Category talk:ArenaNet concept art/Archive 01

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search


This category is a mess. We have images named like CorpseDragon (which is unlikely to be the real name of the concept art; I would expect it to be "Corpse Dragon" at least), Denravi4 (yet we don't have Denravi1, 2 or 3), Corrupted Orr (which is probably the true name of the piece, but if we get a screenshot of Orr we would have some naming problems) and File:2009 Gamescom concept art 39.jpg (which describes what the file is, but not what the image is showing).
I think we need a single naming convention for all images, which should also work for unnamed images that will likely be made available in the future. Which naming system you people think we should use? Erasculio 11:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps description (official name)? GWW uses the official names for each concept art, but I'm not really sure what we would do with unnamed ones (and we've had a fair few of those). If we do get naming conflicts later on between screenshots and concept art and the like, we could sort that out in future - I don't think something like "Corrupted Orr" is particularly troublesome.
I'm not sure we need all the 'gamescom concept art' images - a lot of them are already uploaded (and with better names), so we end up with duplicates of the same art. I think we could delete the duplicates (keeping the best versions of each obviously), move the others to better names, and then, if necessary, sub-categorise them. Speaking of which, I don't think we should call the trailer the "gamescom trailer" :P. --pling User Pling sig.png 13:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking more something like "description (concept art)", or "official name (concept art)", or "concept art: description" (although the latter would be really bad for sorting, I think). Adding something saying it's a piece of concept art would prevent having more than one thing with the same name later on (which may happen for example with the Druid piece of art). Would you prefer something like "Asura with golem (Zojja)"?
My only concern with removing the "gamescom concept art" name is how we would still be left without knowing what to do with unnamed images; I named everything "gamescom concept art" to deal with that problem, so I think it would be better to implement a system before doing away with the old one.
What would you like to rename the trailer? I chose "gamescom trailer" given how it was first shown at gamescom, but what would you prefer? "First trailer"? "Original trailer"? "August 2009 trailer"? Erasculio 14:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
official name (concept art), and when we're lacking an official name, description (concept art) would be fine. It might even be better without the brackets, i.e. name concept art.
"August 2009 trailer" sounds better to me, yeah. However, I think there could be better descriptions for the art shown in it, for example File:2009 Gamescom concept art 13.jpg could be Centaurs concept art.jpg. --pling User Pling sig.png 15:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Pling, however for the Aug09 trailer concept arts, I would prefer ending 'trailer concept art' or something like that. This would be to differ other art, for instance File:Divinity's Reach concept art.jpg vs Divinity's Reach trailer concept art.jpg. Also, instead of these long constructions, we might add only CA and TCA or something similar. · LOQUAY · 16:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of abbreviations which aren't (near-)instantly clear - I prefer we write out "concept art" fully. --pling User Pling sig.png 18:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, it's not that hard to write out. Just make a concept art template, {{concept}}, for the lazies. Felix Omni Signature.png 19:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, abbreviations not, then, it was just a suggestion. I'd also prefer the full naming. · LOQUAY · 20:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't really see the problem with using the filenames as uploaded by ANet (that said, often two identical or near-identical images will be uploaded with different names, like The Golemancer and, although the trailer concepts are named annoyingly (a description would be more appropriate than numbers) and need their own subcat. I think we also need something in place to separate GW2 and OGW concepts, we already have Factions and Nightfall concepts on the wiki. Also also, for duplicates, we should use the highest resolution (unless incomplete) non-trailer concept piece when possible. --Santax (talk · contribs) 12:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
What do you think about using the formats...
  • "official name" concept art, for the images with names, but actually using spaces (so CharrSphere would become "Charr Sphere concept art")
  • "description" concept art, for the nameless images (so 2009 Gamescom concept art 04 would become "Zhaitan's undead army concept art")
? Erasculio 12:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
That could work, but moving or re-uploading every image each time it is "officially" released could be irritating. I take it that would mean removing numbers from images like Denravi4? I think we should probably hold off calling filenames "official", 'cause sometimes similar or identical concept art will have different names from different sources. How would you go about making this distinction, through filenames or categories? I'm opposed to having super long filenames, especially because the distinction would have to be at the beginning of the filename to effectively sepate them within a cat, and that would be obtrusive unless it was an acronym, which as somebody said above can be equally annoying. --Santax (talk · contribs) 18:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I think we could just pick the "most official" name for an image, if it's given multiple file names. Say an image showing a Druid is made available from multiple sources with the filenames Denravi5, GW2-5 and The Druid; I would suggest renaming it to the latter, as that's the most descriptive filename. Right now that would be annoying to do since we lack the "move" command for images, but once that's implemented, renaming files will be easy.
Most of the "official" names have been small, so I think the only files which could end with big file names would be those in which we describe the content (like my example above). For those, it would be just a matter of using a small description (Zhaintan's army concept art?). Erasculio 18:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) So, going back to this: the mostly accepted idea IMO was to go with what Pling mentioned in the fourth paragraph: name concept art.jpg. Relatively short file names, which we would further divide through categories, and the name makes clear that they are concept arts, avoiding conflict with images uploaded latter by other users. Any disagreements? Erasculio 14:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Xeeron 18:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
That scheme sounds fair enough. As long as you're doing all the renaming. ;) -- Aspectacle User Aspectacle.png 21:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
That sounds fine to me. As for the GW1 concept art (which I think should only be on the wiki if we need it for an article), I'm for having a category as well-- a generic GW1 category (not Nightfall, Prophecies, and Factions categories).-- Shew 17:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
What do you think about a very generic "Guild Wars 1 images" category for screenshots and concept art from the first game? Erasculio 18:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
A doubt there will be a lot of GW1 images, so yeah, I think that'd be good.-- Shew 18:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I think we are going to have some discussion on the best name for a few files, so in order to avoid giving too much work for the sysops (given how each title change requires the sysop to delete the image under the old name), I think I'll wait to do most of the renaming once the "move" feature has been installed here. I have sent a small reminder about this to Emily. Erasculio 10:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

