|
Support guidelines for image size
- T·A·C·T·I·C·A·N·G·E·L
- I Lion Heart I
- That's right, I went there. Uniform image size, because I'm a uniform kind of guy. Diablocon 10:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Bluer 15:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC) : I prefer standardization as well. It's how we've been holding this wiki up and maintained it to a reasonable standard. I would also prefer the image to be within the dimension so that talk templates are placed one talk bubble after the other: it looks really unique that way. As well; what matters most is the contents; the text of the talk bubble.
- TA made the template. It may not be his by patent, but we should try to adjust to what he wishes. I guess I would upload a leg-less Garnet if there was no other way to downsize her. 8bit 20:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- I prefer things to be uniform, i.e. the same. In my vision of everybody having separate sizes, it looks terrible...2127 21:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Crazyswordsman: I agree with TA. Your avatar shouldn't be any taller than the height of your talk template when you write one line.
Support the use of any image size
- Hexed: To a reasonable level.
- Vanishing Star: I agree with Hexed.
- Henryacores: The size should be as big as it must to be understood and as small as possible. Personal preference can also influence this, as long as it does not exagerate in size. And please don't use anything other than sprites or character\enemy artworks.
- Faethin: Of course. Common sense above all.
- Azul: Everyone else pretty much said what I had to say.
- Drake Clawfang: As long as the image doesn't ridiculously throw the alignments of the page out of whack, go nuts. 10 pixels seems a petty change to me. The whole point of the talk bubble is to represent the one who made it.
- To a reasonable level. Firstly, so people have some flexibility and secondly, because you blocked Faethin over this matter before we reached concensus. That's a bit unfair, isn't it? --SCM
- To a reasonable level, as said above. Truly, slightly larger images don't take away from the effect. -- YuanchosaanSalutations! 06:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- What he said. What she said. -- N/A 10:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Self-interest. My picture is too small in 50px. 60px is perfect. --BlueHighwind 14:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- BfD - 17:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Screw conformity. Individuality and common sense rule over being 10 fricking pixels too many. There. I've said my share. --Tex HOWDY!!! 23:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Pablo I think we should have a little smaller than 8bit's Garnet.
- I'm normally for most types of conformity, but not this. I've tried to modify the Balthier image and it won't work for me. So to bad so sad.--Muchomas35 01:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments
TA, "uniformity for appearances sake"? There are quite a few editors who use different templates (yourself included), and I find the effect quite pleasing, individuality and what not. -- YuanchosaanSalutations! 06:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- @Yuan: Sure, that's all good and stuff, but that's not the point here. That is the point in the talkboxes over all, but the 50px margin is there so it's all the time. Go onto Faethin's talk page. Scroll down and it just looks stupid how his one is different. IMO anyway. It's 10 pixels different. It shows.
- 50px width all times because it presents nicer. You know like how on forums has the left (sometimes right) with the avatars and extra info, and on the right (sometimes left) in the bigger space, th text. Using a set margin just presents so much nicer. --I Lion Heart I 10:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- I think that would be a matter of opinion. To me, a little difference does not affect the layout too much. I think it looks fine, but others might not. In my opinion though, it's their template to do as they wish, within reasonable limits. -- YuanchosaanSalutations! 10:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- But the rules are 50px. It was never said 50px give or take. It was set as 50px for 50px width to be used. TA made it this way, TA wants it this way. --I Lion Heart I 10:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow, Faethin was blocked just because his talk template juts out ever so slightly. -_- | |||
That's not why he was blocked now, was it? ILHI 10:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I saw the edit war, but that only happened because TA was making it so it doesn't jut out. I am baffeled by Faethin's lack of saying anything though. Surely they should have talked it out instead of constantly reverting. | |||
|
Poor Faethin. I hope he comes back tomorrow. =( | |||
Yeah. That's over the top. We all play with fire all the time, TA. You especially should know. | |||
Faethin shouldn't have been blocked for such a dumb reason. I liked his template. | |||
For the last time, FAETHIN WAS NOT BLOCKED BECAUSE OF HIS TEMPLATE. He was blocked for not following what TA said. Reverting against authority. He knew what he was doing, he should have expected it. He was banned for having an edit war with an admin. Who's going to know what would be best for everyone? The admin, which is why he edited it. The template has nothing to do with his banning. It was the overall edit war with TA.
