Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Cinematics

Images

Image:Encounter in the Depths cinematic still.jpg includes the player's character. (Nothing against your warrior, of course :P) Don't you think these cinematic scenes should try to show a sequence where the character stays hidden, as he/she changes appearance. —ZerphaThe Improver 21:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's quite useful, actually. It shows the location of the player in relation to the other NPCs; after all, the player is an actual part of the dialogue and happenings. The appearance of the character isn't all that important, but it symbolises each player. -- Brains12 \ talk 21:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Risky should have taken this image on 1st April already, then we'd have a uniform character appearance :P But yeah, most players will recognize this as a female player character warrior. —ZerphaThe Improver 21:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with at least hiding the player character's specific features to make the character look as generic as possible when you can't avoid shots of the player character. And yeah, a male warrior in something like Charr Hide would probably be ideal for such images. Sounds Risky | 21:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, confusing character appearances like a factions elementalist with brown long hair and purple Shing Jea armor wouldn't be adviceable for example. I shortly thought about using tonics, but then realized that this would likely also not be a good idea. —ZerphaThe Improver 22:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Spoilers

(also see infobox template talk) As every cinematic tells something about the story of Eye of the North, wouldn't a spoiler be appropriate? —ZerphaThe Improver 21:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't think so. Everyone known cinmeatics tells story, so if they want to read them in advance, they want spoliers. Backsword 12:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Besides EotN

After we finish the EotN movies what should we do? We could do all end mission movies, and maybe the BMP. I dont have the BMP so idk how many there are in that. I just had an idea that we should do The Searing and all the movies you see when you first create a character. — Seru Talk 03:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Essentially the same question as the next section, responding down there. Sounds Risky | 08:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Mission (non-titled) cinematics

(Edit conflict) What do we do with cinematics like those from missions in Prophecies? Most of the time a mission has more than one of these, so creating main-space articles with them (with a naming like "The Prophecies Mission (cinematic 1)") would be kinda weird. For these cases, should we just create it as a subpage of the mission in question (with linking in the same article), ignore the cinematic altogether, or should we still create it in the main space?.--Fighterdoken 03:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a tough question. If cinematic pages for the other campaigns are made, it would probably be best to keep the seperate cinematics in a single mission on the same page, but giving them seperate sections like you have in dialogue sections now. So for The Great Northern Wall (cinematics), you might have something like:

==Dialogue==
===The Charr===
:'''<player name>:''' ''"I sure hope the Charr don't spot me on this hill!"''

===Invasion===
:'''Captain Calhaan:''' ''"Oh noes! Run away!"''

It might be strange to give the old cinematics "custom" title cards like that though, although such trivialities haven't stopped me before. As for the dialogue going on the mission pages as well, is there some kind of policy about duplicate information on mulitple pages? Sounds Risky | 08:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

I've added location stuff to the infobox. Normally, we'd have this in the article body, as it's a variable entry, but for this case, there is a one to one match, thus the infobox being useful. Backsword 12:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you want us to list, for instance, in the Into the North article, as location, Into the North, which is the "zone" that loads when loading this cinematic, or Boreal Station, in which the cinematic plays? Also, I'm having issues with the Template:Cinematic infobox when needing to list multiple locations and/or quests, as in the Encounter in the Depths article. See Template talk:Cinematic infobox. -Why 16:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

added: If we are going to list locations such as Into the North, I think we'd better remove the {{{location}}} parameter entirely, as they'll only show up as bold text anyway. -Why 17:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

moreover, as it might be difficult to classify the region in which, for instance, The First Vision plays (is it the Far Shiverpeaks, for the part in the Hall of Monuments, or the Depths of Tyria, for the part in the Destroyer's Chamber?) I'd feel more comfortable if we remove both the {{{location}}} and {{{region}}} templates again. Sorry for my spammy posting behaviour. -Why 17:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Notice on the nature of the game

I've seen that many of the actual articles are written for a single player game, assuming that the main character is made an avatar of the player. But Guild Wars is, at least officially, a teamgame with multiple characters. I know it's easier to test these alone, which may be the cause, but we need to distinguish between what is said by the party leader and other player characters. Which may require testing with multiple humans. Backsword 12:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

