Forum:Pure Gun Images for BL2 Gun Pages

My Idea

My idea is to use only pure versions of guns for the main image on a guns page. So for example the image on the page "Carbine" is of a Dahl Carbine that has a Dahl Grip and Stock, no acessoires and no scope. All other versions, for example those with Jakobs or Vladof Stocks, those with scopes, bayonettes and what not are all in the variant chart. Sniper Rifles use the manufacturers scope for the main image. This does not apply to unique guns by the way, I'm talking about "normal" guns only.

Why Change This?

It does no harm and i personally would find it useful. You look at those images to know what the gun looks like and since there is no "one" way it will look I think you should have a "standard" version compared to which all other versions can be viewed as "mutants" that give special optical and stat modifiers. I have (good) screenshots of all guns on my harddrive and would exchange them myself.

Votes

Support

I support the (defined) proposal (in the discussion section below) EDIT: AS LONG AS ALL GUNS ARE FOUND. 18:43, November 11, 2013 (UTC)

I also support the proposal. Provided all gun images are ready at time of exchange, AND there is some considerations given in regards to orphans and categorizing. Which is to say, follow the current images policy and make sure all images no longer on the main page are either 1. moved to the variant chart, or 2. marked for marked for deletion. The Delightful Doomsayer Balance in Destruction 17:53, November 14, 2013 (UTC)

Adding the guns to the catagories would be useful, but they would need to be alongside the more common drops. dont delete the others, but just add them all in with a note beside them. that would be best. also, how do you know what attachments are what manufacurer? they can change a gun dramatically. Iceheart anarchy125 (talk) 18:27, November 14, 2013 (UTC)

Attachments dont really have manufacturer, but the guns i created and screenshot dont have attachments; that is, among other things, the point. To make them comparable.

MattoFrank (talk) 13:32, November 15, 2013 (UTC)

Object

in a game with an RNG as powerful and pervasive as Gearbot, one that takes a single weapon class and churns out a "bazillion, gazillion" possible variants, the idea of "pure" is questionable at best. the exiting criteria for a weapon image, "the first, best (cleanest, not oversized) image posted regardless of element or attachments," has worked for several years now. also, the easily accessed and user-friendly variants pages adequately present a selection of what the user is most likely to encounter, rather than a (literally) one-in-a-million variant. what is not broken does not need fixing.

+1 to the OP for creating a forum to gauge community opinion vice running rampant across the wiki with "i got this idea" zealotry. welcome to the wiki. cheers.

00:48, November 11, 2013 (UTC)

to be fair I went rampant first, sorry about that

MattoFrank (talk) 13:42, November 11, 2013 (UTC) MattoFrank

I gotta agree here, pure isn't the way to go. While I wouldn't mind someone figuring out a way to denote pure guns for a specific level on the Variant Page, for gun pages, it really comes down to quality. You want all those guns to be pure guns? Make sure your images are the biggest, bestest (it's a word, IDC!), cleanest, top quality pictures. Then replace the existing ones. The only way they will be changed is if someone can create a picture of greater quality. But for making it policy, I think not.  MadCrayolaz ®  22:28, November 14, 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree as well.  I mean...this idea just seems pointless.  Having an entirely pure gun is quite nearly impossible.  If possible, maybe we could list each individual manufacturer specific part that isn't mandatory for a weapon.  Varesse, Ultimate Gunzerker (talk) 13:08, November 15, 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

i do not support wide sweeping changes of the wiki but i do support this user for composing a forum (correctly i might add) and campaigning on talk pages. for a new user this is mostly unheard of. if you think the wiki would be better off or more informative w/ a standard level and rarity of image for each weapon please support this initiative. this change proposal is for a standardization of images and may leave behind a great many orphan images so be kind to your admins during any ensuing transitions.   The Random Admin            20:57, November 10, 2013 (UTC)

I'm indifferent to the content of the images. I will say however that any infobox images should be maintained in quality or improved, so keeping to png files for lossless compression is preferable to jpgs. -- WarBlade (talk) 21:42, November 10, 2013 (UTC)

^-> here, here. I... I am the King!^Talk 14:48, November 11, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion/Comments/Questions

This is a PS: All the images I have are of uncommon lvl 30 versions of the guns. This makes comparison easier, which I find useful, but as I learned this is not viewed as important in any way around here. Just putting this out there. MattoFrank (talk)

I am concerned with all users having equal rights to improve the wiki (as they see it). So on the surface I support your idea. However, I would need your policy change to be more specific. I get what your trying to do (create policy to keep stock type weapons on the weapon pages). But what about when someone else gets a "better" idea of having higher levels displayed? I must have a policy statement that keeps everyone on an equal playing field within your policy change in order to support it.

That is the harm that can come about btw... creating policy that only allows yourself to change the weapon page pictures. What policy do you suggest that insures others can have a "better" idea and implement their change? 08:14, November 11, 2013 (UTC)

So changing the policy in the first place would be the solution, right? So take the current statement:

"the first, best (cleanest, not oversized) image posted regardless of element or attachments"

Keep "best (cleanest, not oversized) image", which is an important criterium for quality. The rest, "first (...) image posted regardless of element or attachments" is, as I see it, a mere criterium of comfort. If you only allow specific variants to be used for the page then it obviously becomes harder to find an image in the first place. But since there is a savegame-editor now that allows all variants to be created, rather than found, and theres a fool here that will take it upon himself to exchange all images (thats me), this criterium is nullified. So what I would state as policy would be:

Images must be:

- Of good quality

- Default Angle

- As close-up as possible without overlapping with the stats-field

- Displaying the "standard variety" of the gun (this is an optional point that is to be ignored if it cannot be provided)

Possibly make that a forum vote rather than this here?

