53,710
edits
Forum:HD screenshot naming policy: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
KrytenKoro (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
KrytenKoro (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
I will agree though that the "suffix" is simply too long, although I understand the idea behind it, especially in cases where only one version is available on the wiki. In my opinion it would be enough to put a "HD" at the end and be done with it.}} | I will agree though that the "suffix" is simply too long, although I understand the idea behind it, especially in cases where only one version is available on the wiki. In my opinion it would be enough to put a "HD" at the end and be done with it.}} | ||
{{KrytenKoro|If we need, for whatever reason, to present the pre-HD version of an image, I feel like we have two viable options: | {{KrytenKoro|If we need, for whatever reason, to present the pre-HD version of an image, I feel like we have two viable options: | ||
#Upload the pre- version as a special image, with a parser callout like "(pre-HD)" | #Upload the pre- version as a special image, with a parser callout like "(pre-HD)". I cannot conceive of a case where the pre-HD images would be general use, so naming them in this manner does not interfere with the various infoboxes in any manner. | ||
#Link to the prior version of the image in the upload history. | #Link to the prior version of the image in the upload history. | ||
Both of these options would allow us to have a more organized image set overall, with less cumbersome coding. One of the main reasons the image naming policy is so helpful as is, is because you very rarely have to be familiar with the image before you code for it. I can simply code "Ars Solum KHBBS.gif", with no prior visit to the Ars Solum page, and get the high-quality, preferred image I desire. This makes it much, much simpler for coding infoboxes when we want to as well. If the image doesn't appear, I can be comfortable knowing it simply doesn't exist, rather than having to search through the archives in case someone uploaded it under an unexpected name. | Both of these options would allow us to have a more organized image set overall, with less cumbersome coding. One of the main reasons the image naming policy is so helpful as is, is because you very rarely have to be familiar with the image before you code for it. I can simply code "Ars Solum KHBBS.gif", with no prior visit to the Ars Solum page, and get the high-quality, preferred image I desire. This makes it much, much simpler for coding infoboxes when we want to as well. If the image doesn't appear, I can be comfortable knowing it simply doesn't exist, rather than having to search through the archives in case someone uploaded it under an unexpected name. New users who want to add an image to a new page can also be confident knowing that they have found the image the wiki wants as primary. I feel like if I was creating an article for Firewheel and didn't know how the policy worked, and my options were Firewheel KHBbS and Firewheel (KHBbS) KHIIHD, I'd think the first was the more appropriate one. | ||
The (HD) parsers interfere with that system, not quite fatally.}} | The (HD) parsers interfere with that system, not quite fatally.}} | ||