User talk:Silverstrike

Hi there!
Welcome to our wiki, and thank you for your contributions! There's a lot to do around here, so I hope you'll stay with us and make many more improvements.

I'm really happy to have you here, and look forward to working with you! Tullis 05:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Armor Shots
Hey there, Tullis sent me to you ;). I wanted to help with armor pics, if needed. I have all armor images in .psd file, which means I can easily edit whole batch of them, regarding aspect ratio, file type, size, etc. I just need info about required standards. Also I'd like to know if they need to be inventory screens (in case of Wrex a 'toggle helmet' box overlaps armor).Thv-1 23:17, February 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * The images should show as much of the armor as possible - the problem I see with including the entire set is the height of the image that will exceed the height of the armor table. We can experiment and see what looks good and not taking too much space - maybe even taking shots without the character(s) head - we want to show the armor and not the character, so decapitating the character is not a problem. again, play with the images to see what looks best.
 * Regarding the standards:
 * File type should be PNG, it's looks good no matter the presentation size, and the file size is not much bigger then JPG.
 * size and aspect-ratio are up to you, when I'll have some test images I could do some test to see what works best.
 * I think that inventory images will be the cleanest and put focus on the armor rather then on the environment. In the armor tab in the inventory there's a button at the upper right side that removes most of the GUI and shows the full armor without interference (forgot the the button text, could be Details or something to that affect). --silverstrike 00:19, February 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * As Krogan armor is the biggest one, I think it should lay out ratio standards. With it 3:5 works best. Anyway, should I just upload some test pics or somehow send them to you beforehand? And another thing about standards: what about filenames? --Thv-1 01:20, February 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Upload the files in the name format:  - ,  , etc. Once we have 3-5 image examples, I'll do some testing to see if everything is working properly. --silverstrike 05:56, February 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * First three are up for testing: [1], [2], [3]. --Thv-1 09:27, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * The Warlord armor looks good, but I see an issue with the other two because they share a name with other brands on the table (Mantis/Predator/Scorpion/Ursa Armor, for example) - I'll rework the code to fix this. Other then that, the image that I can see looks good and does not exceed the table height. --silverstrike 10:12, February 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Then I'll keep 3:5 aspect ratio and start uploading the rest of images. As for human armors - male or female version? Since there is one filename. (Sorry for all the questions, but you're the mastermind here ;) ).--Thv-1 10:31, February 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * I leave that decision up to you - I have no idea. Maybe Tullis have some input on the matter.
 * Don't hesitate in asking questions, I know there are still some issues that need discussing. You could take a look at the template talk page for the entire discussion about the armor pages, it's a long read, but maybe you could find some answers there.
 * Regarding the images that are not showing: the template shows the image based on the first brand name - when calling the template, an author can specify what brand to show, so I don't think that we should change that behavior - once all the images are uploaded the matter will resolve itself. --silverstrike 12:43, February 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, I can make merged images for humans, male & female. At the cost of 2x width, though, so I don't know if template can accept them.
 * There is also issue of shared armor models, i.e. Mantis-Predator L/M/H. In such cases, should I upload the same picture for each armor? --Thv-1 13:03, February 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Give the merged model a try, It might make the images too small, but with some tweaking it still might work.
 * The Mantis-Predator L/M/H have different tables and look slightly different - I don't really see the problem. --silverstrike 13:26, February 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Take all 'console' (Hazard, Crisis, etc.) armors for example: there is only one model per armor, and as such one image, shared by light, medium and heavy type. To make pics work with template, I would need to upload them x3, with respective (Heavy-, Medium-, Light- ) prefixes. Right? It is not a problem for me at all, I just wanted confirmation before uploading multiple identical pictures.
 * And here are three 'merged' pics, so you could see if they works with template: [1], [2], [3]. --Thv-1 13:55, February 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * If you look at the Human Armor page you can see that the image looks tiny (or maybe it's just me?) is that the original file size? If so, try enlarging the image until it fits the height of the table.
 * Scratch that. I just need to alter the image width in the template to compensate... --silverstrike 14:08, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Made the change and it seem good, let me know what you think. --silverstrike 14:12, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good for me :). But in case of krogan & turian armors, images exceed table height. Is it supposed to be like that? --Thv-1 14:20, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's because the krogan/turian images show only one gender (obviously). I'll edit the template to compensate. --silverstrike 14:23, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that issue is fixed. I'll continue to monitor the template in any case. --silverstrike 14:35, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * If the armors look the same, then I see no reason to create duplicates, I'll just alter the template to compensate. Other then that, The images look great :). --silverstrike 14:06, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Shop Inventories
TBH I was wanting to give up on the shop inventory template. I started it at Template:ME2Store but sort of gave up because (a) it was more complex than i realised (i'm new to templating) and (b) the weapon infobox templates were becoming a handful. Dch2404 19:33, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'll continue to work on my version and take what I can from your endeavor. --silverstrike 19:42, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I've changed ME2Store for what he wanted (I think), hopefully (he) or you can learn or get something useful out of it.--0333 20:03, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Just wanted to apolgize for causing a revert war a couple days agoThe geth rule 06:22, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Article management template colours
It might be nice to use the Split colour scheme for the article management templates, to help them stand out and separate them from the articles themselves. Ideally, at some point, we could add commons icons to all of them too, in order to emphasize their "extra-articular" nature. --DRY 21:12, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that they should look different - but perhaps use other background color, the white clashes too much with the article background. --silverstrike 21:18, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. Reduce the brightness or mix in to get an off-white or a cream or something.  --DRY 21:25, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * How does this look:


