isn't insignificant - in English, it's more trouble than it's worth. There is not a single fansite with this sort of rule, because it is, TBH, a really bad idea. No forum, fansite, or wiki could possibly hope to enforce this, and 99.9% of the world does not have the time to follow this sort of regulation - we should be glad we're getting the pictures in the first place and not put in complex regulations that discourage people from helping out in this capacity. Less than disagreeing with you that it would nice, I simply don't think that this is feasible or worthwhile. MisterPepe talk 12:18, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
GWOnline [1]. They actually have rules that say you are not allowed to post screenies with in game names if the people in it haven't given their permission. - anja talk (contribs) 12:25, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
... Shush. Apparently, I fail at research. It's still a bad idea - it's impossible to enforce. And, of course, Rainith goes for the simple answer - I've had my IGNs up on the wiki since I first made my userpage, and I even encourage people to message me in-game if they need something. I have yet to receive a single pm. I'm not overly worried about it. MisterPepe talk 12:27, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
GWO, the place where users are afraid to even mention the name of other fansites, but refer to Guru as "that other site"? The place that straight out forbids linking to other fansites with the excuse "we already have that content on our own site"? I'm not sure that's the best place we want to look at to get inspiration for sane rules... --Dirigible 14:28, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
I didn't mean to say the rule is good. I don't have an opinion on this, really. I just pointed out that a forum with the rule exists, and the forum is apparently visited alot by a big community. Pointing out it's not impossible. - anja talk (contribs) 14:50, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Let's make it a guideline then. omething that would be nice for people to follow, but not 100% necessary. It wouldn't harm anyone.
Rainith: I do get random spam. -- Gem (gem / talk) 16:57, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
I'm even against that, TBH. It's regulating something that doesn't really need to be regulated. If the person taking the screenshot wants to, there's nothing saying they can't - but it's not something that they need to do, and I don't really think we ought to tell them that they are supposed to go do that. Sure, a guideline does allow for deviations, but I believe that, if anything, asking people for permission would be the deviation. No one will do this unless they have to - and there's really no reason why they would have to - so I have no desire to regulate this at all. MisterPepe talk 17:08, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
I don't get any random spam either. In fact, the only messages I got from ppl I've never met are other regular wiki-ers. I don't see the need to specifically spell it out. Mentioning it and not having the majority bothering to read it or follow it is kinda pointless. -- sig 20:21, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

(ri) Here's my contribution to the discussion. One day I was sitting alone in my GH looking at the bank. Someone messaged me saying several lines in Japanese (their name was just a bunch of z's). I told them sorry, I didn't speak it (my character's name is Japanese) and he went into a tirade about the language. Here's an excerpt that I screenshot because I was laughing my head off:

when Japan takes over the world, and you are going to be sad you not learn japanese now that you could
when Godzilla destroys your cities you cry for help, but no one understand because they no speak english
only japanese

Now, we can all see that it does happen. I'm lucky they were just amusing and not abusive. I don't know where they got my name from, and didn't ask (because it's all over the place). My opinion on this matter is that usernames shouldn't be added unless you've been given permission, as a matter of courtesy and privacy, but images shouldn't be deleted unless requested by someone in the image. I know I have uploaded screenshots here and the person in them said I only had permission if I put their in-game name as credit. Another editor could see that and delete the entire thing because I mentioned their name, without knowing it was at their request. - BeX 22:47, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

