File talk:2009 August Kodan Iceberg.jpg

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Originally uploaded by Santax, from the second page of this topic. Erasculio 12:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Move[edit]

Gonna move this back, this is from the CA forums and not capped from the trailer - since they are from around the same time I'd support it being in the trailer category, but I think it'd be best to leave the filename as it is. --Santax (talk · contribs) 17:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It is from the trailer. It may not be a screenshot captured by an user from the trailer, but it is an image saw in the trailer and made available at the same time as the trailer, from the same source (as you mentioned, Arena Net). If that's confusing it may be worthwhile to undo this edit, as the "captured" wasn't in the trailer template originally. Erasculio 19:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
That's all true, but it still isn't capped from the trailer. We aren't renaming every single piece of concept art that appeared in the trailer. Same applies to Rata Sum.jpg and Charr Industrial City.jpg. I can't see how this is productive - it's obstructive in that the full filename can no longer be seen from thumbnails, too. Most of the moves I can sort of see the sense in, but this just seems more obsessive-compulsive than actually useful. --Santax (talk · contribs) 13:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The point of stating it's from the trailer is to tell users how the image is old, and thus may not actually reflect what the subject of the screenshot looks now, as well as date when the image is from, so it's possible to see the evolution of the game's graphics over time - and the name you propose for those files don't tell users any of that. Whether it's something I capped from the trailer or Arena Net capped from the trailer doesn't really matter. I could simply take screenshots from the trailer showing the exact same scenes, given how the screenshots are exact copies from the trailer (and are probably images from the trailer, given when and how they were given to us), but that would be a waste of resources.
Also, there is no thumbnail of this image. The only category the file you want to replace this with is in, "File:Kodan_Iceberg.jpg", has no thumbnails, as already explained to you.
I could give you a very long explanation with other reasons why I'm renaming this. Forgive me for being tired, however, of having to defend every little minutiae for any change made here. Having this discussion (and some others) at all is what sounds "obsessive-compulsive". Erasculio 15:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
A wiki is a collaborative project. There are times for being bold, and there are times for seeing what other contributors think of your ideas so you can find an arrangement that everyone is comfortable with. I'm not sure what the point of linking to the Rytlock talk page was, I explained that I was having a particularly bad day and apologised. I really don't think I'm being unreasonable here :/ --Santax (talk · contribs) 16:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Twice you have completely ignored all the (many) arguments I have presented. I should just undo everything you have done and ignore your actions, as you have ignored my words. Are you going to try to defend the idea that your file names are better than mine, or do you expect me to accept the change "because you said do"? Erasculio 18:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, your arguments must not be convincing enough because I still just don't see the point. There is a date/time thing on the page that gives the date and time the image was uploaded. That's a much easier way of judging when something was made available, and it can be done for everything, rather than just trailer content. This page is an obvious exception, but that's only because you re-uploaded it here because you would rather use this unnecessary and overcomplicated way of finding the upload date than the way that is built into the wiki. Does anybody else have an opinion (or even care) about this, by the way, I'd like to maybe get some outside opinions? --Santax (talk · contribs) 19:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, so you don't realize what's going to happen when the game is released, and people begin uploading pictures of the [[:File:Kodan Iceberg.jpg|Kodan Iceberg]], and end with multiple versions of the same file name because everything has just a generic name?
You also don't realize what's going to happen when people stop to wonder why what they see on the [[:File:Kodan Iceberg.jpg|Kodan Iceberg]] file is not what they see in game, and then try to discuss why the file is "wrong"?
You also can't stop to think how, once the game is live and we have hundreds of screenshots, expecting people to check the date of each individual file by clicking on it is not going to work?
You also haven't managed to figure out how every other image from the trailer follows the same naming convention, except the four images that you claim are not from the trailer, regardless of how those exact same screens are visible in it and the files have been made available at the same time the trailer was?
And, lastly, you can't grasp how the single reason why you are defending your naming scheme is because you think the current one, which actually describes what the file is, is too complex?
Please, spare me the "your arguments are not convincing enough" crap and actually try to answer them. I have wasted way too much time with someone whose best "argument" so far is "because I said so". Erasculio 21:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, in order:
Ah, so you don't realize what's going to happen when the game is released, and people begin uploading pictures of the [[:File:Kodan Iceberg.jpg|Kodan Iceberg]], and end with multiple versions of the same file name because everything has just a generic name?
  • If you think the filename is too generic and could lead to conflicts, then you can bring that up on the talk page instead of moving every single image from the same timeframe to have the same prefix.
You also don't realize what's going to happen when people stop to wonder why what they see on the Kodan Iceberg file is not what they see in game, and then try to discuss why the file is "wrong"?
  • See above, what's wrong with "Kodan Iceberg early?" instead of "2009 august trailer Kodan Iceberg screenshot"?. It would certainly make Category:Screenshots more readable.
You also can't stop to think how, once the game is live and we have hundreds of screenshots, expecting people to check the date of each individual file by clicking on it is not going to work?