added: I'm glad someone finally took it upon them to get this going. People have been talking about doing it for nearly a year. Backsword 12:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, is it me, or is the party leader allways the only player character that talks during cinematics? Might have misunderstood your message. -Why 16:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Using [party leader] or <party leader> should be fine, but probably not capitalized. And as Why mentioned only the leader of a party ever talks in cinematics, no one else in the group does. And in Eye of the North only the party leader even shows up in the cinematics. Sounds Risky | 18:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking now's a good time to standardise all those [Character name], [Character], [Player], [Player Name], <name>, <character name>, and all those variations in many dialogue sections. We can add it to the general formatting page. -- ab.er.rant 01:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If I may share my humble opinion, I think [party leader] looks bad between all those capitalised NPC names. In my opinion, we should go for <Player Name>:, just as in most quest dialogues on this wiki, and a note regarding the fact that only the party leader ever talks during cinematics should go on this page. -Why 18:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Lower-case <player name>, on second thought. -Why 21:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I do actually prefer the gator mouths to the brackets, so...gonna change it. Heh. Sounds Risky | 19:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

"<Player name>: Hello my name is <player name>." imo poke | talk 20:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

PC names

I made up my mind about whether or not to use [party leader], [player character], <player character>, <Player character>, <Player name>, <player name> or whatever variations possible.

Please take a quick look at The Great Northern Wall (cinematics) and notice how the party members are listed. I think we should try to decide how to list party members and the party leader in both the characters sections and the dialogue section. Listing individual party members is something I very much oppose, as it will cause floods at later cinematics, where the party size is 8. I think the best thing we can do is this:

==Characters==
===Major Characters===
*{{any}} <[[party]] leader>
*{{w}} [[Prince Rurik]]
===Minor Characters===
*{{any}} <[[party]] members>
==Dialogue==
:'''<party leader>:''' ''"Could you hand me the butter, please?"''
:'''Prince Rurik:''' ''"Sure, here you go. Don't be late for work."''

This means that in the GW:EN cinematics, the current Player character (party leader) used for the Characters section should also be replaced by <party leader>, to provide a uniform standard that can be used for all the campains.

Why use <party leader>, and not <Party leader>, [party leader] or whatever? Because <player character> is what is used in most Quest pages (*waits for someone to mention deciding over a uniform PC naming guideline for quests too*) but we obviously can't afford to use <player character> in cinematics, as there are loads of PC's involved in those. Therefore I think using <party leader> is the best thing we can do at this moment.

But for progression's sake, let's decide on with what words to list the party leader and party members first, before discussing if those words should be capitalized or not. —Why 10:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Lets go with <Party Leader> for all the speaking parts. As for the other part members why dont we just put <Party members>. The only place that would be different would be places like Augury. — Seru Talk 13:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

In the dialogue, start with an upper case character please. "<Party leader>: Hello my name is <party leader>." poke | talk 16:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

and yes, I prefer "Party members" over "Party member 2" - "Party member 8" and "Pet of party member 1" - "Pet of party member 8" ... poke | talk 16:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I can live with "<Party leader>: Hello my name is <party leader>." Can we call this consensus and put it in the guideline? ^^ —Why 16:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I just remembered, the name of the party leader or party members are never mentioned in cinematics. —Why 16:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, only the <party leader> as the one who is talking. They never insert names into what they say tho. — Seru Talk 16:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Formatting

Ok we have an issue with the Mission templates and I don't want to do more work untill we sort this out. I'm going to lay out a few options with examples.
1. Original plan

• example Nolani Academy (cinematics)

Why this is a good idea

•  Everything is divided up by Cinematic
•  Characters, location, and everything can be changed section to section.

Why it's not

•  Pages dont look uniform and can be randomly spaced.

2. Risky's plan

• Example The Great Northern Wall (cinematics)

Why this is a good idea

•  Pages look uniform.

Why it's not

•  Characters and locations are all listed together in one block.

3. Seru's idea

• Example User:Seru/sandbox

Why this is a good idea

•  Pages look uniform
•  Characters are divided up by scenes

Why it's not

•  Only one location/region/ect can be listed

— Seru Talk 20:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the way you've formatted your article information (although the dialogue headers should have a lower level), but not the infobox. How about we have one infobox with no image at the top, but a screenshot of each cinematic at the bottom, similar to how the extra images in the location infobox are -- it'll make sure that the infobox information can be easily seen without needing to scroll down past all the images, and keeps the images together without one being "more important" (i.e. the one at the top). If necessary, we can add more parameters for extra location/region entries. -- Brains12 \ talk 21:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) My 2 cents, first of all, you made a great list, I really have nothing to add. Considering the above, the only problem with the original plan is the layout. While I think your and Risky's suggestions are good, I would much rather hold on to the original plan. As I see it, it would be perfect, if we fix the page layout. I suggest adding headers per cinematic, as can be seen here. This eliminates much of the random spacing, and adds more order. Added: I do feel something for Brains's idea aswell. But the template might be difficult to handle for the average gwwikipedian. All in all, I'd rather see the original plan, but I'm fine with anything. —Why 21:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There was never an original plan as nothing had been agreed upon before people started making pages. Multiple infoboxes and character sections over-complicates and uglies up the page and you might as well break the seperate cinematics into seperate pages at that point. Sounds Risky | 21:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

