Warcraft Wiki talk:Proposed icon/Archive01

Rollback

Rolled back WoWWiki talk:Proposed icon to 02:49, 10 Feb 2006 version, since the reason given to remove random icon proposal wasn't very convincing. --Fandyllic 1:41 PM PST 10 Feb 2006

well, whats the reason for the random icon? all 3 are visible. i dont see much use for having a fourth in the list thats just a random view of the other 3. CJ 04:51, 11 Feb 2006 (EST)

The random icon isn't there to show off the other three icons.. It's a proposal to have the icon in the upper corner of the site to randomly rotate amongst the various icons, rather than just have one static image. Do you get it now? --Anticrash 09:41, 13 Feb 2006 (EST)

Anything happening?

Is anything happening with this? --Xmuskrat 13:11, 28 Dec 2005 (EST)

Yes! We are still acumulating votes while we wait for rustak to notice (-; --  _ℑilver§^ℑide 11:49, 31 Dec 2005 (EST)

I've noticed a while ago :) It just doesn't seem to be a landslide one way or another -- though to be honest, I like icon #2 more than #1; #1 (and #3) is just a little too "Alliance" for my Horde tastes ;) #2 seems to be more neutral. -- Rustak 23:18, 30 March 2006 (EST)

I can't remember specifically which was #1 and which was #2, although I might be able to dig them up. In any case, though, #3 matches very well the actual World of Warcraft icon which shows up on the box and on the website. Too Alliancey? Well, it's on the box. I'd love to see more icons. I really don't like the selection. Schmidt 07:46, 1 June 2006 (EDT)

Enough of a landslide yet? ;) The whole 'random icon' thing is stupid, I mean, just amazingly dumb. How do you know what logo the people voted for?! They're not gonna sit and wait for each logo to come aournd before making the descision. Either way, it's losing... (uh, that rant was brought to you by -- Kirkburn 09:12, 2 June 2006 (EDT))

This is getting utterly utterly stupid

You can't keep adding more icons! The icon has been voted for by over FOURTY people. Do you suddenly expect them all to return and revote? *sigh* If you want to keep changing stuff, ignoring already-in-progress votes, fine ... it doesn't help anyone. The random icon thing, as I've said before, is also stupid as no-one knows what the random icons are as they keep changing without a master list.

Two suggestions, either:

• Let the farce of a vote continue, or
• Wipe the slate clean with a sensible selection of icons

If I sound annoyed, I am. Democracy ftl  :) -- Kirkburn 11:00, 10 June 2006 (EDT)

Well I probably would have been a little less blunt myself, but I sorta agree here. The original vote started in .. February? I didn't vote earlier, because I didn't particularly like either icon enough to vote. I liked the idea of the random icon, but I'm worried about 1) adding page load time and 2) never could see what all the current randoms are. That being said, I really like Icon 4, so I voted this time. However, if I'd known the field was still open, I might have tried to come up with something myself.

Also, I think that this is all pretty much wheel-spinning anyway, unless Rustak actually decides to change it. So in that case, it doesn't really matter how long it stretches out. :)

I had another point, but I forgot what it was, so nevermind. Gilly DH 12:37, 10 June 2006 (EDT)

I understand your frustration. First off, the name of this page is Proposed icon, not Icon voting forum or any other such. Now, the precedence is set that this is something to be voted on. True enough. The fact is, it is elsewhere declared that what we really need is more options. None of them are especially good. Come on. We have to have some good graphics people. I know that I'm not, but I also know that others are. Can't anyone come up with anything good? Rustak is very willing to change it if he sees a good one. I, for one, agree. None of them are spectacular or (as was said by someone else) peculiar to WoWWiki. I'm not that creative in that department, so I don't have any ideas. Maybe someone else could have a good idea (even in writing), post it here, and someone else more capable could put it in graphics.

