Guild Wars Wiki talk:Formatting/Professions/Archive1

There we go. =) — Rapta (talk|contribs) 12:13, 8 February 2007 (PST)

I'll be making the templates too. They have edits from BArek and LordBiro and only trivial edits from RolandOfGilead which can be ignored. --Gem (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Approved?

The colors look good to me. Unless anybody wants to see any major changes, I'll remove the "under construction" icon from the formatting guide list tomorrow. Speak up now! --Tetris L 00:44, 14 February 2007 (PST)

The only change I'd like to see isn't really a change, but rather an expansion: The current version has only 2 colors for each profession. Many of the drafts in the discussion on GuildWiki had 3 or even 4 colors. I'd like to see two colors being added: One "body" color that is even lighter than the background color, and one "font" color that is even darker than the border color. But these are optional, and can ge added at any time, so this shouldn't stop us from approving the guide right now. --Tetris L 00:50, 14 February 2007 (PST)

Ooh, never paid much attention to this one. I kinda agree with Tetris about the expansion - except I favor the colors Roland of Gilead proposed in that GuildWiki-discussion (bottom): a 'header' color inbetween 'background' and 'border'. But I guess this isn't top priority right now :p --Erszebet 09:11, 22 February 2007 (EST)

For the armor pages Anja and I have been using a faint color as a sort of highlight. Here's the colors:

Warrior	#FFC	#FF8	#EA3
Ranger	#EFC	#CF9	#5A0
Monk	#CEF	#ACF	#44B
Necro	#CFE	#9FC	#0A5
Mesmer	#EDF	#DAF	#80A
Elementalist	#FDD	#FBB	#B33
Assassin	#FEF	#FCE	#A08
Ritualist	#DFF	#BFF	#0AA
Paragon	#FEC	#FC9	#960
Dervish	#EEF	#DDF	#77C
None	#EEE	#DDD	#666

- BeXoR 03:57, 27 February 2007 (EST)

LOL - Oh my, I find this hugely ironic. I originally had three colors in my color sets (shown at my GuildWiki notes page, and variations of those lighter shades are currently used in my user pages both here and on Gwiki) I had once proposed the lighter colors for GuildWiki, and had them pretty much unanimously shot down.

Personally, I fully support the introduction of the lighter colors to use as accents, and would love to see a renewed attempt to get them onto GuildWiki as well. My original lighter shades no longer match the main colors, but the above proposed shades work okay to me. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:02, 27 February 2007 (EST)

I like them too but I can't tell the difference between the lightest ranger color and the luightest warrior color. It's so slight a difference I don't notice it unless they are next to each other. Just an FYI.--File:VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 11:36, 27 February 2007 (EST)

For me, the lightest shades were never intended to be used on their own to identify the profession, they are accent colors that are compatible with the normal mid-range and dark colors that are clearer for differentiating the professions. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:08, 27 February 2007 (EST)

I have no objection to the standardisation of a lighter set of colours. I'm not sure when they would be used, but since we're using (or going to use) a ParserFunctions switch system, there's no harm in defining as many colours by colour-name as we like, i.e. light, dark, lighter, darker, whatever. LordBiro 13:20, 27 February 2007 (EST)

Actually, there might be harm. It all depends on how much we want to conform to profession colors. If we have a bunch of color codes recommeded for use, then the chance that different users will use a different combination of colors increases. -- ab.er.rant 20:44, 27 February 2007 (EST)

I suggest looking at the articles Monk armor and Mesmer armor to see examples of the third color in use. As an accent, it's quite good - and a guideline article can easilly stipilate that it shouldn't be used as the primary profession identifying color. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:35, 27 February 2007 (EST)

Is it just me or does all the tables (including the one above) have a thicker left border? -- ab.er.rant 23:50, 27 February 2007 (EST)

I don't care if theres a template for it, it was just a suggestion for anyone who might want an accent color to use those, seeing as they're all through the armor section. What browser are you using aberrant? Those borders look different in FF and IE, I know that much already, but there's not much you can do about it. Browsers are silly. - BeXoR 01:07, 28 February 2007 (EST)

You're right. I'm using FF at 1280. Seems the culprit is "margin: 0.5em". That just causes my FF to render the leftmost table border (not cell border) slightly thicker than the rest. Strangely, "margin: 0.25em" and "margin: 1em" looks fine. -- ab.er.rant 02:51, 28 February 2007 (EST)

I'm using the same, but now I think I'm noticing it. It doesn't even seem like a pixel wider, but like its a shadow behind. - BeXoR 04:38, 28 February 2007 (EST)

Is there a chance we could implement the lighter colors in the template, as lightbackground or something? It would really make the armor pages easier to create, for everyone. Notes can still be put to not use that lighter color as a standard color but an accent color. — Anja 15:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

As stated above - I fully support adding the lighter shades to the templates. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

How about calling it "tint" to go with "background" and "border", and then "lighter", to go with "light" and "dark". -- ab.er.rant 21:18, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Sounds good to me. --Rainith 21:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Sounds good :) — Anja 04:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Would it be horrible to add "bg" to the list of possible parameters for "light/background". It's really annoying having the entire word there when the colour code was only 4 characters. - BeXoR 05:15, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Is typing 'background' so bad? :P LordBiro 13:23, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Well... the template itself without the parameter value is already longer than the hexcode :) -- ab.er.rant 20:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I thought the template was to keep people using the same set of colors and so they didn't have to remember the hex codes, not make for less keystrokes... --Rainith 21:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Are you really arguing against having it? It doesn't change the way the template works currently, but makes it easier on some of the people who use it regularly. Is IS annoying having to type the whole word out instead of 2 letters. - BeXoR 02:44, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I think he is. Back when we were discussing how to go about creating the template, there were arguments for and against using short forms. In the end the full word was decided for readability, as all manner of short forms started getting suggested, like "bg", "fg", "bd", "lg", "dk", ... etc.