You didn't reply that King Kong would trump Godzilla? LOL! So names shouldn't be mentioned without explicit permission, and images with names should be deleted if requested by that player. But the question is, how do we verify permission? Does that mean we have to ask for permission in-game and screenshot the affirmative and upload the crop into the talk page? -- sig 22:58, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
If it's just a guideline we don't need to confirm it 100%, we can trust people. :) -- Gem (gem / talk) 00:09, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
Gem: See my previous note regarding regulating this as a guideline. It seems every time someone resets the indent some parts of the discussion get ignored =P
Bexor, I see your point - that spam does happen, and that courtesy and privacy are valid concerns. I'm still of the opinion that it's an unnecessary burden to place on the contributers here, and we're really under no obligation to do anything of the sort, as they have no actual claim to the name or image itself. Now, I'm fine with it if someone wants to photoshop the names out of every image on the wiki (ugh), but having to delete images just because someone doesn't like having their name up here is a waste of time for all involved - it means having to go find another picture, so the person who uploaded the image in the first place wasted their time, and the person who goes to find the new image is repeating work that's already been done - it's a waste of time for the sysop who has to delete it because someone got their feathers ruffled, and it's a waste of time for all of us to have to regulate and enforce an unnecessary rule.
I'd also rather not move to figuring out how to implement this if we aren't even sure it should be implemented. Consensus ftw. MisterPepe talk 12:39, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
If it's a guideline no one needs to regulate anything or delete anything. A guideline is a suggestion, not a must. -- Gem (gem / talk) 15:57, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
As you've said three times. I'm still against that. Scroll up to just before the (RI) for some of my reasons. Even a guideline is a regulation, though perhaps one that's very loosely enforced, and I really don't think that there needs to be any sort of rule on this subject.
On a somewhat related note, Guild Wars Wiki:Guidelines isn't even in proposed status. There's no system for proposing guidelines, nor is there any sort of formatting guideline for images - see Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Images and note the general lack of a project page. There's no guidelines for images on here, because everything that really needs to be covered is on this page. Are you suggesting that we make a formatting guide for images just because you want one guideline put in? There's no place for a guideline in a policy page (this one), so it would have to be on a different page - and there is not one for image guidelines at the moment. Do you have another place in mind to put it? I really can't find another article that would be the right place for such a guideline.
I still don't think there should be any sort of rule on this, not even a guideline, and there's no good place to put a guideline. MisterPepe talk 16:31, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
Yes, I've said it multiple times, but that's because every time you reply with something like "it's a waste of time". Implementing this as a guideline isn't a waste of time since we are discussing this anyway and regulating and contolling isn't a waste of time since it isn't mandatory. You don't seem to understand the most important difference between a guideline and a policy. A policy is something that must be followed and enforced, a guideline doesn't need to be enforced so it doesn't eat time from anyone. No one has still given a good reason why not to have this as a guideline, you've jsut said that it would be a waste of time which it isn't.
And a lack of a full guideline system isn't a big problem at all. -- Gem (gem / talk) 17:07, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
Thank you for the clarification; rather than seeming that you were emphasizing your point, it seemed (at least to me) that you were ignoring the points I was bringing up. Hence my reaction. Moving on.
I hate this entire concept, really. Even as a guideline - and this time, let me see if I can come up with some valid points to back that up =P
  • I take a rather republican (traditional, not the party) view of wiki government. If it doesn't need to have a rule (or guideline =P) written about it, then there shouldn't be one. Thanks to the ArenaNet copyrights, we're under no obligation to have any rule on the subject; therefore, I believe that we should not.
  • Creating even a guideline about this by definition implies that this is the right thing to do. I don't think it is - and yes, I will bring up the waste of time argument once more here. In this case, though, I'm not talking about wasting time regulating the subject itself, I'm talking about actually having to contact each person in the screenshot for permission. In the screenshot that started this debate in the first place, there are ten names (and eight in the second), and none of them belong to the person who posted the screenshot. Even assuming that it only took 30 seconds to contact each person and ask for permission to use their name (a very, very conservative estimate - and not counting time spent if someone ignores you, which is quite likely with a screenshot like that one, since it's of a higher-end guild - and also not counting the chance that someone would log off), that's a waste of five minutes right there. Would a guideline force them to do so? No. However, it basically says that that's what you should be doing, and that anyone who doesn't follow that rule is wrong. I really think that those five minutes could be better spent doing many other things (such as having policy discussions =P) and that actually wasting the time (I said it again, sorry) on this is wrong.
  • These user names are already out in the public. The screenshots in the article that started this conversation were from Obs mode, for crying out loud - that's basically GuildWarsTV. Even screenshots from, say, RA or a special event, are from a public place. If someone doesn't want to have their name on the wiki, it's not going to keep the name private, as it's already out in the public. Even the Guild Wars website itself lists usernames - see [2] and [3], though you have to hover your mouse over the party name in the second one. Are we actually vain enough to think that we're more public than the website? These names are out there already, and nothing we do is going to change that. Once again, there's no point in having this rule.
  • Actually, I'm against the general idea of guidelines, TBH. While they have their uses (really, we've only used them for formatting and style guides), having a vague suggestion that no one is under any obligation to follow really seems pointless to me. It's basically an un-enforcable rule - and see my previous note about a republican view of government. If the rule can't be enforced, and isn't supposed to be enforced, there's very little point in having it, and therefore, IMO, should not exist.
Whether these points are valid enough, I'm not sure; but I know that I, for one, will never, ever follow this if it becomes a guideline. MisterPepe talk 18:08, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for understanding. :) I wont touch the concept of guidelines at all in this post, the guideline policy page is for that.
  • In the screenshot mentioned the 8 names didn't provide any additionali information to the users, so blacking them out would have been a fast and valid way instead of contacting the players in game. Contacting 8 players, especially ones that you don't personally know, is a big task, I know. :)
  • Yes, the names are out in the public and anyone has access to them either through obs mode, spotting the people in an outpost or random guessing a name in the chat. However, a name in a screenshot in the wii might be seen by a hunderd thousand people, but a player will usually be spotted in the game by a very very smaller amount of players. And a still image gives a user much more time to actually realise a certain player name than seeing them in the game by chance.
I understand why you ot many others wouldn't be following this guideline, but I would still like to have it to show that the wiki does care about the players and does recognise things like this even if we don't force them. -- Gem (gem / talk) 18:20, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
A guideline that no one follows would be more likely to make people think you don't need to follow the rules on a wiki than show them that the wiki cares about them, IMO. --Rainith 21:47, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
I too think that a guideline is something to be followed. It's a set of rules that doesn't need to be applied or apply right now, but it should be applied. Which is why I sometimes just go around and edit articles to conform to guidelines. If a certain guideline that exists that need not be followed (exceptions allowed for special circumstances of course), then it's not a guideline, it's a convention or tradition. -- sig 02:54, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
Since no one agrees with me, I'll let it go. -- Gem (gem / talk) 16:38, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
Regardless of what the law says, it seems knid of rude to include IGNs without permission or upload other users' screenshots, which could hurt the Wiki's reputation. -- Gordon Ecker 20:08, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Policy vs. formatting