I'm not averse to wiping the vote slate clean as well as disbanding any semblance of a vote for now. But maybe that's just me. Schmidt 13:26, 11 June 2006 (EDT)

At least we have to get rid of the random icon thing, as it makes no sense :) I wasn't annoyed at the fact that the popular icon had't been implemented, but at the way the vote isn't really valid any more ... And, of course, it's down to Rustak :P

I would suggest wiping the slate clean, building a collection of logos ... then allowing everyone to vote for any icons they like (i.e. more than one vote each). That way, after a while, we can see which icons are very popular, and whether a rotation is appropriate. -- Kirkburn 15:03, 11 June 2006 (EDT)

Alright. I archived the vote, and disbanded it. We do need a collection, and I said something to that effect on the project page. Schmidt 07:53, 12 June 2006 (EDT)

Ahoy hoy, I wasn't 'disgusted' at it, thank-you-very-much! It just needed resetting so we can sort it a bit better :) I think saving all the 'random icon' pics and placing them as separate votes would be a good next step. So far I've seen the 'stamp' version, and 'Familiar Anger Management Orc Rawr'. Are there others?

Anyways, Rustak has the final say, so presenting it as a 'submit you own' thing can only help! In summary ... happy happy joy joy! -- Kirkburn 17:28, 12 June 2006 (EDT)

PS. Who wikified my 'ftl' earlier?? :)

I did. You like it? Schmidt 12:02, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

IE6 is lame

I fired up lame-@ss IE6 to see the white background problem and of course it happens. Now I know why I don't use IE6. --Fandyllic 1:42 PM PDT 12 Jun 2006

LOL. Yeah, same here, and I would have used the very word lame as well, interestingly. I hate IE and never use it unless there's no other browser available. But then Netscape kind of sucks too, and maybe other browsers too. Boy am I glad there's Firefox. Schmidt 14:44, 12 June 2006 (EDT)

But the fact is, there may be many people who use IE6, and a white background to such an image would be very undesirable for those folks, right? Schmidt 14:44, 12 June 2006 (EDT)

There is an alternative of adding a little bit of javascript to allow PNG transparency in IE6, so all is not lost :) Anyways, I know it may annoy certain people, but I doubt many visitors change the wiki style =) -- Kirkburn 17:22, 12 June 2006 (EDT)

There is no reason not to use gif for the image as well. The image is so small and there are so few colors png is not worth it, nobody could tell the difference with the naked eye. Gryphon 19:05, 12 June 2006 (EDT)

That's not my department. I guess it would be up to whoever makes the finally chosen icon. (I have no experience with graphics beyond basic MS Paint.) But I agree with Fandyllic that we don't need to be supporting IE6 that really isn't that good anyways. It's not like it disables the whole site, anyways. It is just a friendly reminder, as I think Fandyllic said, to get a better browser. *shrug* Schmidt 12:02, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

On a side note, IE7 has proper PNG transparency :) And don't go telling me IE7 is crap too, otherwise I'll know you're all fanboys :P (I use FF and IE7, but I prefer IE7 currently) -- Kirkburn 12:14, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

Heh, funny if a site doesn't work in FF it's a sin, but make it so it doesn't work in IE (still the most used browser), that is great. Hypocrits. Can easily spot the web developers from the user fanbois. Gryphon 16:57, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

Btw, this should be an example of PNG transparency working in IE6 ... [1] ... I can't check since I have IE7, but somone without should be able to see if it's working. (update: it appears not) Oh, and agreed with Gryphon ;) -- Kirkburn 17:44, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

The pribul.georgepribul.eu example uses javascript (sleight.js) to make it work, so that rules out it working on this wiki (as far as I know). Also, the fact that most people use IE6 isn't for any good reason, its because the US government is bought and paid for. Also, the whole reason to use PNGs is so you can get something more than the lame 256 color limit on GIFs. I may upload a GIF version of my proposed icons so you can see how bad they look. :-P --Fandyllic 4:56 PM PDT 13 Jun 2006

Yeah, good old javascript. If that won't work here, fair enough :) If they really do look that bad in gif format (which wouldn't surprise me for some of them), then PNG away! -- Kirkburn 18:03, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

Hardly different (and 1/3 the size) ;) http://www.gryphonllc.com/temp/Proposed_WoWWiki_icon.gif http://www.gryphonllc.com/temp/Proposed_WoWWiki_icon.png Gryphon 18:20, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