So adding an extra parameter to the template, which people don't have to use because the existing ones wont be changed causes some kind of problem? It would make life easier for myself, I know that for sure because I've used these templates here more than anyone else, besides Anja. Adding it as an option isn't taking anything away from how it works now. I don't understand what the big deal is. - BeXoR 03:43, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm not that fussed really. I was opposed to using the abbreviation when we were discussing the name of the template. I'm not going to cause a fuss if someone adds "bg" as a synonym of "background". LordBiro 10:03, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Well that's what I thought the concerns were about - the name of the template. This isn't affecting the usability in any way is it? - BeXoR 11:51, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

As Freud once said (or so I've heard attributed to him anyway), "Sometimes a banana is just a banana." I was simply asking a question, not arguing against it. It seems to me that this conversation has gone way to far afield. The template can contain as many shortcuts as necessary, we simply need to agree that these are the colors/shades that we want to use to represent these professions here and then call it good. --Rainith 13:34, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Profession icons

Did I miss anything? Has this been discussed anywhere? Is it a general consensus that we use the same icons as on GuildWiki (which Lord Biro has released under GFDL)?

I'm asking because, as we are hosted by ANet now, and ANet have offered to provide us with artwork, we'd probably have access to the official icons now, as seen in-game in the Priest of Balthazar menu.

The official icons are very similar to Lord Biro's, except for the ranger icon, which is a paw ingame, but a feather on GuildWiki. Maybe we should discuss a ranger icon redesign again separately, even if we generally agree to use Lord Biro's set.

One minor thing that has been bugging me forever is the transparent PNG background appearing as grey for IE6 users. It looks horrible, and there are far too many people still using IE6 to ignore it. There must be a way to avoid it. If it's impossible with PNGs, we should switch to GIF. --Tetris L 01:05, 14 February 2007 (PST)

I like these icons - they are very simple, and they look good on a white background, which I can't be sure of with the ingame icons - they are made for a black/grey background, and also are a bit complicated. They would have to be edited before they would be satisfactory for the wiki IMHO. If ANet is willing to help us with that, all the better. BTW LordBiro's ranger icon is actually a green leaf ;) --MasterPatricko 01:23, 14 February 2007 (PST)

As much as I like Biro's icons, and how immensly useful they are, I think it would be neat to have official ones. - BeXoR 02:11, 14 February 2007 (PST)

There are a number of points to consider here. I will try to present them in as objective a way as possible:

• Mike O'Brien said in the discussion with us that he wanted the wiki to have a design distinct from the guild wars website, as the former is a reference tool, and the latter is a marketing tool. To that end he said that the ArenaNet artwork team would be available for any work we required, but he hoped that the community would be able to design as much of the wiki as possible without ANet's help. (This is actually paraphrased, so if Fyren, Gaile or Mike want to correct me then that's fine, but this was the impression that I got).
• The official icons are, in my opinion, a bit of an eye sore. I don't want to be rude, it's just that I would have designed them differently. They are too complex and the style seems to differ from one icon to the next. And the colours used are also confusing.
• The transparency can be fixed, and I explained on a couple of occasions how this was possible on the GuildWiki, but I never really pushed it. You can use some Javascript to tell IE6 to render the icons as transparent, and I use this technique on my blog. It only works well with inline images (not background images), but that's not really a problem here.
• The icon is a feather, not a leaf.

As I've said before, the icons look like this because originally the game did not contain any icons (there may have been some on banners) but the European manual had some interesting icon designs, which I used as a basis for the original profession icons. The icons in the manual made perfect sense to me. They were simple and colourful. Then, when the Priest of Balthazar came about, these icons were not used (perhaps ArenaNet were not aware of the European manual) and instead some icons of a totally different design were used. The icons for the core professions were reasonable, but they were nowhere near as elegant as the icons I had expected to see. It seemed natural, at that point, to design the factions and nightfall icons to the same style as the core icons that I had produced, particularly using one outline and one colour per icon.

So my summary is this: I would prefer that this wiki used my profession icons, because I think they are more cleanly designed. From a usability point of view, giving each profession a single colour makes associations between an icon and a profession even stronger. If there is a call for it I would be willing to redesign the ranger icon to use a paw. LordBiro 05:10, 14 February 2007 (PST)

I, too, prefer the "style" of Lord Biro's icon. They are clearer, and the colors are much more distinct. However, I think our icons should show the same "object" as the official icon, if you know what I mean. For comparison:

<-ingame

. . . . . . . . . <- Lord Biro's

The icons match fine, except for the ranger (official icon shows paw, Biro's shows feather/leaf) and the mesmer (official icon shows hand, Biro's shows triangle).

