User talk:Deathdealers747/archive 1

Um... the images you're uploading have very small dimensions. They're unreadable at that size. Was that your intention? —Dr Ishmael 03:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is my intention that way it does not interrupt the page format, while still providing very, very use-able information. You're not meant to read the information, for a Skill Challenge for example, you're just meant to see where it is, how to get there, etc. In fact, some total retard, recently removed my screenshot claiming that 640 x 480 was too big of a picture that it ruined the format of the page.

We can resize images within the wiki, like the one I put at the right here. Don't worry about resizing them yourself. —Dr Ishmael 03:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Consider the following things:

1. These images do not show the path. They just show the vista and, sometimes, part of the path from below. This gives no benefit.
2. You're cropping and resizing the images to be so small even when looking at the image alone it is impossible to even see the context of the image.
3. The formatting issue was how you were putting the images on the articles, not their sizes, though UI is bothersome as is the PC in them.

In short, please stop uploading these images as you are presently because they're not beneficial to see. People could not make out what they're of, let alone what they're meant to be about. To anyone but you (as you know what they're meant to show - something which they don't, btw), it's just an image of the vista itself. Konig/talk 03:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I'd appreciate it if you don't call me a "total retard". That's insulting - to retards, that is. Konig/talk 03:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Examples of what you're trying to do, when done "properly" (read: subjective term): File:Guildwars2 flame temple tombs puzzle.png File:Wall Breach Blitz map.png As well as the images on Wall Breach Blitz under the spoiler tag. Konig/talk 03:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

---

• What size should I make them?
• If you want me to use an external editor that requires, clearly, extensive coding interface that I am completely unskilled to do, then you're going to need to help me every step of the way, because this site needs to be made much more simplistic to users that suck at computer language.
• I am completely baffled that you are unable to see a little blue arrow pointing up or a big (yes, big) bright light that points straight up into the sky with a floating paper in the middle of it and not be able to recognize what that is (despite clearly describing what it is) and what it's purpose is (again, despite, clearly describing it's purpose - both on the image description and the vista description). I had 2 in-game friends of mine personally say that they loved my pictures and that it helped them a bunch, so, again, I'm baffled that you cannot understand what the picture is showing.
• As for resizing them, it takes, literally, 3sec to resize them via IrFanView.

--Deathdealers747 04:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Upload them in the original size. Like I said, the wiki can downsize any image on-the-fly. —Dr Ishmael 05:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Dude, the size of the original picture would, literally, take up the entire screen (and more if you have a smaller screen than me). I play the game with 1600 x 900 - I reduced the picture to a better size for a reason, and the way you describe the wiki downsizing it's as if the wiki does it on its own, but a few of them I did upload in original size by accident and nothing was done on it's own. I do not know how to downsize a photo, I do not know how to write code to use an external editor, I do not know how to put arrows on a picture, I do not know these things and I do not know why these things have to be done just for a frickin wiki. --Deathdealers747 13:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You have to tell it what size to resize to, or to show as a thumbnail like the image above. Just go read this. —Dr Ishmael 14:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

[[File:User Deathdealers747 1064bfabf9926e66d301eda3ebdf4169.jpg|thumb|200px]] OK, I see now how to change the size. Thanks. Now, how do I get the arrows on the thing without using any possible code to write a script in my browser? --Deathdealers747 14:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no clue what you're asking about here. What arrows? —Dr Ishmael 16:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe he's referring to the arrows like on the images I linked above - in which case most image editing software have vector drawing options where it's just click and drag to draw them (no different than the straight line ones which all have). Konig/talk 16:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

So, wait a minute, you're telling me that all I gotta do is add some arrows, upload it in the full size then change the pixel size during the post, and everything will be fine? Because that's exactly what I just got from this entire ordeal, which still leads me baffled how you cannot see what my pictures are showing. --Deathdealers747 16:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, except for image placement on the article itself needing to change (if only one image, it can be done like on Flame Temple Tombs or Snowlord's Gate - if multiple, go to the bottom, add ==Gallery== (next line) <gallery>(your images - just the full file name, one per row)</gallery>, and whether such guides are even needed (e.g., "File:Wychmire Swamp Skill Point.jpg" is completely unnecessary due to the no-obstruction nature of that skill point - a basic map of the area would be more than sufficient; similarly your images for the Venta Bay vista are, imo, unnecessary due to the straight-forward nature of getting to the vista (that is to say, obvious path) so all that'd be needed for that vista would be an altered zoomed in map without breadcrumbs but with the arrows).