I hate to say it, but the GIF looks pretty good (hides head in shame). I thought it would look crappy with all the colors, but with a good interpolation, I guess it's not so bad. --Fandyllic 6:31 PM 27 Jun 2006

I disagree. The GIF version looks darker and muddier (because GIF doesn't store gamma info), whereas the PNG looks bright and clear. The GIF also contains numerous articacts from the dithering, which make the characters look more blocky. Rather than give up on PNG entirely, how about we just ditch the nicely alpha-blended shadow and use a transparency mask? IE can't handle an alpha layer, but it's got no problems with transparency masks, even on a PNG. For that matter, it's possible to enable alpha channel support in IE via ActiveX by using a simple JavaScript: [2] -- DarkRyder 09:52, 7 August 2006 (EDT)

http://webfx.eae.net/dhtml/pngbehavior/pngbehavior.html - this is another solution for dealing with PNG's - it is handy as it requires the script file to be included on the server (again, JS im afraid) and editing the img section in the css - the way images are declared in the (X)HTML code stays as it is. It essentially checks if your browser is IE5.5+ and if an image is a PNG and applies the alpha channel - should be easy to implement in a wiki and would put this whole debacle to rest! --Crisb 09:48, 29 September 2006 (EDT)

The borders of the letters, as well as the features on the orb, are very dark on my screen, for the gif. Overall, it seems that colors are more polarized on the gif – some darker, some lighter. I don't like it. Anyways, IE6 accepts dummy code, so sometimes when you write javascript that works fine in IE, it might not work in FF or other browsers. If I had to guess, I'd say that most browsers treat features and javascript the same, and IE cuts corners. It doesn't work with CSS "padding" (see User talk:D. F. Schmidt/Archive1#Templates, Item 'tooltips' etc.), it doesn't allow for tabbed browsing without some modification (I haven't looked diligently for one, but normally you'd expect it's easy to find). Moreover – which is the subject at hand – it doesn't have support for PNG alpha channel. Schmidt 07:29, 14 June 2006 (EDT)

Didn't say they weren't different, that isn't possible. Without being side by side you would never know what it should be. People are never going to be converted, we can argue till we are blue in the face, FF fanatics will be and IE fanatics will be, however as and admin and web developer you "should" be striving for compatibility between as much as possible besides what your own preference is. If you want to alienate people, that is your choice, just not a wise one "standards" or not. I personally use IE7, I could care less whether it is png or gif, just making the argument because the FF rhetoric is really annoying. Gryphon 12:12, 14 June 2006 (EDT)

It's true, isn't it? Just kidding. You were right about not being able to tell between them if you didn't see them side by side, but I do know that my screen has perfect color and when I'm watching a movie on my computer it looks perfect, and when on my brother's CRT (or his LCD) it looks like junk. I think the same of your gif. That's not a stab at you of course, but it's the way I feel about that.

Well, how about we just see how many people use IE6 and actually complain about it. (It's not the icon yet, after all.) If no one uses IE6, we don't need to worry with it, do we? We can just say that whoever wants to make them in png, if that's the icon we go with, then that's what we do. If a gif looks similarly good, then we might want to use that if people are complaining that the chosen one is unacceptable for IE6.

By the way, does anyone use or have IE5 or 5.5? I'd like to know what's up with that, whether they show up right or not. Maybe it's an IE6 anomaly. Can anyone tell? Schmidt 22:17, 14 June 2006 (EDT)

I don't see why everyone wants to use a transparent PNG. WoWWiki's background color is grey and uniform, why wouldn't you just put that color as the background of your PNG image and stop trying to find workarounds for Internet Explorer? Besides, using JavaScript to try and fix a poorly thought out image is not really a good solution either. Junado 11:52, 3 August 2006 (EDT)

http://81.233.236.26/wowi256.png

Just chucking in my 02. The image on the right is a 256-color conversion done in another program. (Still PNG, but 256 colors = will look the same in gif. I don't have any programs that generate GIFs due to patent issues =)). --Mikk 18:55, 19 June 2006 (EDT)

People who use IE in the year 2006 deserve to have non-functional web pages. I say screw them. User:Sadris June 27, 2006