What about this? Its the best i could do to try and make it look uniform and still easy to use — Seru Talk 21:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that looks great. But I'm going offline now, and if you guys decide something else looks better, I'm fine with that aswell, really. As long as we have a standard format so we can go ahead with documenting the cinematics without having to do this all over afterwards, I'm happy. —Why 21:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Haven't really looked into this, and is pretty much fine with anything, as long as it's factually correct. However, for technical reasons, multiple infoboxes are a bad idea. Backsword 01:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, you sure have a point. You know, nevermind what I said about this issue earlier. I'm going to start working on recording the dialogue and characters, and focus less on the making of the guideline itself. It all doesn't make such a difference and I'm sure it'll all work out just fine without me aswell. —Why 11:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

In order to keep the formatting similar throughout every cinematic regardless of campaign, and to use only one infobox on each page, I've tweaked the infobox slightly in my sandbox -- User:Brains12/Sandbox/Cinematic infobox. I tested it with a multiple-cinematic mission, User:Brains12/Sandbox/Nolani Academy (cinematic), and with an EotN single cinematic, User:Brains12/Sandbox/The Nornbear. (Also on those pages, I modified the title levels slightly.) -- Brains12 \ talk 13:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

even though I said not to mind, I absolutely love it! —Why 13:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I can deal with that. Just got to have Risky agree now? — Seru Talk 14:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I like Pling's example pages. poke | talk 18:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Pling? — Seru Talk 19:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Plingggggg. poke | talk 20:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok thx :) I wrote a draft for the new guidelines. If it looks good we can change the infobox and start reformatting pages. — Seru Talk 20:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, that infobox can carry up to 5 locations and 5 images. -- Brains12 \ talk 21:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I know, but I just figure it would be sufficient to keep it at 3 until we find one that has 4 or 5 cinematics. I think we agreed that Dragons Lair would only be the end and bonus cinematics so i can only see a max of 3. — Seru Talk 21:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I made a few changes, feel free to revert me. With these small alterations, I think it is a great, clear draft for a guideline. I'm logging off now, could someone update the Template:Cinematic infobox? —Why 21:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Divide up the policy

Something just struck me when i got to thinking. Why don't we approve the old method as either policy or guidelines for the Eye of the North cinematics. We could change this page to Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Eye of the North cinematics and we could draft a new page for mission cinematics. Something like Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Mission cinematics— Seru Talk 02:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that would actually be a very good idea. Perhaps we don't even have to create two different guideline pages, but just create different headers for Mission cinematics and EotN cinematics, possibly for Misc cinematics too. —Why 11:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

These things should generally be decided and put down as one guideline -- there's less to see for people who just want to find the guideline for cinematics. I'm sure that we can easily merge EotN and other cinematic formatting together. We just have to keep them uniform because it may be confusing to have different layouts and formatting for one type of thing; consistency is nice. -- Brains12 \ talk 12:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Request to change the policy

Draft of new Guidelines Please sign if you support, oppose, or are neutral about the change.

Support

1. — Seru Talk 21:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
2. —Why 21:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
3. . . .
4. . . .
5. . . .

Oppose

1. ...

Neutral

1. ...

Eh, no...

We don't vote, we get consensus through discussion. poke | talk 22:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Also you might notice that this is a formatting guideline, not a policy and this guideline wasn't even accepted, so just change it until everybody is satisfied. poke | talk 22:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

So if i change it would you accept it? — Seru Talk 22:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Just do the changes. As long as it doesn't throw away the things that were discussed above, it will be fine. And if not, people will still be able to make changes. poke | talk 22:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

How do we go about approving it? — Seru Talk 23:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Change to accepted?

