Template talk:Arenanet image

Discussion

I have slightly altered the text in the tag Fox 05:19, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Updated. Make any further changes to the actual template. We can change or revert anything unsatifactory. - BeXoR 05:46, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I reverted the changes to style. I really don't like the 2px dashed style. Dashed has to be used carefully in order to look professional, and I don't think using it for an infobox looks right (I'm aware it's used on at least one other). I also removed the background colour of the inner cell. I realise it looks a bit boring when the box is entirely white, but I think that colouring just one cells makes it look like it's a work in progress.

If anyone would be willing to transform the ANet JPEG into a translucent PNG then we could use any colour we liked for the entire table, which would be far more appealing to me.

As far as the changes to content go, I think they are unnecessarily verbose, but I don't think there's much wrong with that. LordBiro 06:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I created that "other template" based on something I had seen at wikipedia, so I don't think that looking professional is really a concern. I've seen a few of their templates with 1px dashed lines. I think it helps to separate the notice from the rest of the content and make it more noticeable. - BeXoR 06:23, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I've not seen any with dotted or dashed lines on Wikipedia, but I am not a Wikipedia-expert! Please, if you see any templates like that on Wikipedia let me know so I can go over there and give them a piece of my mind :P

Since these are only showing up on image pages I could forgive them for having dashed borders. I really didn't like the half-coloured background though. LordBiro 06:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Moved period

It's such a minor change so I haven't reverted it, but why put a period inside a link? It bothers me! LordBiro 11:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree, the period is not part of the link, so in essence it's web grammar and context is wrong. --Jamie 12:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Because it then appears an inch in front of the end of the sentence to which it refers! As for "web grammar"... hm, lol. I spent ten minutes trying to scrape the speck of dirt off my screen before I realised it was a randomly floating period. Fox 06:37, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I suppose you're the same type of person who uses tipex to correct errors in microsoft word documents? it would be the same as doing this. maybe? because the actual link belongs to the word and not the sentence. That's pretty clear... see what I did there? :) you did it too... --Jamie 07:20, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm quite annoyed, Fox, that you reverted my edit after posting here. It's quite obvious that you moved the period to inside the link when you knew full well that at least 2 other people were opposed to it. While it's not policy yet it violates only revert once.

Anyway, whether it looks wrong or not, in my opinion having the period outside of the link is correct, and correctness is more important than appearance. LordBiro 07:43, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Balderdash, there is no "correctness" applicable to "web grammar". As for the period being part of the link, it isn't actually in the link, it is in the piped text describing the link. Frankly, you can move it, delete it, whatever you like - if you want your templates to look amateur and badly laid out then that's your choice. Jamie - 1) it is nothing like that which you have done there, and 2) keep your personal attacks to yourself - you know nothing about any aspect of what "type of person" I may be and if you think a wiki is a place to discuss that then you are sadly mistaken Fox 08:26, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Calm down, keep it civil there, it is not a personal attack as you called it, that would be aiming the comment directly at you

"You are the type..." which is not the same as "I suppose you are...", there is a difference between that. As for the "balderdash" a wiki is a community project and you sir have taken your opinion (despite it being opposed by two different people in the talk page) and reverted the page, which as Biro says breaks one of the policys. --Jamie 08:33, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

It is exactly the same thing. It is your false supposition of fact, aimed at mocking or belittling another in some way. Sarcasm is and always has been the lowest form of wit. And as LordBiro actually points out, it is NOT policy yet. Get your facts right. Fox 08:41, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

it still does not change the fact of the actual thing you have done to the article, while you stated your reason for changing it there is no one else who agreed with your statement to justify the action of reverting something, whether it is policy or not, It does not make what you did anymore or less valid. --Jamie 08:48, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Firstly I should say that I do not agree with your attitude, Jamie. Your initial response appeared aggressive, but I did not comment on that.

I am disappointed that Fox decided to make the change while aware that some people had concerns over it. I have no problem with discussing the issue, and I may even be persuaded that it makes sense, but making your changes regardless does not win any points with me.

"it isn't actually in the link, it is in the piped text describing the link" I don't know if this was directed at me and I don't know why this was spelt out. No one so far has said anything that seems to imply otherwise.