MattoFrank (talk) 13:56, November 11, 2013 (UTC) MattoFrank

the mention of using a save editor moves this discussion onto rather rocky ground. long-time bl.wiki contributors will be reminded of He Who Shall Not Be Named (in fear of giving Doc F a stroke), a user that attempted to "correct" the wiki by replacing all images with edited "perfect" variants. fyi: it is not a written policy of this wiki but existing convention states that images of editor-created items are discouraged in favor of "real" found items.

21:12, November 11, 2013 (UTC)

Any reason for that? Apart, obviously, from impossible or modded variants created with an editor (although that is not possible with the one i'm using). In how far were those variants "perfect"?

MattoFrank (talk) 21:26, November 11, 2013 (UTC)

Oh my gosh... I totally missed that a "save-editor" was a modding tool used by you. I thought that you saying that you want to put found guns in before someone creates stuff... making a baseline to detect mods. You definitely are in the wrong community for creating guns to put up on pages.

The above policy proposals themselves are good. With the added policy of "All guns should be found in game and not created". THAT is the policy I thought you were talking about. Since you are not and do not have the means to even do what you propose (without created guns), I regard your endeavor to be failed already. The integrity of this wiki are too important to too many people, including me. I do not think that adding created gun images to any page is an improvement on quality. However, you have the right to document anything you like on your namespace and also think that a modding corner should be on the wiki for those who like to tinker in such things. 07:21, November 12, 2013 (UTC)

How are "created" guns that can be found in-game in the very form they are created "modded"???

MattoFrank (talk) 08:20, November 12, 2013 (UTC)

They are not random, they are created. One is found in game and the other is speculated to be able to find in game. Perfect examples of what a tree should look like, is not a tree. 17:15, November 12, 2013 (UTC)

"Perfect examples of what a tree should look like, is not a tree." Absolutely correct. But if you want to explain to someone that never saw a tree what a tree looks like, would you paint him a picture of a perfect tree or would you show him 20 images of what a tree might look like? I would paint him a picture of a perfect tree and then show him 20 images of what a tree looks like to show him what a tree might ALSO look like. You won't find a perfect tree in nature, but given the image of a perfect tree and a lot of variables on this image, the person will be able to classify all sorts of trees as such. I think you get the metaphor.

MattoFrank (talk) 23:09, November 12, 2013 (UTC)

So why not just stick to a walk in an actual forest? Look, you can justify it all you want but at the end of the day this is a wiki about a game and not a save-editor. The game should be used to show examples, not a save-editor. I am not arguing that things cant be dissected with a save-editor, in fact, I am saying that there should be a spot on the wiki for it. People who want information about the game come to this wiki from all walks of life. Having the pics as found items will not in any way offend anyone. Having pics of save-editor produced items will offend many people who are "pure legit".

I propose that a separate page be created for each gun with the links "(gun name) variants" and "(gun name) created demographic". Keeping the main page as it is and providing information for people who like to mess with such things. Pushing to put created images on main pages is contradictory and insensitive to the known "pure legit" crowd. Having a link doesn't force it on anyone.

On a side note: You are not using the entire resources of this wiki. Even without main pages set aside for a "modding corner", there are several ways in which you can put forth and explore your passion. I will give Nagy's namespace as an example. 06:34, November 13, 2013 (UTC)

Right, so my two cents here is that I'm not really a stickler to the rules. I'm fine with the use of save editors, though I understand that many people (including many on this wiki) are not.
The creation of a separate subpage for every weapon seems a bit forceful for my taste, it would be easier to just but a note in the variant entry. (ex. Save-Edited Variant). The issue there is of course whether it is actually possible to get said variant or not in game.
Regardless of the views of this wiki regarding save editing, a concern of mine is that users follow the images policy. If that isn't being followed, then my support is automatically rescinded. (see my support message for detail). The Delightful Doomsayer Balance in Destruction 18:01, November 14, 2013 (UTC)

Creating a separate section for comparable guns is not the worst of ideas although i still like my idea better.

Regarding save-editors: ALL normal guns created by my save-editor (if used correctly) can be found in game. You can also screw things up and for example forget to put scopes on sniper-rifles, grips or stocks on guns etc. But if you know how to use the editor, only variants that could be found in-game are created. An exception from this are uniques that you usually get from specific enemys or quests and that can therefore only have a certain level-range, which can be exceeded by the editor.

By the way. The variant charts of the maliwan "gospel" and "submalevolent grace" already contain incorrectly created guns. There is a non-elemental version in each chart, which can neither exist nor correctly be created with an editor, the guy that made the gun must have forgotten to put sth in the "element" slot.

MattoFrank (talk) 13:50, November 15, 2013 (UTC)

frynote: feel free to remove those incorrect variants from the charts and tag the images for deletion: unused/orphaned image. thanks much.