  • Once the game is live, people won't be using Category:Screenshots to find images, it'll be a licensing category. Currently it's mainly useful in finding the existing GW2 screenshots (which, incidentally, is why I still don't understand why we don't have thumbnails for them given their small volume). I also noticed that you'd taken the liberty of for some reason foregoing the official filenames for the images on the website for things like 2009 december website norn 02 screenshot.jpg, and tagging the old ones for deletion with no discussion whatsoever. It seems like you are aiming to have every single uploaded screenshot to be named chronologically. I hope you realise that this is completely unenforceable - it'd be like Guilds all over again.
You also haven't managed to figure out how every other image from the trailer follows the same naming convention, except the four images that you claim are not from the trailer, regardless of how those exact same screens are visible in it and the files have been made available at the same time the trailer was?
  • You haven't renamed all the concept art that appeared in the trailer - why? Afterall, they were visible in it and the files were made available at the same time the trailer was. The screenshots, like the concept art, are promotional images, not trailer caps.
And, lastly, you can't grasp how the single reason why you are defending your naming scheme is because you think the current one, which actually describes what the file is, is too complex?
  • As I said above, you could propose a move to something like "Kodan Iceberg early", if you feel that it needs something else in the name, but do you not think the current title is even a little verbose? And I'm not sure what you mean by "my" naming scheme - it's the one that everybody's been using since day one, and that nobody has a problem with except you.
As a final note, I'd appreciate it if you calmed your tone down a little. It's getting to the point where you're being downright rude. I'm not here to get in your way, we're both here because we want to create a resource for GW players.
I'm going to remove the deletion tags on the website images, place them on the new images and link to here to make sure that nothing gets deleted until consensus is reached and (hopefully) get some discussion going here. I think we are in need of a third opinion here, really. --Santax (talk · contribs) 22:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
If you think the filename is too generic and could lead to conflicts, then you can bring that up on the talk page instead of moving every single image from the same timeframe to have the same prefix.
See above, what's wrong with "Kodan Iceberg early?" instead of "2009 august trailer Kodan Iceberg screenshot"?. It would certainly make Category:Screenshots more readable.
  • For the third time, "Kodan Iceberg early" is too vague. It could be a piece of concept art, it could be a screenshot from one year before release, it could be from two years before release, and so on. Again for the third time, you cannot point why you think a descriptive title is bad other than "because I say so"; and Category:Screenshots would be perfectly readable (as everything is sorted by year, then month, then source, then what it's showing, then what it is) if not by the four images which you insist on keeping with the older name, which don't make sense there at all.
Once the game is live, people won't be using Category:Screenshots to find images, it'll be a licensing category.
  • Ah, of course. So your excuse to make an image category useless as a searching tool is because people won't use the image category to look for images. I can't believe I'm wasting my time pointing how ridiculous that is.
I also noticed that you'd taken the liberty of for some reason foregoing the official filenames for the images on the website for things like 2009 december website norn 02 screenshot.jpg
  • The so-called "official filenames" don't mean anything. We have no reason to keep those exact filenames, given how this isn't the GW2 website, it's the GW2 wiki.
It seems like you are aiming to have every single uploaded screenshot to be named chronologically. I hope you realise that this is completely unenforceable - it'd be like Guilds all over again.
  • As I have already said over and over, the point of mentioning the date on those screenshots is to let people know when the screenshots from before release are. Which means, after we reach release and/or open beta (which will be closer together), there will be no point in sorting things by date. This would be perfectly forceable if those trying to enforce it didn't have to waste their time with incredibly long and pointless discussions.
You haven't renamed all the concept art that appeared in the trailer - why?
  • Because I noticed someone undoing what is considerably slow work, and now I'm stuck trying to prevent said work from being undone for no good reason before I can actually advance and rename all those many concept art pieces.
but do you not think the current title is even a little verbose?
  • So you are costing me this much time because you think the current filenames are "a little verbose"? Right.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "my" naming scheme - it's the one that everybody's been using since day one, and that nobody has a problem with except you.
  • You mean, nobody tried to fix until now because it's too much work (or rather, it's too much work to do it, obviously not to undo it). The image categories are a mess.
As a final note, I'd appreciate it if you calmed your tone down a little.
  • No. Not only you are being a massive waste of time, but I was being respectful and avoiding to change anything you have made, until this comment:
I'm going to remove the deletion tags on the website images, place them on the new images and link to here to make sure that nothing gets deleted until consensus
  • So you are adding delete tags on new images "to make sure that nothing gets deleted"? Do I have to tell you how ridiculous that is? Do you understand what adding a delete tag on something means?