New concepts

ANet have posted some new concepts here, trouble is they aren't loading for me and I can't access them through the page source, can someone with a CA account give it a look and see if that works? --Santax (talk · contribs) 22:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, there's a load of concepts here. At least one of them is definitely related to GW2, can we assume the others are? --Santax (talk · contribs) 21:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I see someone holding a bow and a dagger.-- Shew 23:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Apparently it already exists.-- Shew 18:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey were is the Art for the Currupted looking Shadow Knight?--Knighthonor 00:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I need sme help finding the Norn Slayer concept art. Anybody know were that been moved?--Knighthonor 18:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
The first your looking for is File:UndeadGuardian.jpg, the second "norn slayer" I have never heard of, but you may want to look in Category:Norn concept art. -- Konig/talk 19:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I Found New Concept Art But How Do I Add It?

I found some new Concept art, that doesnt seem to be on this wiki. How do I add it? The preceding unsigned comment was added by Knighthonor (talkcontribs).

Click "upload file" in the toolbox on the left. Upload it with the name that the artist used for the file + "concept art" at the end of it. In the description, put {{arenanet image|concept art}}, and if you know who the artist is, add [[Category:Art by Artist's name]].-- Shew 19:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Also don't forget that if it is of a specific race to add [[Category:<race name> concept art]]. -- Konig/talk 19:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Did I do this right? Found this art.--Knighthonor 04:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Almost. :P You didn't need to put "<" and ">" around norn (Konig just used them to show you that you insert the name of the race), and you should put "concept art" at the end of the name. You may or may not have known that the concept art is by Kekai Kotaki, but don't forget to include the artist category if you do know.-- Shew 04:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Mixed Concepts

Why are there GW1 concept pieces in the GW2 wiki? This seems wrong. GW2 concept art should be the only concept art. It would be somewhat difficult to sort all the art pieces but they really need to be moved. Agreements? --Ravencroft0 12:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Some GW1 concept works are used for user spaces, while others, such as all of the god concept works, are used for main space because there is no GW2 concept work for that topic. It's mainly to make the pages less bland. Feel free to put up unused gw1 concept art, and the move remnants for that matter (since not all of them were deleted) for deletion. -- Konig/talk 21:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't feel any should be deleted, but just moved to a different location. And I've had trouble with moving pages in the past... >.<... --Ravencroft0 05:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
All GW1 images - concept art or screen shot - are in Category:Guild Wars 1 images. Concept arts belong in the concept art category. This isn't [[Category:Guild Wars 2 concept art]] this is [[Category:ArenaNet concept art]]. -- Konig/talk 06:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I thought the point of the category (and {{GW1 image}}) was to put all GW1 images in there and keep them separate from the other categories which should be used for GW2 only. I'm not really sure. -- pling User Pling sig.png 15:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Organizing filenames