Lord Biro, would you be willing to re-design the Me and the R icon to better match the ingame icon? --Tetris L 05:46, 14 February 2007 (PST)

As for background transparency, a client side fix requiring the use of Javascript isn't acceptable to me. Far too many wiki users browse with IE6, and I cannot accept that all of these have to see the ugly grey background unless they apply a manual workaround. If there is no server side fix, I'd strongly support switching to GIF format for these icons. --Tetris L 05:53, 14 February 2007 (PST)

Can I just say, in respect to the differences between the two, that the assassin icon always confused me. I always thought it was some kind of pink snowflake. I had no idea it was meant to be crossed daggers... :S - BeXoR 07:14, 14 February 2007 (PST)

I think I saw somewhere that Anet would have an artiste do some work for us if we needed it. I don't think it would be really hard for one of them to get the icon out of those ugly circle. Lordbiro's work is great but I think we should go with official design just for consistencies with the game and if this last for a long time, many users that bough chapter 10 ;) would never had any contact with guildwiki and could wonder why they don't match the ingame theme. Also if lordbiro quit for any reason the project, it could be difficult to find someone to do the new proffesion icons with such a great level of style.--Aratak 07:26, 14 February 2007 (PST)

The colors of the official icons for the non-core professions are really bad. Too pale, not distrinct, and they don't match the color of the boss aura. --Tetris L 00:44, 15 February 2007 (PST)

It's possible to change the grey background to white in GIMP. -Smurf 07:34, 14 February 2007 (PST)

And end up with white background on colored page?--Aratak 07:38, 14 February 2007 (PST)

It will still maintain transparency with browsers that support it, but default to white instead of grey with IE6. It's just a simple fix when the icons are going to be used on a white page most of the time. -Smurf 10:16, 14 February 2007 (PST)

I support keeping Biro's icons, that's all I'm going to add. --Rainith 09:05, 14 February 2007 (PST)

Ditto. I really see no reason to change any of them. They look good, they're distinct and easily recognizable, they work. --Dirigible 09:35, 14 February 2007 (PST)

I had not considered the fact that the Mesmer icon was also different. It would be so much easier (for me) if ArenaNet just used my profession icons :P They're under the FDL now, after all!

"a client side fix requiring the use of Javascript isn't acceptable to me" - I don't feel as strongly as some people seem to about the use of Javascript. Javascript is client-side in the same way that CSS is client-side. Javascript is already used by MediaWiki by default. The code required to make PNGs transparent is fairly lightweight, and you can use certain comment tags to make sure only IE6 users ever load the Javascript, so for those of us who it would not help it would not even be loaded.

Converting the images to opaque will not be ideal, since they'll no longer work on top of coloured backgrounds, and converting them into GIFs would not be that straightforward since the icons have anti-aliased borders and shadows. LordBiro 09:43, 14 February 2007 (PST)

IE support for pngs is notoriously problematic however, there is a "hack" that will correct the transparency issue listed here Edit: I'd also like to voice support for using Lord Biro's icons. Lojiin 09:49, 14 February 2007 (PST)

I fully support using LordBiro's icons internally to the wiki; but I also believe that the individual profession articles should show both the wiki used icon, as well as the in-game version. --Barek 10:18, 14 February 2007 (PST)

I also support using the Biro icons. The IE6 problem has possible fixes (easy ones) as listed above and people really should upgrade to IE7. --Gem (talk) 10:22, 14 February 2007 (PST)

Lol, I didn't even realize that the actual icons for mesmers and rangers were so different! I've come to associate the professions using Biro's icons... I don't even recognize the official ones :D --ab.er.rant 17:50, 14 February 2007 (PST)

I'm fine with Biro's icons but it would be nice to see some of the designs tweaked. I also think that the "official" ones should be on the profession page. - BeXoR 00:09, 15 February 2007 (PST)

Lord Biro: I'm a tech dummie, so you'll have to rephrase it for me: Does the user have to edit anything to enable/install the JS fix, on the server or his client?

Oh, and you didn't answer my question: Would you be willing to give the R and Me icon an overhaul to match the official icon a little better while maintaining your colors and style? Cause that would be my preferred compromise between your icons and the official ones. --Tetris L 00:44, 15 February 2007 (PST)

Javascript is imbedded in the web page. Normally, a user doesn't have to do anything to benefit from it, the browser loads it automatically when it loads the webpage. Unless they have Javascript disabled in their browser settings (but all browsers that I know have it enabled by default). Having said that, I don't like a Javascript workaround either, if only because I am biased against Javascript. ;p

I would welcome the R and Me icons being "fixed", too, however I wouldn't find it tragic if they stayed like they are. --84-175 (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2007 (PST)

The Javascript workaround would require no input from IE6 users. We would have to do one of the following. Add this code to the wiki's HTML:

<!--[if lt IE 7]>
        <style type="text/css"> img { behavior: url("/iepngfix.htc"); } </style>
<![endif]-->

Or we could add the <style> tag above to one of the CSS files. Either way we would also have to upload the .htc file, which would tell IE6 clients to re-render PNGs with transparency. The problem with the latter method is that (I believe) all clients would download "iepngfix.htc", but only IE6 would execute it, which is a waste of bandwidth.

