Talk:Full art

From Hearthstone Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Awesome job.[edit source]

This page must have taken a lot of work and consideration. Since uploading card art has been one of my main focuses on the wiki, this is really cool to see. Is there a particular order that they have been sorted by? Should a ordering be considered? Like the upper level sort is obviously Mana cost, but within that maybe alphabetically? Again, awesome page that could make updating card arts or uploading missing ones easier. --Beanchagbear (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. As for your question, some are alphabetical. But i did make a couple of mistakes, like putting two cards in the same row. Since this was already finished and I noticed it later, I simply added one of the cards at the end because keeping them in a session of six and being forced to move them one at a time, is a bit of a pain. An example is Ship's Cannon.Shammiesgun (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Just card art?[edit source]

What's this doing under 3 mana cards? -- Karol007 (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, it's Stablemaster, sorry for the noise. Nothing to see. move long. -- Karol007 (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Adjustments[edit source]

Great job! A few things:

  • I've made some minor adjustments, most notably re-ordering the sections, mostly to match Artists, but more importantly just to put them in rough order of importance and stacking. The current ordering is not fixed, but should be better.
  • I'm not sure quite what the best title for the page is. It might be 'Full art', which would match what we have in the captions on the individual card pages. In the mean time I'll move the page from 'Full Artwork' to 'Full artwork', since we use sentence case in page titles. [Seems like my follow-up edit didn't get saved. I moved it to 'Full art' instead, since this seemed reasonable. -- Taohinton (talk) 03:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)]
  • A concern for the page is loading issues due to the amount of images being linked on the page. Already editing the page requires a long load time, and my experience of pages like Rarity (before we split it into separate card lists) shows that if the page keeps growing it will eventually fail to load, making it impossible to edit. Since we get ~250 new bits of art with each expansion, and probably about the same with adventures when you consider the bosses and boss cards, this might happen pretty quickly. If so, the best answer would probably be to split the page either according to the current sections - collectible, uncollectible, boss cards, etc (although this would eventually have the same problems, albeit not for a while longer) - or by expansion/adventure. It's probably fine for now, though.
  • The current layout of 6 images per row is slightly too wide for my display (1280x1024), which results in the background texture breaking and requiring me to scroll to the right to see all the images. We've never established what page width the wiki should be aiming for, but 1366x768 seems to be the most popular. I'm not quite certain what percentage of readers have a narrower display than that, though; statistics online suggest about 30% of internet users. If that's accurate we might want to aim for 1280 in order to ensure a wider portion of readers can enjoy the page without it breaking up, reducing that stat to about 8%. Am I right in guess this page width is designed to fit just within the 1366x768 resolution?

Anyway, good job on all that work! :P -- Taohinton (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

(Normal) links[edit source]

In response to User:Beanchagbear's edit, I would say the advantage of linking to the disambig page for cards with multiple versions (usually normal and heroic) is that of accuracy; but the downside is readers can't mouse over the link to see a tooltip for the card. The edit is therefore more technically correct, but less convenient. I would be tempted to say it's better to provide the tooltip - readers can see further details including the hat-note to the heroic version from the linked page if they're interested. -- Taohinton (talk) 03:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Split[edit source]

As noted above, the extreme number of images in this article is making it harder and harder to load, eventually resulting in the page becoming uneditable if not unloadable. What I didn't appreciate was that many images were not yet uploaded/linked, meaning the page is continuing to grow despite no new cards being added to the game. New content is also never too far away, and the sooner we split the page the less work it will be separating out all the cards.