I'm not quite sure why you would vote for the opposite because someone was ever-so-temporarily banned for being an idiot. (Yes you were Faeth, you banned yourself). JZ: You vote the opposite of what you originally did because someone fought for the opposing side wrongly? That just doesn't make sense to me. ILHI 15:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I wish I understood who, or what, I am... | |||
Somehow I find the idea that TacticAngle knows what's best for everyone a little surreal, if not laughable. Especially when it's something as stupid as Talk Templates that we're talking about. | |||
That was what I was thinking when I switched my vote. | |||
THERE. HAPPY NOW? | |||
Edit Conflict x2 Damn you JZ! :D
Uniformity over sloppiness any day. Currently it's standard to have 50px. So you get the odd different one which doesn't go.
Also, when replying, you should put your talk template one line below the above for anyone that doesn't know. So each talkbox is equal distance from each other (if images heights aren't taller than the box it self). It looks nicer.
There's nothing more to discuss. It looks much nicer. If you think it's okay as long as it's not that much bigger, then it can't harm your template much to remove those "not much extra" pixels. Of course, the users are probably thinking "Templates will look slightly better" over "It's far neater" on the page. ILHI 15:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
YAY! I EDIT CONFLICTED ILHI! As for the votes, yeah, you're right. | |||
I also remember that it was decided to have the images restricted to 50px to reduce the space taken up by the images whenever the talk bubble was used, but still allowed for enough of the text and contents. At the beginning, when this template was originally written from quite a marvelous piece of wiki coding that I doubt most of the voters above even know how to make, the images were bound to 100px, but it has eaten quite a lot of the space on the left margin. CSM decided to reduce the image to 50px and limit them to simple sprites and character art, and everyone followed suit. It was for the important part of the text bubble - the text, and I do agree that we should emphasize more on what we're saying... Now, I also notice some users using contrasting colors for their templates - it is recommended that the colors do not have striking contrast; we're not all with 20/20 vision and the eyes may not stand light from the computer monitor that long. It's all technical and logical concerns, really. | |||
With my font, if the colors don't contrast, you can't read it at all. | |||
I say the less rules, oversight, guidelines, and pesky regulations the better for all. It's not like it matters in any fashion anyway. | |||
I agree with Blue. | |||
I'm not sure whether that's a joke, BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO BLUES WITH TWO DIFFERENT OPINIONS.
Needless to say, @BH: The default won't let you use nothing other than 50px, so there's no regulations you have to abide by, unless you want to make your template slightly different. In which case don't be an idiot and use what you're meant to. It's nothing hard to do. Just don't change anything. ILHI 18:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
@ILHI: No. There's Blue (BlueHighwind) and Bluer (Bluerfn).<rant>And I was supporting BLUEHIGHWIND, if the previous sentence wasn't clear enough.</rant> | |||
He's more commonly called BH FYI. ILHI 20:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
8bit BlackMage - Beyond the Sky TALK - Why do chemists call helium, curium, and barium 'the medical elements'? Because, if you can't 'helium' or 'curium', you... um... ._.; - {{{time}}} | |||
EDIT Conflict X2: 8bit no want conflict... 8bit just want talk..... ;_; My template must be one of the "excessively tall" culprits. If someone could show me how to "downsize" Garnet's image so it fits better I would be happy to comply. I'll probably be using a new image in half a month or so anyway, if there's no way to shrink the picture without cutting off Garnet's legs. | |||
FINE. I'll call him BH if I have to. | |||
Conflict'
To downsize it you can cut off her legs and re-upload. You can't just make the height smaller without making the width smaller too, therefore going below 50px.
(I missed the last sentence of your post, but it still works)
And BTW, when you reply to someone, don't go down two lines, go down one. So like the line right below. It means you won't get pointless gaps between talkboxes. (unless you have a tall image) ILHI 20:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah 8bit, we're looking at you :P | |||
They're our talk templates we should be able to do what we want with them. | |||
No. You see, everywhere there are restrictions. On forums, avatars are restricted to 50x50, 64x64, 100x100. Well here it's 50px width. If this were a proper forum, and not on a wiki, this discussion wouldn't be here. It'd be 50x50 whether you liked it or not. But you have the ability to change it here. That's the only difference. It's like hacking it, you are getting more than you are supposed to, and you are not supposed to for good reasons. ILHI 20:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
@Scottyboy: That's saying you own something that doesn't belong to you. | |||
Just because he invented them doesn't mean that he should get creative control over them. | |||
Just because you think he shouldn't have creative control over them because he invented them, doesn't mean he won't. | |||
Again, @Scotty: He made it, he is admin. Admin's manage the wiki. Just like forum admin's manage forum. Who would go into the settings and make avatars 50px and resize those that are too tall. Just like here. Except people have found their way around. Wrongly. It has been set as 50px width for a reason. Well two reasons. It's not too big, to make all uniform. ILHI 21:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
People set rules for reasons. People do things like limiting sizes for reasons. If you still can't figure out, you probably don't belong on this thread. | |||
|
Edit conflict. @TA, no matter what you try there are people out there that are going to vote for the "anarchist" option, where they can do what they like. | |||
8bit BlackMage - Beyond the Sky TALK - Why do chemists call helium, curium, and barium 'the medical elements'? Because, if you can't 'helium' or 'curium', you... um... ._.; - {{{time}}} | |||
One of which seems to be yourself... | |||
Only because I can't be arsed to switch my vote again. Oh fuck it, I will. DONE. HAPPY NOW? | |||
Hm, all three of the active admins are in favor of uniform size. I wonder what the verdict will be...