I would like to call this accepted since the people who are working on the project. Why and Myself both agreed on this and Brains made the template that this is based off. I would like to call this accepted and not a proposal. — Seru Talk 02:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, one more thing, I see you reworked all the EotN cinematics (great job btw), now they list <Party leader>, but the current guideline sais the player character should be listed as <Player character> if there is no party around. I'm changing the guideline so that it states <Party leader> for those cinematics too, as it is more consistent with the cinematics from other campains. —Why 10:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Cinematic

The addition of this template seems rather redundant since it just links to exactly the same place as the "Plays during" parameter of the infobox doesn't it? --Kakarot 02:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess :\ I was thinking that but idk i just thought it might be nice to add. — Seru Talk 02:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah i removed it. Kakarot you think we could could this as accepted guidelines now? — Seru Talk 02:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I haven't really looked at the actual guideline so I can't really say either way. --Kakarot 03:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've changes ALL the previously done cinematics up to those standards (well around 90%) so i'd say we should stick with whats wrote out on this page. — Seru Talk 03:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There are still some things I'd like to change. For example, level one headers which should generally never be in an article body. Also, it might be a good idea to wait until it's accepted before you decide to conform every page to something that's likely to change. -- Brains12 \ talk 13:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree on that, there is no reason for them being level 1, while the headers beneath them are all level 3. Changing it. —Why 13:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Is everyone happy with it now? — Seru Talk 14:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless anyone has any disagreements with the current proposal can wee finnaly make this "official guidelines", — Seru Talk 16:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I'm fine with it. Lets wait a bit so everyone has a chance to read it and comment on it though. —Why 16:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Final

I would like to call this a final copy ,unless someone has an objection, on Friday Aug 08 at 0:00 UTC. — Seru Talk 02:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

agreed. —Why 11:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Finalised. -- Brains12 \ talk 20:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

finally :) — Seru Talk 20:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Section titles and viewing information

IMO cinematic sections for missions should have more descriptive titles. Specifically Pre-mission cinematic for pre-mission cinematics, Victory cinematic for post-mission cinematics and Intermediate cinematic or Intermediate cinematic # for other cinematics. Furthermore, IMO each cinematic section should include information on the circumstances in which the cinematic is plays (select dialogue option X from NPC Y, complete objective Z etc.). -- Gordon Ecker 07:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll i agree with the first part, but idk about the other part. THe only problem with that is it doesnt match well with the EotN cinematics. — Seru Talk 12:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

For those, there's only one cinematic per title, so a simple Cinematic heading could be used. IMO more specific titles should only be used for disambiguation for missions with multiple unnamed cinematics. -- Gordon Ecker 00:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

We just name the Cinematics by the order they show up. Eg Cinematic 1, Cinematic 2. :\ The only ones with named cinematics are EotN. All of the mission one are unnamed as far as i know. — Seru Talk 00:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I'm saying that the multiple named Eye of the North cinematics from the same mission or mission counterpart, such as Before the Battle and The Price of Victory should have separate articles, as they do now, with only a Cinematic heading regardless of when they play in the mission or equivalent, while multiple unnamed cinematics from the same mission should have sections which specify whether they are pre-mission cinematics, mid-mission cinematics or post-mission cinematics. -- Gordon Ecker 02:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Tell Theses people: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 to look at this page. I don't really have an objection to it, but you need to have a unanimous decision before we change it. You might want to write up a new policy in your sandbox. — Seru Talk 02:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is usually defined by those who participate in the discussion -- it doesn't need the agreement of everyone who may have been related to the project. As it is, this sounds fine. -- Brains12 \ talk 09:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It sounds good. It'll make the articles more orderly. What about "Prologue" for the pre-mission? —Why 14:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Im thinking Prologue, Intermediate, Epilogue. And then a bonus cinematic if there is one. aka The Dragon's Lair (cinematics) — Seru Talk 14:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Pre-mission cinematics

There is a serious flaw in this guideline. The cinematics we've classified as "pre-mission cinematics" do not actually play during the mission, and the guideline does not cover which name these articles should have. In the past, these pre-mission cinematics have been listed both in individual pages aswell as within their mission cinematic pages. In my opinion, we should decide over where to list these pre-mission cinematics: as seperate articles, and playing during the main quests leading to the missions, or as the first cinematic on the mission page? Why 11:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There are several cinematics that run during quests, not directly preceeding missions. I know I'm rather late getting into this discussion, but I would rather see it done correctly. I think listing them only by missions is misleading, as cinematics in particularly in Nightfall occur throughout the storyline, not just at the beginning and end of missions. -- Wyn 12:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Anything that doesn't play during a mission should not be attached as a mission cinematic. It may make sense from a storyline point of view, but not form a player point of view. If I want to read about a cinematic seen during a quest, I wont be looking for the following mission to find it, I will be looking at the quest. - anja 12:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) 1:Wyn, I'm sorry for continuing to edit General Morgahn (cinematics) and associated pages even though you left messages on their talk pages; I simply didn't notice them in time.