On the subject of icons, I would be willing to redesign the icons to match the in-game icons, but if they don't look as good then I'm not sure what I'd prefer to do. As I said before, let's just petition ArenaNet to use mine instead :P LordBiro 02:13, 15 February 2007 (PST)

According to these stats IE6 is still the most popular browser with a marketshare of >40%. I'd rather have some users download a tiny file (it's only 1.2k!) they don't need than have more than 40% of our users view those ugly grey background icons.

Biro, how much time and work would it take you to create a draft for the new Me and R icon? If it's not too much to ask, it'd be great to have them for comparison and decision. --Tetris L 04:48, 15 February 2007 (PST)

If ~40% of the populace is using IE6, that means that ~60% would not be affected by the problem. --Rainith 09:05, 15 February 2007 (PST)

More support for LordBiro's icons from my side. --Xeeron 05:11, 15 February 2007 (PST)

I will work on some outlines tonight (that's about 4 hours time for me) and post my work here either tonight or tomorrow. LordBiro 06:49, 15 February 2007 (PST)

I'm in favor of keep the existing icons. I'm not familiar with the IE6-problems though, switched to Opera years ago. --Erszebet 06:51, 15 February 2007 (PST)

I still use IE6 at work. To be honest, I've never seen the big fuss about the backgrounds. It's not like anything in the icons is obscurred, it's purely a cosmetic thing. I honestly don't see any value in forcing a download to work around something that has no material impact on the quality of the information relayed. --Barek 07:54, 15 February 2007 (PST)

If the background is only cosmetics, then the anti-aliased borders and shadows are even more so, so we might as well switch to GIF format? Problem solved! ;) :p -- TETRIS L 09:13, 15 February 2007 (PST)

I just noticed this in the GWW:IUP when it discusses the image formats to use: "GIF files are usually of too low a quality.". For a symbol as small as an icon where blur is not an option, how much image quality would be lost?

My preference is to just stick with the existing PNG format and not mess with javascript. As I said, the gray backgrounds have never been an issue to me. I barely even notice them anymore (and at home, I use other browsers where it's not even an issue). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Regarding the redesign I have posted my work so far on my talk page. LordBiro 13:20, 16 February 2007 (PST)

LordBiro's talk page is currently centred around making the Mesmer Triforce into a Mesmer hand. The Ranger icon, however, is far superior to the official icon. Though it is allegedly a feather, the way it symbolises both fletching and nature is very appropriate. I'll join the crowd of people saying that they prefer it. -- Dashface 00:33, 27 February 2007 (EST)

I'd like a version of the ranger paw. Whether it gets implemented wiki-wide is another matter though. I think it is important for official documentation to correspond to what the player sees in game. I would like to see the Mesmer hand implemented wiki-wide though. The triangle is a bit odd. - BeXoR 01:09, 27 February 2007 (EST)

Cropping things

File:Mesmerico-sm.png - lol -FireFox File:Firefoxav.png 15:19, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Conversation re-start

As I posted earlier, I believe that the individual profession articles should show both the wiki used icon, as well as the in-game version. This gives the user a handy cross-reference between the wiki's icons and the in-game icons used. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I thought we were only going to use in-game icons? Mesmer icon was re-designed, only Ranger is needed now, no ?--Erszebet 07:32, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Mesmer icon hasnt been changed yet. - BeXoR 01:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Redesigned icon draft

The small hand icon needs cleaning up quite a bit. Also the purple might be a little dark. What do you think? LordBiro 20:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I like the Ranger paw print (okay, I still prefer the original, but seeing as we're changing, this one is good too). For the Mesmer, at the small size, it's unrecognizable - not sure how to fix that one ... maybe use a Simpsons style hand (three fingers + thumb) instead of the more technically correct 4+1? That way there's more room to get detail worked into the image. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Hehe, well, I'll consider that, but I think I can clean it up a little in Photoshop. I just got fed up last night because I made some mistakes. I'll have a go again later today. It also might be more clear if I lightened it slightly. But as long as you like the two large ones, that's what matters really. LordBiro 04:40, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

The ranger icon looks great! -- ab.er.rant 04:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

The ranger icon does look really good. I think the mesmer one actually might benefit from having a finger removed. It might be that the lines are a bit thick or that the purple is a bit too dark at the moment. If you could give us a lightened example that would be a good start. - BeXoR 05:29, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps the Mesmer icon would also benefit from having only a closed dot as eye, instead of that open dot? (And of course: feather pwns paw anyday! But as far as paws go: it looks spiffy.) -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 05:47, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I think the paw looks better than the feather. I was never sure whether it was meant to be a feather or a leaf. :P The paw really does look very good. - BeXoR 05:48, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

How could that feather ever be mistaken for a leaf! :) (OK, ok, they're both green... but still.) -- CoRrRan (CoRrRan / talk) 05:51, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Feather? *blink* *blink* ... I've always thought of it as a leaf... so... is it a feather or a leaf? -- ab.er.rant 06:32, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

It was a fleafer. The mesmer redesign looks too dark, as already mentioned - but I'm sure you'll fix it ^--^ --Erszebet 07:01, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

That was the beauty of the old icon ... no matter if you saw it as a feather or a leaf, they both were applicable to a ranger! :-)