| |||
|
8bit BlackMage - Beyond the Sky TALK - Why do chemists call helium, curium, and barium 'the medical elements'? Because, if you can't 'helium' or 'curium', you... um... ._.; - {{{time}}} | |||
Question: Looking at the original Garnet image, it is indeed quite large. However, when I tested this image of Adrammelech in the template, it shrinked perfectly into place. That image is huge. Why is it that Garnet's image was so gigantic in-template and Adrammelech's is not? | |||
|
8bit BlackMage - Beyond the Sky TALK - Why do chemists call helium, curium, and barium 'the medical elements'? Because, if you can't 'helium' or 'curium', you... um... ._.; - {{{time}}} | |||
Ah, okay. Thanks. And for some reason I was blocked from doing one edit because I seem to share Faethin's IP address, but now I can edit again o.o | |||
Crazyswordsman - Final Fantasy VI, because Drake says he wants to link to FF7 every day, which is bad because that game is so far inferior to FF6. TALK - 04:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
This is just a test to see how big my image is. | |||
If it's uniformity we want, how far do we go? Perhaps it's just me, but I almost never notice if someone's template image is slightly larger or smaller. I do notice the unique templates though, like the ones TA, Nelo, Bluer, Chief etc have. Do we get rid of those too? I much prefer the flexibility that different image sizes grants us, however, if there are health issues rather than aesthetic, I will support image restrictions.
@JZ and Scottyboy: I quote the little thing at the bottom of this screen again: "Please note that all contributions to Final Fantasy Wiki are considered to be released under a Creative Commons attribution noncommercial sharealike deed...If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here. I can't stress that enough." @ILHI: I was under the impression that Faethin was blocked for TA's convenience and because TA didn't want an edit war. | |||
Oh, it feels so good to be back. There's a couple of things I'd like to clarify: I asked Faethin for his cooperation and warned him repeatedly. Taken from TA's talk page. A half truth is a full lie. This is an utter lie. This is what happened: Originally, TA entered the IRC channel and said something about BlueHighwind's picture being too big, a fairly neutral statement. Then I said mine was just as big as BlueH's. TA didn't say anything. He didn't ask for cooperation. There was no "Hey, Faethin, I need you to change your pic's size", nor there was any "Hey, I'm gonna change your pic's size for a while until we resolve an issue". No, TA went ahead and changed the picture's size without asking or warning, just because he felt like it. Because his margin got screwed up or whatever. Of course, I considered this an act, not of vandalism, but certainly not of good faith. So I reverted his edit. What did I get? A test template. I honestly didn't care, and what was the use of giving him back a test template? Clearly, I could do nothing about it, so I carried on. At the second attempt of reducing the size of the picture, I again reverted TA's edit. I'm not sure, but I guess this time I got the final test template before the block, I don't recall having checked my talk page. Again, there was nothing I could do, so I did nothing. At the third attempt of reducing the size of my template's image, I for the last time reverted TA's edit. Voila!. I was blocked. There was constant dialoge at the IRC channel. There was never a request for cooperation. Not one. He wanted to do it. He did it. I didn't like it. Too bad for me. Was I warned? If the test templates count as warnings, well, yeah. I was warned against not bending over to what our dearest admin wanted to do, as arbitrary as it may seemed. Where is the act of vandalism, though? Was reverting a change done to my own talk template an act of vandalism? Earlier today, TA argued, by whatever reason he thought valid, that the talk template was not actually "mine", in the sense that I have technically no right over it, that I do not own it. So, technically, any edit done on the template, was still to be weighted to determine, whether I liked it or not, if it was a useful contribution or as an act of vandalism. The reason behind this claim, that it was not in the first place my template, I have yet to understand. But whatever it was, I was quick to point out that had I made any edit to his talk template, I would most probably had gotten, again, a block. His swift answer was this: that I would probably get a test template or two if I decided to do that. Why would I get those templates? Why would editing a template that belongs to nobody get me a few test templates and possibly a block? Because it's TA's template and that is holy ground? Because he can actually block me and I can't? Our dearest admin once commented, during an edit on Aerith's page, about the dishonesty some users had shown regarding that fated move from "s" to "th". How can he talk about dishonesty after what he said that I just showed? In fact, I consider his attitude more of an inconsistent attitude than a dishonest one. Of course, I also consider inconsistency a far worse fault than dishonesty. It is, after all, both its predecesor and that of hypocrisy. Yes, this volume of text reflects how truly upset I am because of this arbitrary and unfair block. This, users who were nice enough to read this, is what I think of our dearest admin. Smart? Interesting? He's shown me to be nothing more than an inconsistent, arrogant jerk. Yet another one. It's just that this one happened to be able to block me. Too bad for me. | |||
|
@ILHI:Faethin's comment above just undid what you said at the beginning. I trust Faethin more than TacticAngle. For that reason, I agree with Faethin. | |||
No it doesn't. That shows nothing to me at all. It shows he got into an edit war with TA for fuck-all reason. ILHI 11:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Everything happens for fuck-all reason. Live with it. And TA edited his template without even telling him. TA could have at least told Faethin he was doing it. | |||
Well...