And no, I do not see any "little blue arrow pointing up" or any other kind of user modifications to your images outside of image resizing and, possibly, cropping - if there is such, I presume that it's due to the images being resized. Also, when you take images be sure to hide the UI (ctrl+shift+h if you didn't know) so as to avoid needing to crop or for the image to be replaced. Konig/talk 17:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Does this work better? http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Upper_Commons The bottom two pics are mine. --Deathdealers747 18:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The one without UI works; and I question if there's really need for both images, since the one without UI still shows the full path. Though naming could be better imo. Konig/talk 18:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

There, I added Vista1 and Vista2 now, removed the other screenshot as it was unnecessary. Hope it looks better, and if so, I will continue to do it this way for all of the pictures that I uploaded. --Deathdealers747 19:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Those vistas are pretty damn trivial.--Relyk 19:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Which is another point I've been forgetting to bring up - for most vistas, guides beyond a sentence is unnecessary because of how obvious they are. Those like the one in Ruins of the Unseen could use guides, or Flame Temple Tombs since that one's a bit tricky to find the start point, but there's little to no need for image guides on the easier ones - like all of those in most cities (only hard city one I can think of is the Sharkmaw Caverns in LA). If it's pretty obvious for how to get to the vista, there's no need for an image. And for those where you have to start far away, same thing - a sentence description is enough for those. Konig/talk 19:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Just because there's no need to be one, doesn't mean one shouldn't be there. The more images with useful guides, the better the page looks as a true guide - would you rather buy a guide on how to skin a duck and have no pictures on it, despite the description being very obvious about how to skin a duck?! --Deathdealers747 21:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you can compare skinning a duck to jumping - or walking - in a straight or mostly-straight line. Konig/talk 21:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

You can walk in a straight line easily, but finding that straight line would be a lot easier if you had a picture to point out where the line was. And for the record, I don't think that 'Relyk' was exaggerating in his post about the vistas being trivial. --Deathdealers747 22:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The images don't enhance the presentation of the information, you're using an image to support a single sentence about a minor element of the page. When the images can be considered as disruptive as they are helpful, I think that's a good point not to bother including it on the page. That's something I'd query the rest of the wiki community about general formatting because I only see the images as superfluous and degrade the quality of the article (ignoring all my semantic bullshit).--Relyk 23:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I prefer a visual representation of an item, discovery, formula, etc. Plus, I have an extremely slow reading speed, so the time it takes me to read a 5 sentenced-paragraph, is the time that it would take me to completely analyze every aspect of 5 pictures (approx. 10min). Thus, I prefer screenshots - but that's just me, and I cannot speak for the general population of the wiki, but I do know one thing for sure and that's that I have had over 3 dozen people in Guild Wars 2 tell me "Dude! We need more screenshots up for the vistas! They're hard to find man!" That's not an exaggeration or a joke, that's is an accurate description of what I've been told, asked for, and thanked for. --Deathdealers747 23:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

That would sound reasonable if those 3 dozen people had looked at the wiki page, followed the description of the vista, and then after saying they still couldn't figure it out, we added images with giant arrows pointing at the vista. What I would say is that it takes me 2-5 minutes max to locate and reach any vista without any instructions and there has been no complaint about vistas so far. An image isn't a replacement for a good description, our descriptions really really suck obviously to turn the wiki into a picture book.--Relyk 00:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not a replacement, but it is a very nice addition. You don't see many books without pictures, and the ones you do are usually considered extremely boring and hard to read - because without a visual representation, you don't have any idea what is being described to you. --Deathdealers747 00:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) But these things are not "5 sentenced-paragraph" - usually 1-3. And you continue to upload images which are unuseful to the wiki. Just because you add text onto "File:Quetzal Bay Skill Challenge.jpg" does not make it helpful. The first line is an obvious thing shared across all commune skill challenges, the second is worth only a note on Krait Altar. It's one thing to try to be helpful, and another thing to be helpful. I believe you told me something along the lines of "just because you don't find it helpful doesn't mean others will" - the reverse is also true: just because you find it helpful doesn't mean everyone else will. Try to look objectively. An image which has its contents blocked off by UI, character, and modifications is unhelpful; similarly, an image guide for a dead-obvious vista is unneeded - and typically, unneeded things aren't kept simply because they distract and detract from the article itself.
The visual representation is the game itself - reading the wiki alone, you are correct, you won't know what's being described to you - but playing the game and seeing the area in full 3d view is a visual representation and one far better than an image (since it doesn't give any indication of where the image is taking place so it's just as helpful since you're still looking for it yourself).
The wiki isn't here to hold your hand from start to finish. It's here to first and foremost document the game and, as a secondary, be a guide for those who have tried and failed - those who can't figure something out and need help (this is why we have things like spoiler tags - so people don't go seeing things before they've experienced it themselves first). Konig/talk 02:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why having those images seems to be so much of an irritation to you that you have to keep removing them. Just because it doesn't help you or it bothers you, does not mean that it does not help others and therefore should not be removed so long as it continues to help benefit the community of Guild Wars 2. You cannot speak for the entire community, and nor can I, we do not have those rights. Thus, the only thing that we can do is ensure that the community as a whole can benefit as much as possible from as much information as possible, especially since there is no WoWhead or any other variation of a guide for Guild Wars 2, except for this Wiki. This Wiki is all that this game has, so why continue to keep removing information - helpful or not, funny or not, story-line or not, etc. I've seen pages on here with 7 paragraphs of a STORY-LINE, and you're not removing that information! What's a story-line going to do to help a player progress through the game? Absolutely nothing. But a story-line is part of the game, just as a picture is part of a story. Please, keep the pictures up for display! Seriously, it's not cool that you see something as trash and throw it away, and ten years down the road people are telling you that you should recycle that because if you don't, then you are trash yourself - revolutions occur 24/7, please, stop trying to delay the inevitable. --Deathdealers747 19:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary pictures are just clutter that makes the wiki look unprofessional. This isn't the place for extremely detailed walking directions of immediately accessible locations. Manifold 20:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

