FANDOM


(Tabbed Portable Infoboxes)
(Tabbed Portable Infoboxes)
Line 138: Line 138:
 
http://metalgear.wikia.com/wiki/Big_Boss
 
http://metalgear.wikia.com/wiki/Big_Boss
 
-{{User:HD3/Sig}} 06:31, May 4, 2018 (UTC)
 
-{{User:HD3/Sig}} 06:31, May 4, 2018 (UTC)
  +
  +
::::I'm not sure the do anything different except the color scheme. It's just a thin border in both cases. --[[User:Koveras Alvane|Koveras Alvane]] ([[User talk:Koveras Alvane|talk]]) 08:43, May 5, 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:43, May 5, 2018

Warden and Hawke pictures

I've changed something one thing regarding using the default pictures of Hawke (because there's none for the Warden). This was supposed to follow the same guidelines as previously written, e.g., the default player characters should generally not be featured in mainspace articles, except their own page (e.g. the Warden and Hawke.

As for the exceptions, I'd think the romance pages can be an exception as well, as an issue on heterosexual bias was raised (since all pictures from BioWare only showed heterosexual romances). --D. (talk · contr) 21:54, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

Just an update regarding this: all romance pictures have been removed, even if they're from BioWare. This is the compromise that came from Talk:Romance (Dragon Age II). --D. (talk · contr) 05:09, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

User images

I didn't add following, because there was no consensus about that.

  • User page images violating any of these rules are subjected for deletion without warning.
  • The user images that are not using within the Wiki for more than 72 hours are subjected for deletion.

-- Snfonseka (Talk) 05:16, November 8, 2011 (UTC)

Fan art

Do we have a policy on fan art? It seems to me that we shouldn't allow it on articles, even those where there are no images available (book articles for example), and that certainly seems to be the consensus. Should we simply write it in? Chantry symbol King Cousland | Talk   19:43, February 23, 2012 (UTC)

Don't know if my opinion counts but I agree we shouldn't allow it and we should write it. Asherinka (talk) 20:05, February 23, 2012 (UTC)
We have already built a consensus not to allow fan art, in forums. But didn't take any steps to insert that in here as a guideline. -- Snfonseka (Talk) 02:59, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
In a sense, it seems to already be in the guidelines (that is if you read it a certain way). Dragon Age Wiki:Editing guidelines do state to avoid speculations in articles. Fan art is in a sense speculating on the appearance of a character (at least in the case of one that has not been depicted). Balitant (talk) 03:04, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
True. But not very clear for a image guideline. We need to be specific. -- Snfonseka (Talk) 03:12, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
Can we put this up for discussion and make it official? I want to resolve the Nicolas and Julien pages in a clear way so that there is no need to argue the matter. Balitant (talk) 07:09, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
I agree. I think those pictures should be deleted. Asherinka (talk) 07:49, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
If this matter was already discussed (which I don't know when we discussed this), we can avoid the red tape and add it as a guideline. Fanarts can be removed from articles for any reason, but you can't say it's due to "policy" since it does not exist.
Regarding the pictures of Nicolas and Julien, you can tag them for deletion. Otherwise, they are deleted after a month for maintenance. --D. (talk · contr) 16:07, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

So this means we reached a consensuses to add this to policy. Right? -- Snfonseka (Talk) 14:59, February 25, 2012 (UTC)

Official pictures by BioWare

Big brainfart as I just realized some of the pictures that I had previously deleted were officially released by BioWare, but had been removed since it featured Hawke or the Warden (I completely forgot this was okay in certain cases). I'd restore deleted pictures if there's a need (those were mostly on the class pages like Rogue (Dragon Age II)—but the infobox pictures were rather awful as those were just male Hawke with bad transparency issues). I think we can do away with them in most cases, e.g., picture featuring a creature with Hawke, or removing excessive pictures for gallery. --D. (talk · contr) 17:25, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

Thumb widths

Should we have a guideline regarding thumb width consistency? I've seen a number of articles where the thumb widths were all over the place (e.g. Leliana), and it irks the hell out of me. I get where the editors are coming from--they want to make screenshots more visible--but the screenshots themselves often don't really contribute to the content of the article that much and are basically just eye candy (especially if there already is a large infobox picture and a gallery that demonstrates differences in appearance across games). And if the reader wants to look at the screenshot in more detail, each screenshot can be clicked on and viewed in much better resolution than we can put into an article. In my opinion therefore, in most cases (i.e. unless it actually makes the image unrecognizable or breaks the formatting, e.g. with very wide or long images) all thumbs within an article should have the default width. --Koveras Alvane (talk) 08:09, July 5, 2014 (UTC)