I forgot to comment on the large Mesmer icon earlier - I was distracted by the small one. I agree with the comment above that it might be worth considering an open circle for the eye, instead of having the center dot in it. Three fingers might work here too - the spread of the fingers seem stiff, so I was thinking more room minus one finger would allow them to look more casual - but I'll wait to see what can be done with the current digit count! And as has been said, a lighter shade of purple. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:29, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

The ranger icon is marvelous, but I don't like the mesmer icon. It's too dark and the details are hard to see even in the larger size. -- (gem / talk) 20:09, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

What exactly happened to this one: File:Mesmerico-sm.png ? --Erszebet 15:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

PogS' icons

hi guys,

I was not aware there was an ongoing discussion regarding profession icons (pardon me i'm a wiki noob), nor did I suspect there was some kind of organized council that reached decisions. That's why I took the liberty to make some new icons (that I made for gwBBCode at first) and to replace them. The reason I made new ones is : the current ones look to modern to me. Their style is too cartoonish in my opinion. The one made are taken from the old GW ingame icons? Why ? because that are the only high res icons A.Net provided up to now. They are now impossbile to find. I find the current ingame icons too low res to look good on a website.So i took the old iconsand the nesw ones and reworked them on photoshop to create high res versions.

I made several size versions of them that I uploaded:

20x20

32x32

40x40

64x64

I checked on ie 6 and the icons look ok with it.

So look at them and make your mind. If you don't like tem and want to revert to the former ones, do it. Anyway i hope ANet will provide high res versiosn of the real icons. That would close the subject.

PogS 11:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

They look really nice, PogS, it's not the icons themselves I'm opposed to, I just wanted to point out that there is a discussion on it :) I will not, however, dive into the discussion on what icons to use. — Anja 12:04, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

No harm taken Anja ;) PogS 12:26, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Those are really cool icons PogS! I can't deny that they are extremely sharp, and they are the best reworking of the ArenaNet icons that I have seen.

But the argument that I have always made is that I don't like the official icons. I think that an icon should be as simple as is possible while still conveying a message, and the ArenaNet icons are fussy.

My personal opinion is that icons in a user interface should be simplistic. I would be interested to know how these icons scale to ~20px in height (around line height).

Maybe this would be really good as an even larger icon on each profession article? LordBiro 12:39, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

They look really really good. But when you put the smallest one into a line with text, it's a little too tall. For certain places like Template:Profession nav, it probably still looks ok, but for consistency's sake, see if you can make them smaller to fit the henchmen lists in locations, like Kaineng Center#Henchmen. -- ab.er.rant 13:04, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I didn't realise that the icons had been used already, such as in Template:Profession nav. I really don't like this use. They have made the box twice the height that it was initially. I will revert profession nav soon if no one has complaints. LordBiro 13:11, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Whilst they are very nice, I do prefer the simplicity of Biro's icons for the sake of being on almost every town page etc. --Lemming64 13:14, 22 March 2007 (EDT) (and i agree they don't look good in that nav box)

I agree the icons must be simpler as they are smaller. Here is a 20x20 version stripped of the background circle :

PogS 13:35, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm.... maybe I'm used to Biro's icons but without the background, the colors on your icons look a little washed out. -- ab.er.rant 13:38, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I still prefer biros for the different size versions, yours look great in their original size, but because they are done in photoshop they lose something when you resize, because biro's are simply done in inkscape using vectors they lose nothing or very little when you altar the sizes. to be honest this is either something we need a vote or a management decision on, otherwise we will just go round in circles. --Lemming64 13:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT) (not to mention it was a little presumptuous on your part pogs to change the profession nav icons without any kind of discussion.)

That is indeed why I wanted to change them : they look too cartoonish and flashy to me and I wanted to wash them out to make them look more like the ingame icons. (quote)(not to mention it was a little presumptuous on your part pogs to change the profession nav icons without any kind of discussion.)(quote) ???? I thought a wiki was a website where everybody could post, edit, change the content with total freedom. ... if it's presumptuous to participate to the site and try to improve it, then we are all presumptuous. This wiki is a complete new site and I don't see why we would be compelled to use then content from gwiki. In fact that would be cool to use other icons as that would differentiate both sites. PogS 13:58, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually no if everyone changed everything they wanted with complete freedom there would be chaos, that is why we have discussion pages, if it was a small change fair enough, but changing a navbox like that effects a lot of pages. not everything is black and white, there is some grey to consider too. regarding your other comment we are compelled to use biro's icons for several reasons, but mainly I would suggest a majority of people like them, which is why above I suggested a vote on the matter, otherwise based on the freedom bit people will just keep changing the links back and forth. --Lemming64 14:03, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, changes can be made to pages, provided those changes follow site policies, guidelines, and agreed formatting. The issue here is that the community had already discussed the icon style question and decided, for now, to use modified version of LordBiro's icons (the modified Mesmer and Ranger icons are in progress). As that formatting decision had already been discussed and reached, changes to that style (ie: using different icons in templates and pages) should be discussed prior to changing them. In this case, you hadn't realized the discussion was here until after the fact - so no harm done and now the discussion on which to use can be revisited. However, until a decision to change it is reached, the new versions shouldn't be used on actual articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:02, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I think you actually just made my point for me, I may have worded it badly when I wrote it though. Thank you Barek --Lemming64 16:18, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

