File talk:HReach-ArdentPrayerCorvette.png

Talk page
Not to push the hot button, but didn't we have a talk about this not too long ago? Namely the consensus to have specific ship images have backgrounds and ship class images overall have transparent? Tuckerscreator (stalk ) 21:45, 16 April 2012 (EDT)
 * That was about the so-called "bad lighting". I like transparent images used as the infobox introductory image. And besides, there are other articles that use transparent introductory images as well, such as the Long Night of Solace ship article. Ship names and ship classes, it all doesn't really matter, nor should it have to. So, with respect, can we please just drop this subject? --Xamikaze330 22:14, 16 April 2012 (EDT)Xamikaze330

"I like it" isn't a very strong reason. But I cavil. Tuckerscreator (stalk ) 11:40, 17 April 2012 (EDT)
 * What the hell is that supposed to mean, I cavil? You have further objection? All I want is to drop this stupid subject. It wearies me. Yes, I know "I like it" isn't a very strong reason, but your reasons like "white backgrounds hurt my eyes" or whatever bullshit reason isn't very strong either. All brightly-lit screens in general hurt the eyes, regardless of color and/or background. I'm not even sure why I brought this up either. I don't like the "hot button", and I think neither do you. This is just plain ridiculous. Why quibble? So now I repeat with utmost respect, can we please just drop the subject? --Xamikaze330 13:57, 17 April 2012 (EDT)Xamikaze330

It means "nitpicked", look it up. I was saying that now I wasn't going to question it any further. Which I won't. Tuckerscreator (stalk ) 14:23, 17 April 2012 (EDT) Until now. Tuckerscreator (stalk ) 15:14, 17 April 2012 (EDT)

Unfortunately, this subject needs to be addressed for the sake of inconsistency and this is not intended to provoke tension. I have to raise the issue of identity, that is how can we tell one from another; in this case, how to inform the readers "this is the Ardent Prayer"? Without any unique detail that separates the character from the general group, the character loses its identity. This is why I think Tuckerscreator policy on images ("whole ship classes should be a profile on a white transparent background, individual ships should have a background and don't need to be profile") makes sense and should be followed. He further provides an exception to the policy, that is "there can be exceptions, such when the original background was too dark, but that's where discretion comes in." There's a reason behind his personal policy and this can be demonstrated by why Xamikaze's preference of transparent background (I think). I think the reason why he likes images without a background (or with transparent background) is because it focuses on the subject in the image; in a deeper focus, it shows its identity. The focus of this identity appeals and I think this is a correct approach. However, this approach should only be used if the image has some detail that separates it from the general group. Hence why Master Chief has transparent background (because his armor has details that no other SPARTAN-IIs has, that is the battle-scar). Similarly, this approach should also be applied only and only if there is one appearance of it. Hence why we have a LNoS and PoA with a transparent background.

Best way to resolve this issue. — subtank  14:50, 17 April 2012 (EDT)


 * As such, I think the introductory image should be the Ardent Prayer with a background while the transparent version moved to the gallery.— subtank  14:51, 17 April 2012 (EDT)

Exactly. In addition to what I've said before, if it weren't for the angle, there'd be no way to tell the Ardent Prayer apart from any other corvette because it's almost the same image as the Corvette-class image. In fact, I believe for a while they were the same image. How would we handle this if we did this for both UNSC Savannah and UNSC Grafton. Without a background, there'd be no way to distinguish them because they're both the same model. It's the background that ends up adding context, while the ship class page doesn't need image context. Tuckerscreator (stalk ) 15:14, 17 April 2012 (EDT)


 * I can think of one counter-argument to this: their name printed on the sides. However, this is not the case for some such as the case of the Ardent Prayer since they are visually the same as other Covenant Corvette. — subtank  15:19, 17 April 2012 (EDT)


 * Not quite, actually. There is a difference between a regular (albeit lightly rendered) Heavy Corvette and the Ardent Prayer. There is only one instance an SDV-class Heavy Corvette is fully rendered, and that is only in the level Long Night of Solace. In all other instances, the lightly rendered model is used. So, in all fairness, the Ardent Prayer is the only fully-rendered Corvette seen in-game. See what I mean? Sorry if I didn't really make my reasoning more clear than just saying "I like it". And besides, the Halo: The Essential Visual Guide does it the same way. --Xamikaze330 15:32, 17 April 2012 (EDT)Xamikaze330


 * But do note that that's from a technical perspective, not in-universe. From the Forge World article, "Because of a new system in Halo: Reach's game engine called "Impostering", which allows distant objects to be drawn cheaply, it was decided that it was feasible to actually allow players to play across the entire expanse of the development map." — subtank  16:00, 17 April 2012 (EDT)


 * @Subtank: Ah, right, the printed name, I had forgotten about that. But as you point out, it still holds with Covenant ships, and indeed the impostering is meant to just be a technical cut-corner, not actually how the ship looks.


 * Even if the Ardent Prayer is the only canonically-named and rendered corvette so far, it should still have a background for context, like how the Shadow of Intent has a background to distinguish it from the other unnamed Assault Carriers in Halo 3. Those aren't fully rendered either, as they are often only for background purposes, like in The Storm. Tuckerscreator (stalk ) 16:28, 17 April 2012 (EDT)


 * I agree with you about the Shadow of Intent assault carrier, as well as the other unnamed assault carriers. But this is the Ardent Prayer. I strongly believe we should do things a little bit more like the Halo Essential Visual Guide. That's my opinion; that's just what I've been trying to do ever since I submitted and posted the lightly-rendered image of SDV-class Heavy Corvette, trying to follow a somewhat similar format like the Halo Essential Visual Guide. I don't think that breaks any Halopedia rules, policies and guidelines. It's a good-faith kind of thing. But if everyone continues to agree that images must have a background for context, then I'll let you deal with the image and the article as you like, even though I strongly disagree on certain points regarding infobox introductory images. --Xamikaze330 17:09, 17 April 2012 (EDT)Xamikaze330


 * Oh, we are adopting some of the styles used in the EVG, such as how they structured their infoboxes. Some, not all. Certain existing styles used by Halopedia are still somewhat superior than that in the EVG, simply because the wiki is ever evolving and adaptive to changes. The case of the Ardent Prayer is simply an issue of internal and stable consistency. Seriously... we really need to update the layout guide.— subtank  17:45, 17 April 2012 (EDT)


 * Sent a message once about the updating, but it doesn't seem to have gone anywhere. And I'm too report-smothered... Maybe the update needs should be broadcasted by a forum announcement? Tuckerscreator (stalk ) 17:57, 17 April 2012 (EDT)