2:After reading Wyn's comments, I feel I must agree with her reasoning that these pre-mission cinematics should be listed as separate pages. Even though the NPCs that allow you to review the pre-cinematics say "mission cinematic", these cinematics belong in separate articles simply because they do not play during the mission, but during the main quest leading to it. I suggest splitting the pre-mission cinematics that are already attached to mission cinematic pages to separate pages, such as, for instance, [[<instert main quest name here> (cinematic)]], if possible. What remains are the pre-cinematics that do not play during a main quest, for instance those of Imperial Sanctum and Abaddon's Gate. These cinematics are only shown when the npc is asked to show them. --Why 12:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry to be a nuisance and posting my protests on every single page, but I know Blood234 is trying to get all the quest or non mission cinematics documented (he's in my alliance) and those are the only two he's gotten to so far, since they are all quest dependent, it means finding someone that has the quest active to get the screens etc. As I mentioned on your talk page, there is also the cinematic that runs at the end of All's Well That Ends Well and that neither follows a mission, nor precedes a mission, so where would that one be placed in the present scheme? I personally think that separate pages really are the only way to go. -- Wyn 12:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. :) --Why 12:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* i could redo nightfall i guess. I haven't done it with any of my characters. Even tho I despise it with a passion. I could also just get all the missions from Grand Court onward. — Seru Talk 14:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait for concensus first, and I'll help, don't worry. --Why 15:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This is true. But let's first look at how things work technically: These cinematics are triggered by entering an explorable area designed to do nothing but house the cinematic. Entry into that areas immediatly trigger it, and when it ends, the party is moved to another zone, generally the corresponding outpost. Now, since there are no portals to these areas, entry is by NPC. These tend to be two dialogues that have moving to options in them: one that is part of a quest leading up to the mission, and one from a cinematic review NPC. The first time one sees it, it would be from the first, so the cinematic may seem as a part of the quest, but as can be seen by the second, it's actually seperate and can be viewed with an empty quest log.

OTOH, if you think about what they are meant for, by Anet, they're clearly intended as introductions to the mission, and thus related that way. Backsword 17:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I still believe they should be tied to the quest where they first appear. Take Nahpui Quarter, as an example, a visitor to the Nahpui Quarter cinematics page will see 2 cinematics listed and it indicates they play during Nahpui Quarter, but when they go to do the mission, they will only see one. While if they went to a cinematics page titled Closer to the Stars (cinematics) they would know that cinematic played while they were completing (or had completed) that quest. The infobox play during variable, to me indicates when it would automatically be playing and that would be the quest, not the mission. The location of the review NPC can be listed in Notes.-- Wyn 00:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I updated the guideline. Why 10:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

this may be in discussion already...

Why not add a stub "a link" back to cinematic project on EVERY cinematic page? It should make it a lil easier and faster to find things. Thoughts? Blood 07:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is necessary, just put the project page on your watch list. -- Wyn 07:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think that articles should link to project pages. -- Gordon Ecker 07:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

but..but... I made a thingy already lol, but ok..sigh Blood 07:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Just put the project page under your favorites =P — Seru Talk 14:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

New addition for the cinematics pages

I think since we have asked that the cinematics pages be linked to the Mission/quest pages, we should add a See Also under Notes and point to the Mission/quest page.-- Wyn 22:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Aren't those already linked in the infoox? -- Brains12 \ talk 22:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

They are. I think we argued talked about this b4 — Seru Talk 22:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

What's a infoox Brains? =P --Kakarot 22:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's that ox with info on the right hand side of articles, duh. -- Brains12 \ talk 22:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ox? like the things that sort of looks like a cow? — Seru Talk 22:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That's cos it is a cow :P. -- Brains12 \ talk 22:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yay! — Seru Talk 22:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so my brain doesn't work properly sometimes :P -- Wyn 23:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Cinematic stills image size

"New images should be uploaded at 800x432px"...I've had trouble getting them down to 800x432 exactly. Do I crop them to get that low? I was thinking about cropping them but then it's not really an accurate representation of the cinematic then so I didn't crop. I tried it with the UI down and had to choose between 800x500 or 691x432. With the UI up and cropping away the black border I get 800x403 or 859x432. Seeing as it's a guideline I just went with 800x500 for now, but I thought I'd get confirmation. Maybe make it flexible so say "images cannot exceed 800px in height" or something to take into consideration people with different screen resolutions. Mystical Celestia 09:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Easiest is to set your game to 800x600 resolution, and then crop the black borders. — Why 11:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

And yea, these are guidelines, so if to improve the articles you need to stray from the guideline, feel free to do so! — Why 11:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Its easy to get them cropped that way if you use paint.net — Seru Talk 18:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)