OK I understand there is a need for consistency ;) Here is a reworked version :

Looks like a pixel is cut off the edges. Might I suggest making the gold border thinner for the smaller sizes so that the actual icon scales a little larger. - BeXoR 14:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Biro's icons need a revamp, we're dealing with an official wiki and the ranger and mesmer icons are totally off, that's fine for a fansite like GuildWiki, but a fan's assumption shouldn't wash in the official wiki. I call for a re-draw of the Ranger & Mesmer icons. The other icons are close enough. --Jamie 14:21, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Scroll to the section above this one in this very same page for the ranger and mesmer icons redesign discussion. :P --Dirigible 14:28, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, thanks for paying attention Jamie :P LordBiro 14:47, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Do you guys know I also modified each profession page adding the 64x64 icons I made. if the site keeps LordBiro's icons they must be removed as well. Same for the profession nav. Else there is no coherence. PogS 15:39, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

These icons are very nice. I flipped through several pages comparing how they look to the older icons we had been using. In the end, I like the looks of LordBiro's icons on this site more.

My main objection to the PogS icons is that they are too fancy and don't resize as well as LordBiro's icons. The icons created by Biro are simpler, for the most part size better to the small icon size, and fit the overall style of the site far better than the PogS icons. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:55, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Although these icons are great, I like the Biros simplistic ones more in the wiki use. -- (gem / talk) 20:07, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree, at small sizes the detailed ones just don't work. I do think that the official artwork should be in the profession articles, but that Biro's icons should be used throughout the wiki. They are much clearer. - BeXoR 01:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

The problem with Biro's icons is that they are far too different from the official in game icons. For example, the assassin one was mistaken for a snowflake by someone, the paragon icon does not look close to the in game icon in shape or colour. Same for the Mesmer and Ranger icons. Thus they are not recognizable as fast as mine. I disagree with you when you say my icons do not look right at 20x20 size. Plus who said the icons had to be this size ? Why can't we use 32x32 icons ? Their size is reasonable to be incorporated within text and they allow more details. Moreover Biro's icon colours used are too saturated compared to the in game icon atmosphere. Furthermore The new official wiki site does not need to be just a port of the old gwwiki site. The community can use this opportunity to reinvent a better site. As the new wiki is an official site endorsed by A.Net, the icon must be as close as possible to the in game icons while at the same time being instantly recognizable. Do not overlook that now the site is official a lot more people will visit this site, as it will be advertised by A.NET and maybe accessible from within the game in the future thanks to the change of licence. Thus it must blend with the game. While yo guys are used to Byro's icons, most newbie players will not and may be confused by them. The new wiki is not a fan site as gwiki was. As the wiki is a teaching tool, a tutorial, it needs to be as close to the game it can be. The aim is not to continue the old wiki as is. That is why I took part into the new wiki and decided to make new icons. I know your are accustomed to these icons because you work on the wiki all these times but as the site is official, you have to think to the visitor's sake and not your wish. Visitor's sake first. If you look from this point of view, you shall agree that these are Byro's icons that do not fit well. PogS 06:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I reverted each profession page to their previous version for consistency. Is there a way to create a poll on the site to ask visitor to vote for the icon set they want ? PogS 06:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

LordBiro is working on ranger and mesmer icons that fit the in game ones. After that all of the icons are close enough to the in game ones that anyone will realise what they stand for. I full heartedly support using Biros icons. -- (gem / talk) 06:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I disagree with you Pogs. There are only 3 of Biro's icons that don't resemble the in game ones and he's already reworked one and is fixing another. Keep in mind that in game the only time you see these icons is when you talk to a profession changer or do one of the secondary profession quests, or at the balth rewards npc. And in a line of text 32x32 breaks up the line spacing which is discouraged. When I came to gwiki as a new visitor and player I didn't have any problems figuring out which profession each of the icons belonged to. And at that point I had never taken notice of any in game icons to compare them with anyway. While it would be nice to have official icons, I still think Biro's are better than yours, simply because they are clearer. The gold circled background is annoying on smaller icons, and your versions without them aren't satisfactory. Now Biro has had complaints from people and has committed to improving his icons, maybe you should do the same before we start making decisions about which should be used. - BeXoR 06:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

As I've said before, my problem with the official icons is that they are not good icons. They work very well as large images but you would never put them in a user interface.

Perhaps I am set in my ways, but I base my opinions on things that I know about user interface design. Icons should be simple, they should invoke an association quickly without any unnecessary noise, i.e. like decoration on a shield. If it's a shield shape and it's a shield colour then it is a shield. A million tiny decorative patterns don't make it any clearer to the reader.

It doesn't help that the ArenaNet icons also don't seem to have much of a unifying theme. The first six icons have single colours, and straightforward outlines (even if there is more decoration than needed), but the in-game assassin, paragon and dervish icons are all just images of things, with no single colour or outline.