I therefore strongly recommend splitting the article, as soon as possible. My suggestion would be to do this by content release (original, Naxx, GvG, etc) since this is a sustainable model; we could split it by other characteristics but this would eventually result in the same problem as each category will continue to grow. This page would become a list of links, serving as a main full art hub. -- Taohinton (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I can start working on this. I'll probably start with Naxx as a test and to get things going, probably titled "Naxxramas full art". My only question is how to do the "original" cards. Should we just call it "Original full art" instead of Classic since it will probably include the 2 promotional cards? And classic better targets the card set rather than all the things that existed from the start like boss art. --Beanchagbear (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
It might make it confusing but we could seperate "original" into "basic" and "classic". Basic would include all base game existing content like the tutorial bosses and basic cards. Classic would have all art that came from the packs like GvG and TGT will. This would serve to make the pages easier to load as is your original concern. This would probably mean reward would have it's own small page but that's probably fine. --Beanchagbear (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay, Naxxramas full art is done and up for review.
  • I made them into rows of 4 since 6 was said to be too long and was unsure if 5 would be any better. (I use 1920x1080 so someone else will have to decide if 4 or 5 is better.)
  • It's organized in the manner that artists is.
  • Since the groups are much smaller than they are with every other card, I just sorted collectible into two groups - neutral and class. Within group everything is sorted alphabetically which I think is optimal when just viewing art of cards.
I'll have this as a template until I get some feedback. Maybe more per row, different categorization, sorting, different page title, or what have you. Other things I've been considering is more of the what other pages thing. What to do with removed cards (most of them are "base" but a few can be sorted into an add-on like Razorgore's Claws or should they have their own page e.g. "Removed full art"). Another is debug cards. Tavern Brawl and Credits cards can probably get their own pages. I think the main problem is what to do with the "base/basic/original" full arts and what goes on that page, like basic, reward, removed, etc. --Beanchagbear (talk) 01:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Good stuff!
  • I've asked oOEyes about finding an optimal solution to the image stacking issue.
  • Groupings and page titles are fine.
Dividing the content is a little trickier. The expansions and adventures are pretty straightforward; putting all content on the one page makes sense and future-proofs the article. I think debug, credits and Tavern Brawl cards should get their own pages, even if they're tiny. The latter might grow to a problematic size eventually, but at this rate it won't be for another 10 years, so I would say it's a reasonable solution ;)
I agree the main question is the 'base' content. Classic being its own set makes total sense, and a Basic page would work, too - cards, playable heroes, tutorial bosses etc are all part of the base game package. The question for me is the Reward, Promo and removed pages. The latter could go either way; if I had to say right now, I'd say it feels more natural to have Chromatic Mutation on Blackrock Mountain full art rather than Removed full art. It would keep it together thematically and arguably be of more interest. Both approaches have their pros and cons, though.
Promo cards are tricky because they aren't really part of a content release, even if patched at the same time. This BlizzCon may well see a new Promo card, but this may well not be tied to whatever the next content release will be (although it might be). So, we could either put them together with whatever content was released/latest/related upcoming at the time they were added (not the most accurate), or make a separate, rather tiny, page. The latter feels more appropriate right now, ironically in part because the set is so small; they're already exceptions. It makes more sense to have some tiny pages with sensible divisions than try to jam everything into a few main pages.
Reward cards are a little ambiguous. In theory any new ones will presumably be added with content releases rather than on their own, so tying them into those pages could make sense. However, if we do get more (eg a reward for collecting all Dragons) these would surely be awarded directly to players much like the current ones, which would make them feel more at home in the Basic category.
The same probably goes for alternate heroes. The original ones make sense as part of the Basic page, but these are definitely not Basic either in terms of release date or availability. Adding them to Basic seems like it will still be the best solution, though, especially as they're not tied to any specific content releases. -- Taohinton (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Using <gallery> gives us some options. The obvious advantage is that it allows the images to stack in response to the size of the browser window, but it also gives options for how the images themselves are measured and displayed. I've set a couple of variations up on User:Taohinton/Sandbox2, with a default size of 200px (this could be adjusted). They all have their pros and cons; let me know what you think. -- Taohinton (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I really like the first gallery used and went ahead and updated the Naxx and GvG art pages. Sorry, I've been a little busy to do these whole page edits, but I'm going to try and finish some of them up this weekend. --Beanchagbear (talk) 04:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Split complete[edit source]

I have finished splitting the full art page into several different categories and remade the original page as a hub. I will probably being going over these new pages for a bit, making sure everything is represented and correctly in place, human error and all. This hub page was an idea that I tinkered with while doing the split, let me know what you think. I included examples that, in my opinion, were representative of their set, were famous/infamous, and/or had unique or cool artwork. These examples serve to give the page more meat, but eventually this idea may run into the problem with having too many images like before. For now though I think it will be fine. The bottom section is a Trivia/Gallery thing that I thought would be a nice addition, but it is totally unnecessary and could be changed or removed. --Beanchagbear (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Great stuff! The hub page looks good, I like the use of examples. I don't think we'll have a problem with 5 images per set for a long time, so I would say that's solid. I'm not sure about the "Gallery" section. I thought it seemed a little odd without explanation, so I've added a discussion of the points the selections seemed to be depicting, mostly the relationship of full art to the art we actually see in game. Hopefully this expands the intended illustration. I should arguably add some of this info to Card art too, although I'm unlikely to any time soon. -- Taohinton (talk) 05:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Zoom art[edit source]

The original idea for the full art added to pages was that it was, well, the full, original art for the card! Sometimes we can't get the full image, but can find at least a decent-quality piece of the original artwork.

More recently, in some cases where we don't have the full art, editors have been adding zoomed-in crops of the art visible on the cards themselves. I'm not sure I see the value in this. I guess the upside is that it gives a complete catalogue for the "full art" pages, but it doesn't add any value to the card pages themselves, and in my opinion tends to look pretty bad. Some recent examples: Elemental Eruption, Raid Healer, Intrepid Dragonstalker, Bamboozle, Immolate (Nefarian Rises! 4 damage spell).

As always, I appreciate the work done to upload all the art, and I'm open to input from other editors. -- Taohinton (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The reason I use zoom art is to have something set so it can be replaced later on. Usually, tavern brawl images are from the trading card, so when I find these images I can replace them. While it could be better to to just wait for the art, I prefer having it already placed.Shammiesgun (talk) 20:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
A better image from Wowpedia Policy.Shammiesgun (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
My concern was that the zoom art was being used as "full" art with no improvement in mind - however, I see you've since updated the example images. I'm still not a fan of the zoomed images while they're present, but if it makes it easier for you I guess it's ok, as long as there is a plan to update the images when possible! -- Taohinton (talk) 05:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)