This policy article has a lot of formatting guidelines in it, and is missing a lot of things that should be in here. I'm working on a proposed policy for the image formatting, and because some things have been covered twice/put in the wrong place, I'll be revising this one too, so if you see duplicated information over there, don't panic! - BeX 15:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Revised proposal

Because I felt that many of the things covered in this policy don't really belong here, I've revised it in sync with the proposed formatting guideline at Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Images. You can read my changes to this policy here: Guild Wars Wiki talk:Image use/Draft A. I also added in some things about requirements for different types of images. - BeX 16:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see something about gilselling images/anything that violates the EULA - it's happened before. Not a big deal, though. As to the rest, I have no opinion whatsoever XP That's most likely a good thing, considering how hard I tend to fight against something I disagree with... MisterPepe talk 16:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Argh, I thought I had a line about it in there, I probably left it in the formatting guide instead.. :S I'll add that in now. - BeX 16:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually it is in the formatting page, but I was wondering what I should link it to. "Images that violate the terms of use of this website or infringe copyright will be subject to deletion." What exactly are the terms of use of this website? Does it fall under the game EULA? - BeX 16:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Anyone watching this page, check out the new proposal - I would like to move it in the next couple of days but 3 people isn't really much of a consensus and it would be nice to get some more feedback. - BeX 04:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
It's good. -- Gordon Ecker 05:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
iawtc :P -- sig 05:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
It's ok. Made small wording changes. -- Gem (gem / talk) 05:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(ri) Unless there are any objections to this over the next few days, I will be replacing the existing policy with the proposal. - BeX 14:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to bring this up again: What's now with the draft? poke | talk 14:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess it's fine to move over now. - BeX iawtc 15:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Anyone going to do it? -- Gem (gem / talk) 12:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


I assumed images taken by means other than screenshots from the game should still use the {{screenshot}} tag anyways. Should we re-phrase it to include all images taken from the game or should the images be treated differently? -Smurf 23:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots have established fair use precedents in a number of countries. I think that renders and texture rips are in a gray area. I believe the most appropriate existing template is {{arenanet image}}, which is intended to be used with ANet images for which a more specific template is not available. -- Gordon Ecker 23:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. I just want it in the policy so we don't go back and forth on this. How long should we wait before adding it? -Smurf 16:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
You should add it to GWW:POLICY first, mebe include the question below as well. -- sig 01:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

More tag uncertainty

-Smurf 16:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

What about some type of derivative work template which says something along the lines of "This image is a derivative work based on material copyrighted by ArenaNet and / or NCSoft. <legalese explanation of exactly what that means, and why being partially © ANet and used with permission and partially GFDL means that its use is subject to all the restrictions of the GDFL and all the restrictions of ANet's terms of use.>.". Actually, I think there should be two, one for derivative work which incorporates ANet art assets and one for derivative work which does not, because ANet's terms of use are much looser for fanart and fanfic than they are for images which incorporate ANet's art assets. -- Gordon Ecker 09:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I think this is definitely a conversation for GWW:COPYRIGHT. I think that the current image tags should be consolidated into a single one that changes depending upon the input parameters, or with different fields that are filled out depending upon the content. - BeX iawtc 09:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