 * I see two problems: the first is the color of the "bluelink" which merges with the background, the second is with the split image, but that could be fixed by uploading the same image as PNG with alpha transparency. --silverstrike 21:38, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Changing the image is no real problem; the link colours, however, are. It's certainly not urgent for the moment.  I'd suggest sticking with the white for now, and we'll change them all once we can find something that works.  --DRY 22:07, March 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought of another way to emphasize the tag without the need to use the blinding white background:




 * The redlink looks okay to me, a little pale but still distinguishable from the background. If you don't like it, I'll revert back to the white background until we'll sort the issue through the stylesheet. --silverstrike 22:31, March 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Realizing that taste is very subjective, of course, I would have to opine that I don't much care for it. --DRY 22:34, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * White it is, than. --silverstrike 22:36, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the same blue as the background of a &lt;pre&gt;?
 * The bluelink becomes invisible. Technically, we can use colors that don't clash with blue or red:


 * I played picked a color as close to gray as possible to achieve neutrality - the red and blue look fine to me (actually, the red looks bad even on the default background of the wiki), but I could play around a little to achieve the required result. --silverstrike 23:37, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * That looks pretty reasonable to me. (On the other hand, I didn't personally particularly mind the white either.)  --DRY 23:52, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

I made another example with the background from the dark scheme, but worked on the border to make the tag more noticeable:  The double border does most of the work here, but I think that it's better then the white background. --silverstrike 00:11, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, that doesn't render properly for me here (somewhat antiquated Firefox 3.0.11 on Linux). It looks like the table isn't filling the div, but there might be another reason.  --DRY 00:17, March 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the table inside the div didn't have, so it collapsed based on the content. I have played a little with the cleanup template as base for the tag styling:


 * I added an image and made the border pale orange - I think that it's a step in the right direction, though using a brighter background color and further emphasis on the border might help. I'll continue playing around with the tag tomorrow until we reach a basis for all wiki tags. --silverstrike 04:10, March 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * For my part, I'd really like the management templates to stand firmly out to grab attention and make it clear that they are in no way part of the article text. White actually serves that purpose reasonably well, to my mind.  (Keep in mind that there should, in theory, be very few of these in play at any one time and they are not, by definition, intended to be permanent parts of an article.)  --DRY 04:41, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Table and infobox colours
I was under the impression that you were changing only the white infoboxes. The table modifications (points of interest, minerals, etc.) are a step backward, I think. We've lost the header row differentiation. (In passing, now that I see the infoboxes in situ, I think they need a bit more border: either thicker or brighter, so as to clearly delineate them from the background. --DRY 23:58, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Note too that there are probably quite a number of inline tables using the #666999 colour scheme. --DRY 23:59, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I see your point regarding the points of interest. I'll make another change and if you still think it doesn't look good, then revert the changes and I'll continue to work on it from my sandbox.
 * If were going to make the change in colors, I prefer to check all pages that use the purple background and change it accordingly -- it may take a couple of days, but I think it will be worth it in the end. --silverstrike 00:11, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * The ME:2 minerals table looks a little odd now too. I'm not sure if that's because you're half way through, or a rendering issue at my end, or if it's just me.  (The table rows now lack borders, which may be intentional but seems odd since the header does have borders.)  --DRY 00:16, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I broken up the color scheme for the PointOfInterest template that cascaded to all other templates that use it. I think I've sorted out most of the issues with the colors, and I'll fix them in a few moments. --silverstrike 00:19, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) One other small point. I didn't even realize that the header colour was different in the infoboxes until I looked very closely at Colony.  It's more noticeable there because there's no offsetting image like for the majority of planets and systems.  Perhaps a slightly brighter shade?  --DRY 00:21, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'll work on the header color.
 * RE: PointsOfInterest: I made a few changes and its gone from bad to worst. I would appreciate if you could rollback the changes I made and I'll continue to work on that template from my sandbox. --silverstrike 00:28, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Rolled back, as requsted. --DRY 00:40, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) and sorry for the mess I made. --silverstrike 00:45, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) How about using a variation of the border colour #334 or #333344  as the infobox heading background, and leaving the caption with the default background? --DRY 04:39, March 3, 2010 (UTC)