I use IE in the year 2006. I use IE7, in fact, and it works for me. Screw me? ;) Anyway, as I mentioned below, there are many who do not have a choice over the browser they use to browse the site. I will not support breaking the image for them when a compromise can easily be found (i.e. make it look a little odd for the far smaller minority who use alt skins, or use a gif) -- Kirkburn 15:45, 27 June 2006 (EDT)

3+4 are showing as transpareng in Safari,, 5 is not..its showing with a white background CJ 00:46, 20 July 2006 (EDT)

As a footnote to this discussion - IE7 will be released soon (i.e. in the autumn) as a high priority update for XP. This means that most IE6 users will have converted to IE7 by the year end. I would therefore submit that a PNG will be okay, given the length of time we need for the vote and for implementation. -- Kirkburn 06:14, 28 August 2006 (EDT)

Complaints about proposed icons should go to...

.../dev/null as they might say in unix-land. Find or make a better alternative than complaining please. FYI, I will not change my proposed icons so they will look better in IE6. If it looks wrong, it should remind you to stop using such a lame browser. :-P --Fandyllic 1:52 PM PDT 12 Jun 2006

It does not matter whether you are a hardcore FF or IE fanboy - If you can get compatibility for both browsers, it will be the best. Ignorance is not an excuse for compatibility - Let's not forget that some people are not allowed to change their browsers due to family constraints, or if they use their school computer network.--gparent

I would agree if there weren't so many IE fanboys out there. We are talking a minor aesthetic issue and not a functional one. So they're forced to use an inferior browser. C'est la vie! --Fandyllic 9:17 PM PDT 27 Jun 2006

The fact that there is many IE fanboys makes it more of a reason to have a IE Compatible icon (Like the one we already have, mind you. I use FF - I could really not care less, but I would prefer having an icon for both browsers. Mind you, we could probably replace the transparent background by the gray we use here. Most likely the percentage of people using the standard wiki skin is much lower than the percentage of IE6 users out there.--gparent

IE fanboys? Er, what? I think you'll find an awful lot more Firefox fanboys in the world today ... however, there are many out there who are forced to use IE6 for a variety of reasons. -- Kirkburn 15:43, 27 June 2006 (EDT)

IE fanboys? I would think there was no such thing; and like Kirkburn (maybe not exactly like him), I am inclined to think that the only reason people use IE6 is because either they're at school or work or another person's computer so they can't choose their own browser, or else they have no (or at least not sufficient) knowledge that FF is like 10000000000000000 times better. Nevertheless, I'm with Fandyllic here. The appearance of the icon is aesthetic and not functional. On the other hand, we do want this wiki to look like it's produced professionally, although we all know each other better than that. That's why I'm wanting to work on a new style formatting project, and want to nail down what the future main page will look like. That will aid in the future of the project. The icon should therefore look good in all browsers.

Now even though IE7 is readily available for download, it is not readily available at schools and jobs and so on. Further, even if people have a legit copy of Windoze, they might not have been able to register it somehow, and so they can't download IE7, as well as other new software that Microshaft is producing. Even then, you still have to consider: Exactly how many browsers do not produce a correct display of the png icons? If only IE6 is (as it appears to be), then we might be able to ignore it. I'm not sure. Schmidt 02:13, 28 June 2006 (EDT)

My guess would be that around half (or maybe more) of the visitors here are IE users of which maybe 10% now use IE7 (this is based off stats for my WoW addon site which is more 'niche' than this site, and therefore more likely to get FF users. Don't ask me to describe why, it'll be boring and take ages). So basically - the question is - are those 40-50% of visitors important enough to warrant the trouble? -- Kirkburn 23:48, 18 July 2006 (EDT)

You know, we could completly avoid the problem by making it a GIF. The problem arises with it being a PNG file. This is a known problem with IE. But all things considered, nobody is going to say "Wowwiki sux b/c tey dun uze teh rite pikk lol!!!11". Hell, I say go with PNG and transparency, and have a link to Firefox...oh wait :) -- Kronchev 15:26, 29 July 2006 (EDT)

See WoWWiki_talk:Proposed_icon#IE6 is lame (above) for futher talk on this discussion. -- Kirkburn 06:16, 28 August 2006 (EDT)

Random icons

I added the random icons I've seen (and saved) to the main choices, since refreshing the page doesn't always show other choices. -- Kirkburn 12:29, 13 June 2006 (EDT)

Iconographical Voting III: The Resurrection

I won't let this die =) Is the main problem at the moment contacting and motivating our benevolent leader? -- Kirkburn 23:44, 18 July 2006 (EDT)

A month is over, nothing happened...? -watchout 10:32, 18 August 2006 (EDT)

So.........