More image ambiguity

What should we do with images that are used for talk page discussions? Should they be uploaded under your name and tagged with user image? And what about shared images that are used for the user namespace, but don't belong directly to one user or are used by many people. For example logos for userboxes (flags, etc). Can we just upload them prefixed by "User" or must we share someone else's image/upload personal copies? Any thoughts? I'd lean towards marking anything used on talk pages as a {{user image}} and uploaded under your user name, and I think shared images should be okay to be uploaded with just the prefix "User" and tagged with {{user image}}. - BeX iawtc 07:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

User images should be allowed without a specific user name, but only if they are used on multiple user pages.
I'm not sure about images used for discussions. -- Gem (gem / talk) 10:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
What would happen in the instance where you create a userbox template with a particular flag. At the point of creation, you would be the only one to use it, but there would be possibilities in the future that others would also. I think that their purpose, rather than their use should be considered as the defining factor.
And should these images be prefixed by "User" to show that they are for use in the user namespace, or is the user image tag enough?
As for images used in discussions, I personally upload any images for talk page discussions under my name just to avoid future confusion, but so often the discussions get archived and the images lose part of their importance and may be deleted. If they are uploaded under a user's name, then it is possibly simpler for them to request deletion, rather than if they weren't.
Here is an randomly picked example: Image:2boxes.png (okay maybe not so random, it's at the top of the list I'm looking at). What would you categorise that image as, if at all? And what tag would be placed on it, if any? - BeX iawtc 10:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that we should create a main name space project for user boxes etc to acoid the problem of shared user images. Any user images not used in that project should be prefixed with 'User <username>' and those used in the project should just be prefixed with 'User'. -- Gem (gem / talk) 10:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hot linking?

I know it's not allowed to link from other sites, but what about from wiki to other sites. Such as forums and what not. Thanks in advance --Lou-SaydusUser Lou-Saydus Hail Storm.jpg 17:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The policy explicitly states "Do not hotlink to images on other websites". You can link to forum posts, and to pages on other sites with images in them, you just can't link directly to image files. -- Gordon Ecker 22:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
He's asking if people can hotlink wiki pictures on other sites. For example making a forum thread and hotlinking to the wiki images rather than hosting his own. I don't think hotlinking on the wiki is even possible though, unless you were to use html, and I don't think the specific tag would be enabled. - BeX iawtc 01:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we here can give you a definite answer, Lou-Saydus, as it's really up to the ANet IT staff on whether they want to allow hotlinking, and not us. It may be better to ask this question to someone that works at ANet, e.g. Emily Diehl or Gaile Gray.
Personally, I'd just use something like ImageShack, PhotoBucket or one of the dozens of other free image hosts rather than hotlink, as doing so without permission is just bad net etiquette. --Dirigible 11:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
But is uploading a wiki image (GFDL or ANet owned) to ImageShack correct? Then I would prefer hotlinking.. poke | talk 11:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
If an image is GFDL then it's perfectly acceptable to upload to imageshack, afaik. ArenaNet images would be forbidden though, and I suspect hotlinking to them would not be something ArenaNet would be happy about. LordBiro 18:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Using images on main namespace talkpages