Most filenames here don't follow the Image formatting guidelines. I would like to rename all images which are not following that pattern, but there are a couple things I would like to discuss with the community before doing so.
In a list like this, I think it would be useful to have images of the same subject close to each other, so they are easier to find. While I don't think it would be a good idea to go to extremes to reinforce this (no "Architecture human concept art.jpg" and "Architecture charr concept art.jpg" instead of the more natural "Human architecture" phrasing, for example), I think it would be reasonable to make changes in order to keep similar concepts together when fitting.
We also have multiple images of the same subject. A few are redundant and should be deleted, but most are either slightly different images with very different purposes (a white background and a transparent background, for example) or very different images of the same concept (the different concept art pieces for a given profession). Instead of doing some gymnastic to find coherent different names for more or less the same thing, I propose we adopt an informal "Subject 01 concept art" and "Subject 02 concept art" naming scheme for such things.
For example, instead of File:Ranger concept art.jpg and File:Kekai Kotaki Ranger concept art.jpg, we would rename those "Ranger 01 concept art" and "Ranger 02 concept art". We would still keep the original filenames (the "Ranger" designation in both cases), while keeping images of the same subject close together and with a filename easy to understand. Erasculio 21:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I like this and I am for it. I believe it would do a lot better and be easier to keep up with. Ariyen 22:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
An example of what I am talking about:
In both cases, I have followed the same order: the original piece of concept art, the real concept art (as made available at the Professions page at the GW2 website), the darkened concept art from the image with all professions, the highlited concept art from the image with all professions, a derivative of said image, and the other piece of concept art found at the Professions page at the GW2 website. Erasculio 00:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Changing the category tree

The category "Concept art by artist" lists the concept art pieces by artists, but it's different from most other categories in the wiki as it actually repeats content from its main category; in other words, a given piece of concept art will be both within the "ArenaNet concept art" category and the "Concept art by artist" category, which is a subcategory of the former. This kind of repetition is something we usually avoid, but in this context I think it actually makes sense: knowing who is the artist reponsible for a given image is something important (and so we document it, and by documenting it we may make artist galleries and so on), but it's not the most important factor deciding how we should group the images. Someone who's looking for pieces of concept art following a given theme could not browse through the "Concept art by artist" category, for example, as each artist does a bit of everything.
I would like to apply the same reasoning to the "Game Developers Conferences images" category. Knowing the source of a given piece of concept art is interesting, and documenting it is useful, but currently it's the main factor in how the concept art images are grouped. Such grouping doesn't really make sense, considering how the GDC had a bit of everything, instead of focusing on a given theme for their images.
I would like, then, to apply the following:

  • Make a new subcategory within this category, "Concept art by source"
  • Move the "Game Developers Conferences images" and "Guild Wars 2 Teaser Trailer concept art" categories to within the "Concept art by source" category
  • Add to all images within the "Game Developers Conferences images" and "Guild Wars 2 Teaser Trailer concept art" categories the "ArenaNet concept art" category, similar to what is done with the images within the "Concept art by artist" category
  • Keep the "HoM rewards concept art", "Merchandise concept art" and "Professions reveal concept art" categories as they are, since the concept art pieces within them are unique, being different from the common images in the rest of the category