"Originally, TA entered the IRC channel and said something about BlueHighwind's picture being too big, a fairly neutral statement. Then I said mine was just as big as BlueH's."
So, this says Faeth knew exactly why he changed it. He reverted. And I'm not going to say there is anything wrong with the first revert. A test template. He could see that more reverting shall only get him more test templates. He continued, and rather than having a discussion with TA to "OMG why?", he continued reverting. It was inevitable he would get banned. He got the warnings. He banned himself.
"Everything happens for fuck-all reason"
You might want to think that statement through with some actual sense this time. Faeth got himself banned for no reason. That 10px which makes the system perfect, so he could be selfish with his own template. It only affected him, not me. So serves no relation whatsoever.
Uniformity, only changing those few templates to make the whole system perfect is surely priority over those few people's selfishness on the matter. The fact that people want it with 10 or less pixel moving space... This does not keep the margin, this fucks up the whole point of keeping to 50px, so no. That will never happen. Yes, 10px is a lot, 20% of the original size..; but uniformity damn you! ILHI 11:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
When can we have this forum deleted? On topic again, he said "a fairly neutral statement." So that means we start a flamewar about it? As for my quote, I say that because things happen when you least expect it. That's what I was meant to say. | |||
TBH, 50px width stays. 100% of admin voters voted keep fixed. And making it fixed any higher might start making people's images stretch. But it has to be the same for the margin. ILHI 12:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
|
And yet, they should.
I have said this before, yet of course I see a need to say it once more. All the people voting for the top option are voting uniformity throughout talk; the margin, nothing for their advantage, for the wiki. Those voting the second can only gain from this option being used. What does sound more sensible? You have your uniqueness through your colours, signatures and avatars. Forums have a fixed margin. This place does not, and this cannot be done with wiki. We use fixed 50px width for the margin. Changing that leaves no margin, leaves people who will keep making their avatar bigger, unless there's a limit set. This of course will be about 10px more than the advised and therefore not keeping the margin.
So the sensibility goes. It would seem the first option implies selflessness, whereas the second, selfishness. That's what it comes to me as. ILHI 12:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
And you're also implying we don't have free speech here. Looks to me like you're trying almost to force us to vote for the top option. | |||
Wonderful ILHI, argumentum ad hominem.
Like I said before, it's an debate of opinion. To some people, like Diablo and TA, the uniformity looks better to them and I can respect that. Others prefer to have a more flexible system. Please stop pushing this down our throats, ILHI, as that's what it sounds like to me. Let people make their own decisions. | |||
That's what I've been trying to get over to him for the last few hours. | |||
|
SCM: Well said. | |||
Edit Conflict x3
But that is what I do. Conflicting opinions, how can one not try and convert the other? It's what I always do when I see someone displaying their opinion which does not match mine. The general idea is to make the other side see your views, and get your view across. Take out the other persons points and add loads of your own. I am extremely good at it because I think through what I am saying and why I am saying. I do not like polls and like to see people's views. Then I like to slaughter them. It's like me. Polls are nothing in comparison to a good heated debate.
And no I shall not shut up. ILHI 12:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
ILHI: Heated debates you say...*pulls out flamethrower* Like this? | |||
No, actually. ILHI 12:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
EDIT CONFLICT: Keep it civil, please.