Should we want people to upload images they want to use to explain something on a talk page be uploaded into the user namespace, and thus being subjective to GWW:USER? I think that would be the best solution. AFAIK, there isn't a net to catch these cases currently within our policies. -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 20:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find that I am not the only one. Okay? Thanks. -- AshleyS (talkcontribs) 23:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Read two sections up. - BeX iawtc 06:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not think images used to explain something that fits into the purpose of the mainspace should need to be "user-named" and they should definitely not have a user tag on it. I didn't think this was the purpose of user naming the images, I thought it was to separate images used solely in user namespace from those used elsewhere. - anja talk 08:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
So you want to have imageshack-like names or naming conflicts with really needed images (like npc images)? I would say that the images uses by a user on talk pages are user images. They are uploaded for the use by one user - the uploader himself. poke | talk 18:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd prefer to have descriptive names of course, but what says that as soon as you don't name it "User Anja bug" it's an imageshack name? What about "Paragon Istani armor hair bug", isn't that a perfectly viable name? If there would be a conflict with an existing npc/item/etc, we could solve those few cases separately instead of making up more rigorous guidelines/policies that probably the common editor will forget/not know about. We already have the image naming guidelines that tells you to be descriptive in naming your images. Also, images used on a talk page for main space purposes shouldn't need to "belong" to a user, since it is not for the user's sake, but for the wiki's. In my opinion.
Also, I feel it could cause even more friction between wiki maintenance and new users. We already bug them alot about their user page images, now we are going to bug them about all the bug reports/feature findings too? I feel we will come to a point where we drive away our users. - anja talk 18:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Are these pictures only for the use of the uploader though, Poke? A picture of my ele may be personal enough to deserve a {{user image}}, but is this for the uploaders use only? Is a picture which verifies the skillbar of a boss for the uploader's use only? Is a picture of a glitch in the wiki interface for the uploader's use only? Is a screenshot proof of something Gaile said for the uploader's use only? On a talk page context, these pictures are added because they're relevant to whatever discussion is taking place, because they add visual information to the message. I don't see why they'd be tagged with a "User Xyz" if they're really neither about the user nor of personal use to him. --Dirigible 18:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I have no problems with these images as non-user images as long as they have descriptive names which are unique.. poke | talk 18:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I dislike the idea of having any image not used soley in user space bearing the "User ..." name. That naming convention exists to separate user content from public content and images on main space talk pages are definitely public. --Xeeron 11:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Heavily Edited Screenshots

What tags should be used on Heavily Edited Screenshots of characters used on Userpages? Example: Media:User_Thor79_Freya_Rae.jpg This is one of the images I created for my userpage. I'm in the process of moving my userpage over from GuildWiki and just wanted to make sure I don't cross any lines.--Thor79User-thor79.pngTalk 21:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Specifically I'd like my confusion between the {{screenshot}} and {{user image}} tags cleared up. On one hand it's a unique image only used on my userpage. On the other hand it is a screenshot, whether it's heavily edited or not. Right now I'm defaulting to using just {{screenshot}}. Both should apply but from my interpretation of the image use page, if I include both my image will possibly get deleted.--Thor79User-thor79.pngTalk 21:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It should be fine to put both. I'm guessing you are concerned with the part that goes, "ArenaNet owned images with user copyright or credit included in them will be subject to deletion", but the user image template doesn't claim copyright or credit (and it wouldn't be "in" the image anyways). --Rezyk 22:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah ok...that's talking about putting "copyright 2007 Thor" in a corner of the actual image or whatever. Yeah none of them have anything like that. Thanks.--Thor79User-thor79.pngTalk 22:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The user image tag is used to identify the image as one that is used in user name space instead of the main name space. The screenshot tag identifies the image as a screenshot from the game and explains the copyright. -- Gem (gem / talk) 22:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes not all user images are screenshots so therefore if it is a screenshot, technically it should have both tags. As far as I know there are no rules about altering screenshots. arenanet has never informed us there is here, so until then if they ever did we can only go by the rules we know about. --LemmingUser Lemming64 sigicon.png 22:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Rgr...use both. Will do.--Thor79User-thor79.pngTalk 05:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the EULA covers fan created derivative works. - BeX iawtc 06:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Will we have to edit images with the {{user image}} tag and also add {{screenshot}} tag to it? Fall 06:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The user image template states that licensing terms are unaffected, and links to a page that details copyright on any content from Guild Wars (basically anything original is GFDL and anything from GW is still copyright to ANet). I don't think both are necessary, although it wouldn't hurt to have something more specific added to the copyright page about derivative works (especially fan art that is inspired by GW and uses characters, armor, etc, but is made from scratch). - BeX iawtc 11:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

New Image Category Possible?

Would it be possible to make like a {{special image}} category for images like Image:128x64.png Image:Any-faded-large.png Image:Any-tango-icon-20.png Image:Assassin 20.png, the category would help sort out all the special icons and small images that are used in multiple things, I think it would really help in keeping the Special:Uncategorizedimages page cleaned up and help in making these things easier to find. Fall 20:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

No need for a template to do that.. Just add categories manually.. poke | talk 20:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
How would I start the category? Fall 20:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Think of a good name, and simply add it Category:Special images for example. poke | talk 20:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I think everything is done correctly, Template:Special_images and Category:Special_images Fall 21:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Please don't use a template for that, just add [[Category:Special images]], please. Also note that we have other image categories for flags and profession icons. poke | talk 21:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
So i can add them just by using [[Category:Special images]]? and thnx for letting me know :) also thnx for the info on the flag cats and things its a big help Fall 21:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)