Between that and changing the filename of all images which currently lack a proper designation, that would make it easier for users to browse this category looking for a specific kind of concept art image. Erasculio 01:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You know I've kind of given up trying to keep up with all of the stuff you're doing with the concept art, Eras. :P I think it is good to use the categories to group the images into useful/interesting sets so what you suggest sounds pretty reasonable. Though I have to point out the more complicated you get the less likely it is you'll get us concept art plebians to keep up and do what you want when we upload images. -- aspectacle User Aspectacle.png 02:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Sigh, yet another reorganisation of everything? Our categories are becoming labyrinths that only Erasculio and perhaps a couple of others know how to sort and organise. I've also stopped trying to keep up with them... which is why I'm not going to comment about this specific one. pling User Pling sig.png 13:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I no longer know where to put any image I upload, which is one reason I don't upload many. Perhaps you should create a category schematic so people actually know where these chains of categories come and go (visually). Perhaps said schematic could reside in Guild_Wars_2_Wiki:Image_formatting. While I ask, is that article still up to date with these new undetailed names of images? Venom20 User Venom20-icon-0602-sm-black.png 14:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The idea was actually to simplify it. If it's concept art - then it goes to the "ArenaNet concept art" category (this one), and that's it (as far as new images and most old images are concerned; a few will still be where they are Erasculio 16:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I hate labyrinths and confusions. I am confused with these changes, I was more related with half of them as their original names that gave detail as to what the image was and not the type.... I can understand the changes, but I get too confused with what you're doing. I was wondering why they couldn't just be put in a subcategory like Professions being Rangers, Warriors, etc. and the others being as you're renaming them to. I feel that'd been better suited actually... Would have saved a lot of troubles of having to correct images on pages, etc. too. It would also have been less confusion and less to scroll in one category... More-so use the "template" that's being used to do like delete does on gww where if someone adds speed,y, it goes to ths speedy section, Where as here if someone adds Warrior or Asura, etc. it'd go in that subsection instead of the main category. It'd not need all the name changing, nor changing on a lot of files, etc. which could possibly leave to red links. Ariyen 16:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) To further elaborate, the goal was to simplify. Today, when trying to upload a piece of concept art, someone would have to look at a minimum of 4 categories to be sure it's not a duplicate (this main category, the Teaser trailer subcategory, and the two GDC categories), and then wonder at which of those categories the image belongs. Mu suggestion is to keep (almost) all concept art images at the main concept art category - that's where people would upload images to (without having to worry about subcategories) and where people would look when trying to find a given image or search for duplicates.
The only images which would still be kept apart are limited, self contained categories: the HoM rewards images (which were limited, so people won't upload more of them), the Merchandise images (which are more pictures of real world objects than pieces of concept art, and thus are clearly set apart), and the professions reveal images (which are more often just shadows, instead of real pieces of concept art).
Renders follow the same pattern (just upload to the renders category) and screenshots will also follow the same pattern once the game is released (when there won't be any particular naming convention). The icon category and the animation category are the only confusing ones, IMO, and that's something hard to avoid in those cases.
The real issue on this category is how to organize the images, so filenames are descriptive enough, related images are listed together, filenames are not too big and the system is not too complex. Erasculio 20:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

All the concept images I upload basically end up in one big category with out me having care about it too much? And I can see most of the concept art by following one link? That is simple and is therefore good. Ship it! :D
As a side to this I think with the images being displayed on the category page (as they are currently which I really like) the need for every image to have a carefully given descriptive name is not really required. An image says more than the name ever would. It is great to have these beautiful images on the wiki easily viewable by those who want to see them. -- aspectacle User Aspectacle.png 23:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I like the gallery view, too. Someone (I think it was poke) complained that it was too heavy for most users, but I really enjoy how it looks. I have changed it (at least for now) so it's actually possible to organize the images and remove duplicates.
Does anyone oppose to the changes I have proposed above? Again, it's a change aiming to make it easier to find and upload concept art. There's still an issue with filenames (I still think related images need to be together), but that's not really in the scope of what I'm proposing in this section. Erasculio 21:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
isn't this redundant? These GDC images are in Category:ArenaNet concept art and in Category:GDC 2010 March images. But Category:GDC_2010_March_images is just a subcategory of ArenaNet concept art (Category:GDC 2010 March images --> Category:Game Developers Conferences images --> Category:Concept art by source --> Category:ArenaNet concept art). My understanding is that an item should only be in 1 category, which should be the most specific subcategory. Venom20 User Venom20-icon-0602-sm-black.png 04:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
That's the first thing I mentioned in the first entry of this section : P Erasculio 09:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Well then, keep up the good work. I was loads tired and really should have just gone to bed. Venom20 User Venom20-icon-0602-sm-black.png 13:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, filenames

We could probably add an automatic system for uploading concept art now (something mixing the "Image use" with "License settings" seen here. The category system has been made simpler here but I'm still not happy with filenames.
Right now, filenames are a mess, in large part due to the Games Developer Conference images (many of which begin with "GDCsomething"), but also because related images are not grouped together, rather kept apart. "Fire Elemental.jpg" should be listed together with "Another Fire Elemental", IMO. My idea to move files so they're closer together, using different numbers for images showing the same thing ("Warrior 01", "Warrior 02", etc) has hit a problem: moving a file does not change how it's sorted. Which means, when "File: Another Fire Elemental" is moved to "File: Fire Elemental 02", it's still sorted in the category and in galleries as "Another Fire Elemental".
Now, that issue may be solved by adding a sorting key to each file, so it's sorted as we want it to be. However, if we are going to sort images through sorting keys, we don't necessarily have to rename all images, we could simply use sort keys to keep everything together. That would likely have to be done manually, though, and that's something which IMO isn't exactly intuitive.
Options (IMO):

  • Keep using the naming scheme I'm currently using ("Bla bla 01 concept art", "Bla bla 02 concept art"). We could make the concept art template automatically add a sorting key copying the filename. It's not the most intuitive thing in the world, but I believe that's something users would eventually get, and we would have all related images being displayed more or less close to each other.
  • Keep filenames as they were (just "Description concept art"), and manually add sorting keys so related images are displayed close to each other. This would make uploading concept art something extremely simple, but we would not only have to manually add all sorting keys, but also fix sorting keys for all images people upload, as it would be something very counter intuitive.