ILHI, I respect your opinion, and your right to say what you think. But you're taking it to the point where it begins to sound like you're forcing us to do what you want, rather than what we think. You're not attempting to convince us anymore, you're ramming it down our throats. Are not the views of the wiki shown by the poll? You've said what you needed to say, and we're not so unintelligent that we need endless reiterations of the same thing. | |||
|
Edit conflict x 2 Polls>Debates. | |||
Edit conflict, yo: Actually, I think debates are better. A poll generally divides opinion into stark areas, black and white if you will. Debates are far more interesting in terms of scope of ideas, conflict etc. Not to mention fancy-schmancy rhetoric and techniques. However, for an issue like this, which needed a simple indication of support for two sides, a poll was the better choice. | |||
The score right now is Yuan 3, ILHI 0. Back on topic, Polls are better than debates for simple things. | |||
Edit Conflict x3 (technically 4)
No they do not. They only require your original thoughts. The idea of a debate is to change what people think. Of course, if they are on one side and the other side's argument is strong enough to make you switch, then something has been achieved. To make them now believe that they were indeed not considering all aspects of the argument.
Sure, a poll at the end of a debate is good. Not just a straight-out poll.
@JZ: Your lack of intelligence to say that is comparable that of voting in a poll.
@Yuan: The amount of people giving more than just their name when voting says otherwise. They have more to say, then wouldn't a discussion/debate have been much better?
@JZ: Shut up.
I've had to copy and paste this post so much, everytime I've gone to paste what I should have, I've had to go back and re-copy. ILHI 12:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
|
I have seen several. All JZ. ILHI 13:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
YOU have the nerve to tell ME to shut up when YOU are the one who won't end your rants? And I changed it until it was GONE. G. O. N. E. Is that clear enough for you? | |||
|
Edit conflict bait:
@JZ: It's not a competition. @ILHI: I believe it is so that people can see a short, concise summary of why they are voting that way. For convenience purposes, if nothing else. "Your lack of intelligence..."? Please, no personal insults. You have yet to change anyone's mind with the points you made, neither did I. Let's just leave it for people to look over and make their own decisions. And for goodness sakes, no personal attacks. | |||
@Yuan; Re:RZ:-: Lack of intelligence for that comment. He had nothing behind it, he was just going against me for the sake of it.
And yes, it's harder to change others minds once a poll has been taken from the start. This is where people have voted, and fixed their opinion on that side. They are arguing for this side indefinitely. Of course, they can change their vote.
ANYWAY... I have nothing more to say. Oh, Margin for avatars > No margin for avatars... ILHI 13:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
@Yuan, I'm going to get banned anyway. @ILHI, read what Yuan has written. | |||
I remember the time when we used to come here to have fun and make Final Fantasy articles. | |||
Trying to be myself again...look where I am now. | |||
Yeah, when are we gonna be nice to each other again | |||
As soon as this forum is put up for VFD or the 20th. | |||
Or as soon as I get banned. | |||
Debates don't lead to hatred of one another BTW. Unless you let it. ILHI 13:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
EDIT CONFLICT X 10,897: I wouldn't be too disturbed over anything ILHI says. That's just how he is. I don't think he actually means it when he calls you an idiot. At least I hope he doesn't. Anyway, since the vote is a clear 2 to 1 against 50px size restrictions (though most votes clearly state that you can't have it something like 100px or anything crazy), I'll be changing my Template back then. Democracy is great when it goes my way! =) | |||
@BH: ILHI does mean it. Seriously. And I wouldn't change it back unless you want TA on you. | |||
2:1 yes, but 4 people in the minority are admins, while 0 people in the majority are. Just thought I'd put that out there. | |||
@JZ: Come to my house. The word idiot is almost as common as the phrase "So's your face". Seriously. ILHI 13:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
|
Right, I've locked this topic, because all debate has broken down. TA is free to unlock this, but I know he probably doesn't want to. And some people seem to be confussed. We people who want uniform size are perfectly fine to settle with the uniform size being 60x60. What we are against is everyone having different sizes, so that nothing lines up. I'm surprised this was debated for so long, since an early rule of the talkbox was that every image was uniform size! Now, can we PLEASE get back to mainspace editing! And if anyone makes a new topic about this, there will be hell to pay. | |||
|
I am agreed to the new width restriction, and as to the height, I do recommend that it is limited to the minimum width of the talk bubble; from top to bottom. Simple images such as sprites; like that used by CSM is also recommended. Animated gifs that follow the image size restriction should be acceptable too. | |||