"If a contributor believes such a queued image to be essential to the article, despite the lack of text, he or she may decide to put it back in. However, he or she should not simply revert the article to its previous state, but make an attempt to re-size the images or create some sort of gallery section in order to deal with the original problem."

"Articles may get ugly and difficult to read if there are too many images crammed onto a page with relatively little text. They may even overlap.

For this reason, it is often a good idea to temporarily remove the least-important image from an article and queue it up on the article's talk page. Once there is enough text to support the image, any contributor is free to shift the image back into the article."

(Image queueing, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy) --Deathdealers747 20:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

"This page sets out the policies towards images—including format, content, and copyright issues—applicable on the English-language edition of Wikipedia."

That's funny... I didn't know I got lost and ended up on Wikipedia. I would have sworn for a second I was on an unrelated video game wiki hosted by a completely different company and run by a completely different set of editors who adopted guidelines specifically for their smaller userbase and specialized wiki. -Auron 20:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

"MediaWiki is a free software open source wiki package written in PHP, originally for use on Wikipedia. It is now also used by several other projects of the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation and by many other wikis, including this website, the home of MediaWiki." This wiki is run by MediaWiki, the same rules apply here as they do on Wikipedia. --Deathdealers747 20:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) "Unnecessary pictures are just clutter that makes the wiki look unprofessional." This is pretty much it. There's a difference between useful images and images that provide no benefit. Just because they provide no harm doesn't mean they should be kept. If a location (be it where an NPC/object is, or a vista, PoI, etc. are) actually is difficult or obscure, then I hold no opposition to including an image. If, however, anyone can find and get to the location without issue then no such image is necessary and adding them simply adds more content to the page which can and will become a clutter. It has nothing to do with what I feel easy or not or helpful or not, as I try my best to look at things objectively.

"benefit as much as possible from as much information as possible" What you seem to fail to understand is that it is possible to have too much of a good thing. Detailing every single tiny little thing does not become helpful, because there'll be too much information on one article, or the information will be forced to be spread out. In this particular case, you're adding images which are either unneeded or are unbeneficial while claiming they are so (just because you believe they're helpful doesn't mean they are) and at the same time adding more and more images to articles. There's a line that one must recognize for when something like this stops being helpful and begins being distracting.

And the lines you pulled are from wikipedia - this is not wikipedia. And no, the same rules on wikipedia do not apply here because we are not wikipedia. Guild Wars 2 Wiki rules apply here, nothing else. And those "rules" you quoted are nothing more than image formatting guidelines. Konig/talk 20:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

This wiki is hosted by ArenaNet and run by the community using MediaWiki software ^^. I do think the areas can have image galleries that include picturesque shots of the area, which would be a good place for vista locations. But that doesn't include arrows.--Relyk 20:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki is just software, not an organisation that establishes rules for all other wikis. We aren't run by MediaWiki. We just use MediaWiki. Like how you use Windows; Microsoft doesn't tell you what you can or cannot install. -- ab.er.rant 13:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for comments: too long, not reading -- supporting status quo

You made a public request for comments, but haven't done anything to help others to understand your position. In the absence of a clear description of the issue and recommended policy, I'm inclined to trust the long-time contributors/editors to the wiki who posted above. There's just too much text above, too many revisions/reversions for me to go through to try to understand whether your point of view is reasonable, let alone preferable to the status quo.

I'm willing to come back to this discussion again with a completely open mind. Here's what I'd like to see: a sandbox showing how an article looks under current practices and how it would look with the disputed images. A short description of what is different and a short explanation of why you think that makes things better, either for most wiki readers or for an important subset. If there are multiple issues, then perhaps more than one sandbox would be useful.

Until then, I support current practice because the defenders of that have been clear and because they have been around for long enough that I'm willing to take their word on the issue. But just because the wiki has always done things a certain way doesn't mean it's best, so I hope you'll take a few minutes to make your position clear enough that I can evaluate it on its own merits. 75.36.178.33 21:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I kinda agree. While I went through the comments above, if comments from more users are wanted, please list down the images that you've uploaded that you think are beneficial to the page you added them to. But from the few image links in the section above, I have to agree that those screenshots are not helpful at all. Conventionally, we try to avoid UI elements entirely, especially your character (except for weapons and armor). And honestly speaking, showing a screenshot of your character standing at a skill challenge or vista doesn't add value to the page. Even with captions added to the image (which should just be placed on the page itself). -- ab.er.rant 13:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)