I've made my reasoning clear and I've been as objective as I can be. As images your icons are excellent, PogS, but as icons they are not so good. LordBiro 07:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I have to follow up on what has been said already and I agree, when I first saw Biro's icons as a newbie I don't remember any confusion as to which signified what. The distinct colours make it very easy to tell what is what and after he has reworked the ranger and mesmer one I can't see any problems. Even if the shapes are wrong (which i don't think they arE) the colours seem right and make you think of that class. --Lemming64 07:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Not only an icon must be clear but it also must correspond to the atmosphere of the game. To me, your icons do not. They could be icons for a flash game or the Sims for all I see with their absence of details, their flashy colours. No doubt your icons are great. But for me they just do not fit GW and it's fantasy atmosphere, colour and feel. To see if an icon is good : look at it outside its context and if you can recognize where it belongs then it is good. These are not generic icons, these are game icons. They must refer to it to be good. Look at skill icons : in gw there are not simple, they have great details, and give a real atmosphere to the game. Whereas WoW icons are simple and clearer, A.NEt has not chosen the same path and has given GW a unique feel , atmosphere with their icons and reinforce its subtle gameplay by using this kind of icons. You may like it or not but the wiki needs to convey the same feeling. I also disagree on the number of Biro's icons to remake. If you decide to keep them : mesmer, ranger, assassin and paragon must be reworked. mesmer and ranger to look like in game in shape. Assassin cause it indeed looks like more like a snowflake than daggers. Paragon cause the shape is different so are the colours. PogS 07:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Clearly you are not listening to what anyone is saying. take a breath and read the discussion with a clear head, whilst you are making valid points, what you want is impossible, the level of detail you require is impossible on this kind of scale --Lemming64 08:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Read the discussion above. Multiple times it was said that the ranger and mesmer icons have been redone and are still under discussion. Your icons may look great as large icons, but the small ones are unclear and without the circle they don't look good.

It is not a status thing to have your icons to be used in the wiki. Pushing your own icons jsut because they are yours is not reasonable. -- (gem / talk) 08:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I've read all that has bee said. The mesmer and ranger have not be redone cause I still see the former ones on the pages. Plus I also ask for the paragon and assassin rework. Lemming, you are not the one that does not read others. Gem, just as wanting at all cost to keep Biro's icons is not reasonable. I have tons valid of arguments whereas you have only one : my icons are not clear (which is not true to me). Instead of always telling me the same unique argument, I would like you to answer mine. That is the way a discussion is supposed to work. Even if your argument were true, that does not answer mines regarding the unfit of Biro's icons. PogS 08:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

In comparison, I'd have to say Biro's icons are a lot clearer than PogS's Icons, The beauty of Biro's icons in in simplicity, whether in large or small, they remain the same, due to their vector-esque nature they are clean and clear. PogS's icons however are more suited to jpeg quality images high-scale iamges, they look very nice, but not great in lower scale where they loose their border and also their clarity. I agree with Gem here. --Jamie 09:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I could easily revert the argument Biro's icons in large look bland cause they have no details. PogS 09:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

The issue here is clarity, when designing for the web it is best to keep graphics clean and simple, especially signs and icons. please sign your posts, please. --Jamie 09:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

My set have the advantage to range from 20x20 to 64x64. This extended range allows more possibilities for the site. Do not reason on a guildwiki basis but official wiki being a complete new site, we can use such versions top expand the site. Nothing compels the community to mimic guildwiki. Expect that the administrators and "circle" are the same and seems opaque to changes comming from outer circle people. As someone else said it is not a wiki behaviour to be so protective. when coming to graphics which are highly arguable. You say my icons are not clear. I say no. I agree Biro's are clearer of course but such level of clarity is not needed. It does not belong to GW atmosphere and feeling as I stated before. My icons are clear enough as you recognize the profession. As a set needs consistency, they need to be the same for all size.PogS 09:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

And Biro's icons are vector based ones: they can be resized without any loss in quality, not only from 20x20 to 60x60 and everything in between, but even 5000x5000 and 1millionx1million should the wiki feel the need to have an icon that size. Your argument is invalid.

Your icons look way too bloody ugly in all versions but the 60x60 one. They just don't resize well, because they're way too complex. "Mona Lisa" may be a great painting, but it would also be terrible as an icon on this wiki. You really need to read what we're saying and stop looking at who's saying it; that's the easiest way to end up with broken feelings, (such accusing the entire community of xenophobia, as you're doing above). Might want to take a deep breath and try and set those thoughts aside for a moment, as Lemming64 suggested you above. You're taking this way too personally. --Dirigible 09:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

My argument is not invalid because Biro's icon can be size up but that won't add any details. Biro's icons when large look even more bland and empty. Just as my icons "are" bloody ugly in 20x20, Biro's are just as ugly beyond 20x20. What the point to have an icon beyond 64x64 ? it is not an icon any more beyond this size I's an image. We have tons of images of profession we could use then. If my icons look ugly, I suggest you go buy glasses or maybe you are colour blinded and have difficulties distinguish 2 colours from one another... or maybe it's time you buy a new monitor that display colours sharply. Maybe all this fuss comes from different screen displays. I use a LCD with numeric display so my screen is really sharp and well contrasted. Anyway I won't argue any more, do what you want with your wiki. I'm out. PogS 11:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

plz lets keep this discussion civil. Back on topic: The profession icons need to fit with the wiki's simplistic design because they are used throughout the whole wiki. The gold borders stand out way to much. If this site looked more like guildwars.com then your icons would work better. -Smurf 10:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Agreed, this icons are suited to the graphics background in game andf gw.com, but not here. --Jamie 10:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Could you please tell me how to remove my images from the server ? PogS 11:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Use {{delete|reason}} to request deletion on pages or images. -Smurf 10:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm not getting into this discussion, if you can call it that now. I will say that we do not dissuade other users from voicing their opinions and ideas for a new way of doing things. Sometimes new ideas work, sometimes not. However, you can see a difference in our formatting and policies here than on GWiki. Smurf has already beaten me to voicing to keep this discussion civil. Please follow his advice. This is a general reminder, not aimed at one single individual. — Gares 11:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

