DDO wiki talk:Naming policy

Conflicting naming policy
Ever since the file naming policy was created by on 20:14, March 25, 2012,, there has been conflicting verbiage. The main section on file naming says "Most desired file type usage: .png for small images, .jpg for large ones." Item description images are usually the largest images on the item pages, so they should be  according to this policy and the "shown" images should be   -- However, in the sub-section on Item pages, the policy is conflicted by the verbiage:
 * "Preferred pattern for description images: Page name (which should match the exact item name).png"
 * "Preferred pattern for main worn/action shots of weapons/armor/helmet/goggles equipped: Page name (which should match the exact item name) shown.jpg"

Which is the exact opposite of what the parent section says. So, to fix the issue: The end result would be changing the wording in the sub-section to:
 * 1) I vote to synchronize them to be consistent.
 * 2) I vote to have the sub-section match its parent.
 * "Preferred pattern for description images: Page name (which should match the exact item name).jpg"
 * "Preferred pattern for main worn/action shots of weapons/armor/helmet/goggles equipped: Page name (which should match the exact item name) shown.png"

Comments / votes
I actually prefer shown images to jpg and descriptions to be png. Descriptions need to be sharp to be readable (png, lossless). Worn images don't need crispiness (lossy jpg). If we embrace quality loss, png is still a better format than jpg for descriptions. For example, I've uploaded a bunch of versions of File:Divine_Artillery.png. The oldest version is already using a "decrease color depth" function to 256 colors, which is enough such images. For the second version, I've used some online png compression tool, tinypng.com. For the third version, I've used IrfanView image viewer/editor, first the Flood Fill tool to clean up the black background (2 clicks), then Decrease Color Depth down to 16 colors. Imho the result is quite satisfactory. TL;DR, I disagree with the change. Preserve the vague status quo. --Cru121 (Contributions • Message) 15:03, July 28, 2015 (EDT)
 * Shown images should be flawless since not everyone has high resolution or DX10/11. Descriptions just need to be readable ant their crispness is not important. ShoeMaker (Contributions • Message) 16:39, July 28, 2015 (EDT)
 * I don't think it should really matter which format is used for images. The important part is text readability on the description images and the file names: .ext and  shown.ext. (Shown images don't always match the pagename since multiple items can share the same look.) The item description images need to be sharp enough so that the text doesn't fuzz. &mdash;&thinsp; Zav &thinsp; (T·E·C) 16:45, July 28, 2015 (EDT)
 * Is the site storage or bandwidth a concern with these 1 or 2 images per page? I've always preferred PNG for almost all images where possible due to the JPG compression artifacts ("fuzz"). This is especially visible in the worn images with a high antialiasing or where there are sharp contrast lines. "Tauro"  (Contributions &bull; ) 01:20, August 1, 2015 (EDT)