I would very much support having a consistent size guideline. It'd make the articles look a lot cleaner and less cluttered. --Kelcat (talk) 08:38, July 5, 2014 (UTC)
I've changed the image sizes back to default on the Leliana page, agree it looks better now. Xsari (talk) 12:50, July 05, 2014 (GMT)
My proposal for the guideline alteration would be to add following to this page and to DA:MOS#Images: "For the sake of visual consistency, the width of thumb images should not be altered from the default (200px), except when it would make the image subject unrecognizable (very wide images) or break the page formatting (very long images)." I think I should post this to MOS talk, as well... --Koveras Alvane (talk) 15:09, July 5, 2014 (UTC)

Nope I am 100% against regulating such thing. There are many cases which cannot be ruled out separately and a larger thumb is better than a smaller one or the opposite. Checking on wikipedia, their page images also have varying widths. Viktoria Landers 15:24, July 5, 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of Wikipedia, its MOS says this: "As a general rule, images should not be set to a larger fixed size than the 220px default..." And this: "Similar types of images within an article often look appealing if they appear at the same pixel size" (and I would argue that in-game screenshots are a similar type of images). It also lists several exceptions where deviating from the default makes sense, but I never said that there may not be any exceptions to the guideline. --Koveras Alvane (talk) 19:51, July 5, 2014 (UTC)

Should a forum be created to discuss/vote on this, or is it just going to be done here? If it's done here, I want to say that this seems like a decent idea to me, and I vote in favor of it. Norqi (talk) 20:28, July 5, 2014 (UTC)

I think we should follow wikipedia's style and apply only a maximum size. Viktoria Landers 17:09, July 7, 2014 (UTC)

...that was the plan. Most thumbs are not set to be smaller--they're usually tweaked to take up more space than needed, and that's what I spoke up against. --Koveras Alvane (talk) 17:12, July 7, 2014 (UTC)
You spoke of a fixed number than in very few exceptions can be decreased. I think we should go with 240px or lower, I feel 200px is way small. Viktoria Landers 17:40, July 7, 2014 (UTC)
I spoke of the default thumb width, which seems to be set to 200px by the Wikia admins, and while I agree that it seems a tad small, we can do little directly to change that. You can set your personal preference for thumb size on Wikipedia, but I haven't found this option anywhere on Wikia. As for exceptions, I did not call for "very few" of them--I merely advocated ignoring the guideline only when there are good reasons for it (an individual editor's personal thumb size preference not being considered a good reason). --Koveras Alvane (talk) 20:37, July 7, 2014 (UTC)

User images rule change

I'd like to propose an amendment about the cases when we regard an image as a user image and list it to that category. For the record this was already followed, but going through the official procedure is undoubtedly the best option:

"User image" is any image which is not featured or linked from any of the wiki's articles or templates.

Viktoria Landers 02:59, September 14, 2014 (UTC)

Yes I support the rewording of the category. Are you also proposing adding guidelines about the amount of user images a person can upload to the wiki? Currently there's nothing on this article regarding user image guidelines except how to categorize them, but I'd support limiting them in some way. tbh, I don't really see a need to have any non-Dragon Age related images outside of a user's profile page, not even on forums or blogs. --Kelcat Talk 03:39, September 14, 2014 (UTC)

User images already fall under the 10 user images per editor rule so we simultaneously limit them. As for your other suggestion, wouldn't that be too restrictive? Viktoria Landers 04:46, September 14, 2014 (UTC)
Oh, probably, which is why I never proposed it Icon wink Kelcat Talk 04:52, September 14, 2014 (UTC)
Yes Supported. The number of user images some people are putting up has gotten really out of hand.

-HD3 Sig 04:56, September 14, 2014 (UTC)

Yes Personally, I don't see why any images should be uploaded onto a wiki at all unless they are used to illustrate text content, or in templates, or in the wiki skin itself. --Koveras Alvane (talk) 15:21, September 14, 2014 (UTC)

Update weapon image guidelines

Since many weapons in Inquisition have the possibility to be looted either with or without upgrades, and some of these upgrades cause visual changes to the weapon, I think we should modify the guidelines to state that weapon images should be taken without any upgrades equipped (except in the few instances where the upgrades can't be unequipped). I think we should get rid of "the weapon should be sheathed" as well, since in Inquisition it's much easier to get images of the weapons in the inventory or upgrade windows, and I don't really see why it's so important to show the weapon on a character's back. --Kelcat Talk 08:04, April 17, 2015 (UTC)

Since we can just display weapons in the menu without anyone holding them, why not make that the standard for inquisition?