So no, I'm not going to be respectful anymore. Erasculio 22:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
(ec)I'll respond to most of this tomorrow if I can be bothered, but I just want to make it known that the reason I added the deletion tags to make sure nothing gets deleted is because you weren't encouraging discussion - you just added a deletion tag and said "renamed". If someone were to see that, for all they know it's already been decided on because they see no disagreement on that particular talk page, or the discussion would be spread across several talk pages rather than in one place, where it needs to be. That's all I did, made sure that people knew that there was a discussion going on. But it seems you've now reverted all my edits - are you sure you understand what adding a delete tag means? Consensus is an important principle in wikis, you need to make sure you remember that. --Santax (talk · contribs) 23:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
"That's all I did" - not really. You added delete tags to a considerably large number of images because you are questioning if they should be deleted or not, at the same time you removed delete tags from a considerably large number of images because you are questioning if they should be deleted or not; I'm not sure if this was due to ignorance of hypocrisy. I wouldn't have undone any edit if you had simply removed the delete tags, but how that's definitely not "all" you did...Don't try to hide behind "consensus"; trying to make changes in the middle of a discussion that is making very clear how there isn't any consensus is disrespectful, to say the least. Erasculio 23:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations. All those images were now deleted simply because you failed to link the tags to this discussion, where Felix would have seen that actually, not everybody agrees with it. Still don't understand why I made those edits? You've shown a complete disregard for protocol (and basic manners) and forced this ridiculous system onto the wiki. I hope you're prepared to move every image that's uploaded from now until release, because I doubt most users will catch on to this system. --Santax (talk · contribs) 13:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Again you didn't address my points (removing tags and adding tags for the exact same purpose). Now that's a complete disregard for other people's point of view, as you have mostly ignored everything I have said. Of course I'm ready to move every image, as long as a certain someone doesn't try to undo every change claiming that names like "File:Screenshot 9 4.jpg" are better than what we have now. And why the notice about where this discussion continues at the top of this section? The link is at the bottom, where it should be. Erasculio 13:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
At what point did I say "Screenshot 9 4.jpg" was better than what we have now? Stop putting words into my mouth. And I didn't undo every change, just the ones to images that weren't actually from the trailer, and linking to this discussion so a sysop would have both sides of the argument.
Actually, you know what, I'm done with this. I've tried to be reasonable with you, you're a good contributor and I have no problem with you as a person but it seems you have your own little personal vendetta against me. I only put the link at the top to aid navigation (isn't aiding navigation what this whole discussion is about?), I didn't contradict you, I didn't remove your comment from the bottom, in fact the way it looks to me you only removed it because it was me that added it. You have fun making life difficult for other contributors, I'm out. --Santax (talk · contribs) 14:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
(Reset indent) Hullo. :) What an angry discussion to try and join in on. Please don't hurt me. -_-
I would rather a file like this get labelled KodanIceberg_PreRelease or PreAlpha_KodanIceberg to differentiate from actual in game images we will get later and use categories to identify it as appearing in a trailer, that it is prerelease image and a screenshot (if it is indeed one) than get too caught up on complex names. If we start using the name to try and capture all of what the image is, we're setting ourselves up to rename all of the images each time our naming convention changes.
Perhaps the trailer template should be changed to a more generic prerelease template, one which says (roughly) "this var was gathered before game release so may look different to the released game"? -- Aspectacle User Aspectacle.png 23:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
That would still be vague, though. Take a screenshot of Guild Wars 1 from the original reveal of the game, from the World Preview Event, and from the Beta Weekends before release - all those were from before the release of the game, yet those screenshots are very different from each other. Having the date of those images on something easy to sort such as the categories (and thus in the name) allows people to see the evolution of the game through time, as opposed to just going from "before" and "after".
For that reason, using this name convention after release would make no sense. Which is a good thing, as it would be something hard to enforce if we had many screenshots, but for now, with only a few screenshots from trailers being released every three or four months, it's something very easy to manage (or rather, would be easy to manage if we had the "move" feature, which still has not been installed in this wiki for common users).
And remember that, before my changes, there was no naming convention. Finding an image was a nightmare. Erasculio 23:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Sure, they are difficult to find even now with so few images. But I think good categories and making references to those categories more accessable on the related pages would be a better solution than worrying about the name too much. Although I would rather the 'screenshot' part got dropped, virtually every image in gww was a screenshot. -- Aspectacle User Aspectacle.png 23:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Here it's the opposite - most images are actually concept art. If we weren't stating which is what, we would end with half a dozen "Rata Sum.jpg" files that would be concept art, which would be a mess when the game were released and users tried to upload dozens of screenshots named "Rata Sum.jpg".
Anyway, what category system would you propose to solve this problem? Erasculio 23:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
If you have more than two images which fulfill a particular role no matter what naming scheme is used you will need to be creative about the naming to ensure they will not collide. Neither a category nor a naming scheme will prevent this.
What a simple naming convention would ensure that concept and pre-release images don't collide into an image name we'd rather have for an actual in-game screenshot. A category scheme will ensure that no matter what the image is called it might be associated with particular content. They can be used together.
I would just rather that a category scheme is used in main to enable easy content association to take complexity from the naming. It is easier to recategorise an image than rename it, especially at the moment. :) Perhaps we move the concepts from the base name so that when the game comes out we don't loose them to mistaken overwrites, but I'm not sure there is a lot of value in going beyond this. -- Aspectacle User Aspectacle.png 00:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Let's continue the discussion here, I have explained my current proposal there with more details. Erasculio 00:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.guildwars2.com/index.php?title=File_talk:2009_August_Kodan_Iceberg.jpg&oldid=1433076"