Opinions? Neither of those two options are really pleasing me. Erasculio 19:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have been experimenting with this issue. Here are some results:
  • I have named the light armor concept art images as "Light armor 01 concept art" and so on. They are nicely grouped together at the concept art category. Same with the heavy armor concept art images; the only issue is that the heavy armor images are not grouped together with the light armor images, but oh well.
  • I tried the other approach with the weapon concept art. Instead of naming them something like "Weapon 01 concept art (axe)", I kept the simpler names ("Axe concept art") but used a sort key to group them all together (they are sorted under "Weapon axe", for example). I liked the result - the weapons are nicely grouped together, and the images are so similar that it's clear they are part of a single group.
  • I did something similar with the armor concept art images (the ones that were not classified under heavy armor or light armor). I kept the original (and/or official) filenames, such as "Dragon armor concept art", but sorted them together using "Armor 01" and so on as sort keys. Well, it sucks. Having those armor images grouped together is still better than leaving them scattered, IMO, but using so different names with sort keys doesn't really work - it's extremely counter intuitive, and someone who looks at the concept art category is more likely going to wonder why isn't stuff being sorted properly than understand that the armor images are grouped together.
So I still don't know how to solve this issue. Some images have been taken care of, but I don't really know what to do with images that have an official name, yet belong to a group of images. The "Dragon armor" concept art is an example - should we rename it "Armor 01 concept art (dragon armor)"? Leave it "Dragon armor concept art" but keep the sort key so it's together with the other armor images, as it is right now (and IMO sucks)? Or do something else? Erasculio 20:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Maybe just name 'em Armor 01 concept art, without further adressing what they are about until we know its classification? :) - Infinite - talk 12:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
The concept art is in gallery format right? If it is, then you don't need to be descriptive in the title, because you can see a thumbnail of whatever you want to look at (and a full size version is a click away). Continuing on the "armor" discussion: you could always do things like "Armor Light 01" "Armor Heavy 13" or "Armor Medium 42." Unclassified armors could just be "Armor 34." I think this kind of boils back down to the entire wiki wide category tree. (I'm going to run with that for a little, and see where it goes.) "Consumable Alcohol Eggnog," "Weapon Axe Ghastly," etc. are things that would come up with that naming system. Here's a thought: why not use that naming system and do sort tags? Then you could type in "Axe image" if you wanted to see various axe skins, or you could type in "ghastly image" to see all of the weapons in the ghastly set. No matter how we do this, it will probably have to be some conglomeration of both. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 00:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I suggest this naming scheme. While it's not finished, I think what's currently there is enough to give an idea of what I mean. Sorting tags would be used only in a few exceptions (Destiny's Edge pictures to keep everyone together, and the weapon pictures). Erasculio 11:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I assume the old file names in there are sort of like your check-list? Other than that that's a very nice set-up. :) - Infinite - talk 11:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Since this is going to be a bit more involved than I had guessed, I have made a new subpage at my userspace specifically for this. I'm in doubt about a few images, though: do you people want me to tag these images:
...As pieces of armor concept art? I have tagged this as armor concept art since it has the focus on an individual piece that ArenaNet usually uses only for armor, while things like this were previously tagged as armor concept art and may be so since they show characters of both genders wearing similar outfits. But the images above could in theory be just NPCs... What do you people think, "armor concept art" or a more generic "character concept art"? Erasculio 22:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The first one of those three is simple; players can join the Order of Whispers, so that is likely armor concept art for those players that have. The other three are confusing the heck out of me. The third one sounds like it's focussing on the staff, but then again, the staff is partly covered by the girl. Sword pose might just be concept art for animating sword pathing, but again, there's a lot of focus elsewhere. I can't really tell what to do with them... But I think the Ranger one might be armor concept art. Can only be remotely sre about the first one, though. :\ - Infinite - talk 11:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I swear I don't know how people reached the conclusion that the first image is actually armor from the Order of Whispers. Was it the hood, or is there some meaning to the round symbol seen at the corner? Erasculio 12:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Hood and mask resemble Guild Wars 1 Order NPCs. Whereas the symbol is (veeeery) vaguely seen here. Nothing is strong proof, but the hood and mask combination is a give-away, somewhat. - Infinite - talk 12:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)