-Seekers of Truth heraldryHD3 (Talk) 08:19, April 17, 2015 (UTC)

I think that requiring infobox images to display the weapon without any non-removable upgrades is a good idea. I also agree with HD3 that all Inquisition weapons should be illustrated without a wielder, via screenshots from the menu. The question is, however, can we extend the same policy to all Inquisition items? --Koveras Alvane (talk) 13:27, April 17, 2015 (UTC)
I'd be fine with making that the standard for weapons if people agree, though I'm hesitant to place that kind of restriction on other items such as armor since there are plenty of great opportunities to get armor images outside of the menus. In fact with the dark background of the menus I'd actually prefer seeing shots of armor in the game itself, such as Ambassador's Mask and Ardent Blossom. --Kelcat Talk 20:14, April 17, 2015 (UTC)
You make a good point. --Koveras Alvane (talk) 05:50, April 18, 2015 (UTC)

Tabbed Portable Infoboxes

Pursuant to the conversation here, I think the rule about one image per character needs revising. The rule served well when we had to choose only one image per character and thus it made sense to choose an image that best represented the character across all games. But now that we have a technology that allows multiple images per PI, the rule is too constraining. Thus, I propose changing it to "one tabbed image per character per game". DaBarkspawn (talk) 15:25, April 9, 2018 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea and can be implemented without many changes to the code. I have tested the potential change on Delilah Howe, and it looks quite OK already, although the captions in the gallery tag apparently cannot be locally formatted, and don't look particularly good. The admins will have to edit the CSS (specifically the pi-tab-link class) so it looks good, before we start implementing this change.
My suggestion for the updated guideline is to include a picture from every installment where the character had appeared, in chronological order. --Koveras Alvane (talk) 16:32, April 9, 2018 (UTC)
Test change looks good to me. Just to be clear, do you mean Thedas chronological order or game/book/etc. release date order? DaBarkspawn (talk) 16:36, April 9, 2018 (UTC)
I mean the Thedas chronological order (as that would show how the character ages across their life), though I don't think there are many examples where it deviates from publication order. --Koveras Alvane (talk) 07:17, April 10, 2018 (UTC)
The test indicates to me that if this change goes through, we’ll need one of the admins to throw a CSS makeover at the tabs so that they match the style of the Wiki, like this example. I am in favor of this proposal.
UrsuulTalkAdminDate2:29 AM Tuesday, April 10, 2018 (UTC)

I gave styling a few tries, and I think the way to do it is to edit MediaWiki:Common.css in two places. First, add ".portable-infobox.pi-theme-dao .pi-tab-link.current" to this class list:

.portable-infobox.pi-theme-dao .pi-title,
.portable-infobox.pi-theme-dao .pi-navigation,
.portable-infobox.pi-theme-dao .pi-header, 
.portable-infobox.pi-theme-dao .pi-data .pi-data-label,
.portable-infobox.pi-theme-dao .pi-horizontal-group-item.pi-data-label {
    border-color: #523F35;
    background-image: url("https://images.wikia.nocookie.net/dragonage/images/6/65/SplatterBackground.jpg");
    color: #ffffff;
}

This will make the currently active tab appear highlighted with the blood splatter background, while the rest will remain simply black. Then, we need to append this class definition at the end of the CSS page:

.portable-infobox.pi-theme-dao .pi-item-spacing.pi-tab-link {
    padding: 0.1em 0.5em !important;
    font-size: 12px;
    font-style: italic;
}

This will override the default zero-spacing of the .pi-item-spacing class to something that looks slightly better (to me). It will also set the font size in the tabs to 12px, like in the rest of the infobox below, and also italicize the font, since we don't seem to have an option of manually italicizing titles and I assume that only installment titles will be used for tab names. If that is not wanted, just drop the line "font-style: italic;". Thoughts? --Koveras Alvane (talk) 12:49, April 27, 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind the tab image change. In fact having multiple infobox images available seems like an enormous boon but the tab selection menu in the sample infobox seems unclear. I wasn't even sure it was a menu option. Is there any way we could make the button clearer?

-Seekers of Truth heraldryHD3 (Talk) 19:57, May 3, 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it basically just requires tweaking the .pi-tab-link CSS class. Someone else has to propose a good design for it, however, since I couldn't make a clear design if my life depended on it. :-( --Koveras Alvane (talk) 06:19, May 4, 2018 (UTC)


Something similar to the metal gear solid wikia perhaps?

http://metalgear.wikia.com/wiki/Big_Boss -Seekers of Truth heraldryHD3 (Talk) 06:31, May 4, 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure the do anything different except the color scheme. It's just a thin border in both cases. --Koveras Alvane (talk) 08:43, May 5, 2018 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.