I have not used the term web grammar, but there are rules laid out by the w3c that give guidance on the best way to present links. For example, links should usually be nouns and not verbs i.e. not "click here" (to be absolutely clear, I mean the title attribute of 'A' elements, not the href attribute). I don't know if periods are covered explicitly by these rules but it would make sense to me not to have punctuation in links. Links are titles of the things that they link to. If I link to "Warner Bros." then it makes sense to have a period in the link because it is part of their title. If I link to "GFDL" it does not make sense to have a period in the link since there is no period in the title. LordBiro 10:03, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I understand that the period doesn't seem to belong in the link in ordinary circumstances, and that usually when writing a link such as the above the period would be left outside the ] - but for some reason, it won't sit next to the end of the sentence and I decided it was aesthetically more pleasing to have the period sit with the text rather than float ahead of it some way. Now, I really don't mind what happens to it now - frankly, I don't think it is even necessary as there is no text following it. I moved it only because it looked better on the template even though it may look hideous on the template code. I don't want to get into a big fight here about what is after all only a dot. Feel free to place it anywhere, I am retiring from this discussion. LordBiro, no - it wasn't aimed at anybody in particular, I was merely pointing it out. Ok, you guys do whatever with the dot, so we acn all get back to the coalface of the wiki :) Jamie - I apologise if my reaction to your comments seemed harsh. lordBiro - i apologise for re-reverting your edit. Fox 10:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

That period should be outside the link. I personally get irrationally upset whenever I end up on some webpage where the "designer" has sloppily linkified something using the mouse to select it, and has included some punctuation mark in the link. Usually that also breaks the link, which means you need to manually edit the address bar to delete the superfluous punctuation mark. Even though that period here doesn't break the link, it's as much misplaced as those are; many people (myself included) do notice and make use of small details like that while browsing. Having that period there is plain wrong. Whether it looks good or not is another issue, far more trivial than presenting correct information. If you want you can completely get rid of the period for all I care, just don't leave it inside that link. (A page of discussion over a mere period, fun.) --Dirigible 10:26, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for your reply, Fox. It has put me in a much better mood! :) LordBiro 10:30, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Biro, I didn't say you agreed with my attitude, but I apologise also for what I said, I really didn't think I said anything offensive I'm sure I've seen that kinda thing put on the wiki and it was passed by. I did find Fox's post quite grating but there we go, very decent of you to apologise there Fox. --Jamie 10:37, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Purpose

At first I thought this image was only for official images, such as screenshots/fansite kit images from ArenaNet and the Guild Wars website. However, I've seen some pictures (such as the picture of our Spoilery Undead Friend labelled as being an ANet image. Unless ANet was drunk that day, I don't think they would have released to a public an image like such). File:Esig2.jpg Eldin 19:50, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Any image from the game should use it. All images from the game are copyrighted by ANet. --Rainith 22:00, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Uh... wouldn't it be easier to just declare somewhere that "All images from the game are copyrighted by Anet"? Considering that MOST images here are in-game screenshots, I feel it's pointless to add tags to the majority. Why not just tag the minority with something like {{GFDL image}}? As a side question, does that mean screenshots used in GuildWiki are illegal since most of them didn't actually get any Anet permission... -- ab.er.rant 21:41, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I think every image should be tagged with some sort of copyright disclaimer, because it's all to easy to find the image and not read the licensing terms. I doubt that the majority of the people who view this site have read the license page. - BeX 00:50, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

I think screenshots should have their own template. -- Gordon Ecker 05:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I just made template:screenshot, however it looks nearly identical to template:arenanet image. -- Gordon Ecker 00:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the color to make the two easier to distinguish. -- Gordon Ecker 00:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Modify template?

As mentioned over at Category talk:ArenaNet images, I think it would be simpler to just use this single template; but to add a variable to it. That way {{Arenanet image|screenshot}} could appear slightly different, and group to its own subcategory. Likewise, similar switches could be added for {{Arenanet image|render}}, {{Arenanet image|icon}}, {{Arenanet image|concept art}} etc. This way only one template is actually needed - and the images can be organized better into sub-categories instead of all lumped together into Category:ArenaNet images. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If you do decide to go down this route, might I suggest you alter the contents of {{screenshot}} to {{arenanet image|screenshot}}? It might go without saying :) LordBiro 18:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI: This same topic is being discussed at Guild_Wars_Wiki_talk:Copyrights#Images_revisited. I I had seen it there, I wouldn't have restarted the idea here. To simplify things and keep all discussions in one place, I suggest all further replies go to that talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)