So..........are we gonna get rid of this stupid orc and pick a decent logo or what? This situation makes no sense.Apollozeus 05:51, 28 August 2006 (EDT)

Icon 1 has my vote, I agree the silly orc should be ditched! --Tusva 05:54, 28 August 2006 (EDT)

I just updated the icon page (and the names, so Icon 3 becomes Icon 1 and they have names you can refer to now). I do agree this vote should be picked up again. I would also vote for the Wiki Globe (Icon 1), myself.

The original vote went down the drain because more icons got added during voting, and there weren't enough to choose from. It would be nice to get an even bigger selection, but I do think the 6 we have now should be enough. -- Kirkburn 06:10, 28 August 2006 (EDT)

Having done a couple of updates on these two pages, I see no reason why a vote could not be restarted imminently. -- Kirkburn 06:18, 28 August 2006 (EDT)

Let's do it then. Icon 1 would be the icon of my preference as well by the way.-- Apollozeus 06:54, 28 August 2006 (EDT)

Mmh, I really like the recently uploaded Icon 8.. could you work it up a bit Mikk? --Adys 09:46, 25 September 2006 (EDT)

Aight, I touched it up some more. That's about what I imagined it like.   --Mikk (T) 18:33, 27 September 2006 (EDT)

Yep I definetly like icons 8-10.. Though the 10 is really big. Possible to put the WoWWiki text a bit more down the image without spoiling it? --Adys 19:08, 27 September 2006 (EDT)

Not really. I tried overlapping as much as possible but if I move the gnome up any more, there's no way to even guess that it says "Wiki" below. It's not a catastrophe though; all that will happen is that the left hand navboxes move down.   --Mikk (T) 19:10, 27 September 2006 (EDT)

Just an idea here, but tried to replace the text by one of the icons already here (1 or 4 prolly)? --Adys 19:12, 27 September 2006 (EDT)

No, and I'm not going to because I don't like those versions. Possibly because putting together that gold bar effect "WoW Wiki" thing took me all of 2 days of not doing anything else :-P You're free to do it on your own though :-)   --Mikk (T) 19:14, 27 September 2006 (EDT)

My graphical skills are a bit limited, but Ill see what I can do :-) But nice work anyways :) --Adys 19:17, 27 September 2006 (EDT)

Actually, there's another reason now that I think of it. I'd like to put in a logo in the main page, perhaps Image:logotest.png. Having different logo designs for the same thing is usually a no-no.   --Mikk (T) 20:06, 27 September 2006 (EDT)

SilverSide's recent change

I've removed my icons from the running before, and I'll do it again. I'm pondering right now whether to consider the other three listed there as derivites of mine or not. If I decide they are, I will remove them also. The Smentor 13:06, 28 August 2006 (EDT)

Dude, your round icon is derivative of the WoW app icon, so you can't really claim any rights to it. --Fandyllic (talk) 1:33 PM PDT 28 Aug 2006

Fandyllic, short question...But can we?Apollozeus 23:55, 28 August 2006 (EDT)

Just being a stickler here... If SilverSide can claim copyright to the pictures, "all contributions to WoWWiki are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2" applies. If he can't, Blizzard allows fansites to use their graphics. Either way we can use them all of them, including the two removed ones. Ooops.   --Mikk (T) 19:16, 29 August 2006 (EDT)

Fair enough then. Seriously, can we vote for a new icon already? All of the other ones look more professional. I see no reason why we should wait any longer. It's obvious that noone is going to make any more new icons.Apollozeus 16:08, 13 September 2006 (EDT)