One even need to be admin to remove one's own uploaded image when it is no used anywhere... PogS 11:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

When you make a contribution to this wiki (or any wiki) you release that contribution to the wiki to do with as it pleases. If a user could freely remove their own contributions then it would make life very difficult for everyone. LordBiro 11:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Even though PogS' images may not be suitable to be used as icons, as I said above they do look very nice at their full size. Maybe there's still some way to use them? For example, I think they'd look pretty spiffy on the different profession articles, maybe even on the profession guides and such. --Dirigible 12:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

While I agree they are very nice (in full form), it's hardly consistant to have two sets on icons. --Jamie 12:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Yep ther is a need for consistency that prevent the site to having 2 differents sets of icons. It must be unified. PogS 13:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

The official icons should be on each of the profession pages (not the navigation) but Biros icons should be the set used throughout the wiki. - BeXoR 07:13, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree (no surprise, I've said that elsewhere several times). I like Biro's icons for navigational use throughout the wiki. But, the individual profession articles should show both the wiki-used icon, as well as having the current in-game icon for that profession. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:05, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I think the whole topic is over, pogs seems to have deleted his user page and tagged all his images for deletion. --Lemming64 15:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

This brings up an interesting question: Can we use these images anyway? And if so, should we? LordBiro 16:00, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

As far as I know technically yes, once anyone uploads anything to the wiki has released that material to the wiki. this is based on the information in Guild Wars Wiki:General disclaimer. However whether we should or not (based on moral and ethical grounds) is a different matter. --Lemming64 16:06, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm sure one of the anet devs will be able to provide us with some icons in the future anyway. - BeXoR 02:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, we could try to leave PogS a note right? -- ab.er.rant 06:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

You can use them if you want but as these are not the official icons but rework of them so they have no legality to represent in game icons. PogS 13:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I hope you're not feeling bitter that people decided to stick to Biro's icons :( Like a lot of them voiced out, they really like your icons and hope to see them used somehow, even if not as the "official" profession icons. We can still make use of it on profession articles and maybe the attribute articles as well. -- ab.er.rant 19:30, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I just wanted to say that I find PogS icons so far better than the old ones that I'm surprised to see there is (was) even a discussion. Anyway if it's ok with you PogS I've chosen to use your icons on my user page. -- Cérilia

Yes, a lot of users have used PogS's icons on their user pages. If you read most of the stuff above, you'll find some of the main reasons why LordBiro's icons were kept. And PS: You can sign by using ~~~~. It's explained in the notes below the "Save page" button ;) -- ab.er.rant 15:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, i gotta say, i really like PogS' icons, but for the purpose of small icons i think biro's are just far better, because they're not pale. my build template (User:Y0_ich_halt/Templates/MiniBuild) used {{w}} and such, and since those were changed, recognizing the professions has gotten much harder, because the tango icons don't have clear borders, so i changed it back to biro's icons for my template using a #switch:. ok, tbh, i don't like the whole tango thing much anyway, but i think tango prof icons are not suited for the purpose of small profession icons. - Y0_ich_halt 15:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

(exception: the icon looks better tango style for some reason) - Y0_ich_halt 15:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI both sets are Biro's. Eventually the template will have a function set up to use the old style too (dicussion is on Biro's talk). - BeX 02:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

oh, lol xD well, thanks anyway. - Y0_ich_halt 11:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Shortcut

Is GWW:PROFCOLORS the best choice? I'm thinking a shorter shortcut would be more useful. Maybe GWW:COLORS or GWW:PCU (profession color usage)? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:01, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't mind a change, I just picked one randomly. "PCU" might not be intuitive but still possible I guess. "COLORS" is not appropriate unless we include info about color schemes in general as well, such as the infoboxes and nav bars. -- ab.er.rant 00:17, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Icon for None

I'd like to see the icon for None changed to be gray instead of red. Color seems to be one of the primary elements in identifying the icon, and it seems odd to have None be as colorful as the others. Currently it's a bit harder than necessary to distinguish from the Assassin.

Also, I think there should be a new icon for 'any profession', which would be used by things like Signet of Capture and the common insignias, instead of using the same icon as things that have no profession. Possibly simply a light gray circle? A decagon with all 10 professions colors in it? -- Ondo 01:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Actually, there was a proposal to replace that "X" entirely as it just carried a negative implication. It just seems to died out... I can't even remember where the previous one took place. -- ab.er.rant 03:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Biro has created a no-profession icon to go with his new set. See User talk:LordBiro/Skill box draft 5 - BeXoR 04:31, 10 April 2007 (EDT)