GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Bestiary

/Archive

Boss Maps Thievery
Ok, we have had this request posted into Gravewit's talk page:

Hi :-)

I'm Xennon, the guy who made the www.xennon.co.uk/eliteskills/ listing. I was contacted a while ago about the use of my information on this site. I said the information itself may be used, however the maps were not to be used.

It was brought to my attention that the editor Ollj has been adding my maps under boss information without my permission (in fact, expressly against my wishes) so I was wondering if someone could get these removed :-)

e-mail me at chriscox@ntlworld.com if you wish to talk about this.

Cheers Xen

Retrieved from "http://www.zerolives.org/guildwars/index.php/User_talk:Gravewit"

Can we please rollback those image uploads altogether? --Karlos 05:23, 29 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * This has now been done. I recommend that any maps we use in the future be drawn by members of the GuildWiki. I also recommend we take the screenshots directly from the game and label them ourselves, since this reduces the chance of MOOMANiBE or whoever else's map we rip off from complaining. Just as a hint if you do this: The main map (M) has clouds travelling across it, which in some cases reduces the detail of certain areas. Rather than mess about trying to correct this in photoshop or something, I've found that it's easier to just take the screenshot using the mini-map (U). This also has the advantage or removing the city icons. The reason this is advantageous is that occasionally (especially with mission icons) they partially obscure certain areas of the map. 02:26, 30 Jul 2005 (EST)

Species
Please have a look at what I've done with Devourer.

I plan to go through all the species articles and restructure them accordingly, using the same structure:
 * 1) Appearance and Behaviour
 * 2) Strenghtes and Weaknesses
 * 3) Professions
 * 4) Items dropped
 * 5) Known Sub-Types

"Behaviour" kinda blends in with "Strenghtes and Weaknesses", so these might be merged. "Professions" is kinda redundant with "Known Sub-Types", so we might dump that paragraph. I know "Known Sub-Types" is somewhat redundant with the category, but since this is more than just an alphabetic list I think it is good to have list by region, including collector items.

I'm open for suggestions. Please comment. --Tetris L 08:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I was going to the page thinking.. "What is up with him and Devoureres?" :) This looks great! I like it very much. I have one suggestion:
 * Combine Professions with Known Sub-types and call it: "Types and Habitats" Then in the table, you have the region, and in each region you have the subspecies and next to each subspecies the profession icon. I think that's a more solid layout. Great idea! --Karlos 17:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll get rid of the "Professions" paragraph, since it is already covered by the other praragraphes. I'll stick with the old "Known Sub-Types" heading though. That the table is sorted by region and also lists the drops doesn't have to be mentioned in the heading IMHO. We may decide to add even more info to the table later, and the heading could get quite lengthy.
 * One last thing: I think we might use modules for the "Kown Sub-Types". This would allow us to use them in a bestiary overview list article which would be far better than the bestiary category. --Tetris L 09:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Sigh* A category and a listing are not mutually exclusive. Even if you made an "uber-list" of monsters that was quite useful and readable, it will still not replace categories, nor will categories replace it.
 * I am against this module. We do not make modules simply because it is cool or because we like to modularize everything. We make modules when the data redundancy is needed. Right now, I cannot think of one page that uses this "known subtypes" list other than the species page. I am not even sure how useful a super large article with all species in the game is going to be. It even goes against the wiki's guidelines. On the flip side, it does make editing the page more complex. It's not without cost. --Karlos 10:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * For testing purpose I created the module and added it to Creatures so that we can see what it might look like.
 * I still think having a large overview list of all mobs could be useful, especially since this list would be an overview of all Collector Items at the same time. The discussion in Category talk:Collector Items showed that there is a demand for such a list, and as you agreed yourself in that discussion, categories are a bad solution when it comes to searching and quick referencing. --Tetris L 10:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * And a list of all species in the game with all sub-types per-region is NOT a good collector items list. Take Charr, for example. All Charr drop Hides and Carvings. End of story. All Devourers in Ascalon drop Fetid Carapaces. Simple. Replace that with two pages of scrollable text just to say the same thing and it doesn't sound too intuitive, does it? --Karlos 12:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Tetris, I like it, good work :) Two comments which IMO would make the page easier to read:
 * I am not sure it is necessary to list the type of item - I think "Carapaces (see below), Shells, Half-Eaten Mass" would be enough.
 * I am also not sure it is necessary to mention that Devourers are alive, poisonable, knockable and so on, as most creatures are. I would only mention such features in two cases:
 * For creatures that do not behave like the general case (example: undead cannot be poisoned, giants cannot be knocked down).
 * When you would expect another behaviour (example: Executers usually appear with undead, but they are not undead themselves and can therefore be poisoned, can bleed etc). --SDC 18:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Side note. Executioners are undead. They take double damage from Holy attacks. The exception with executioners is that they are undead AND "fleshy." --Karlos 17:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

"Items Dropped"
I have made the mistake before, and I see other new comer make the same mistake, and it's easy to see how, if nothing is done about the issue, more people will make the same mistake in the future.

I propose to rename the "Items Dropped" section to "Special Items Dropped" or something, as a preventative measure of people making future mistakes. I won't bother with a crusade, will just slowly phase this in as I happen to edit articles. Comments? -PanSola 02:49, 20 February 2006 (CST)


 * No need to do that, we just correct people as they do it. It has been like this since the beginning and there are not that many issues.  --Rainith 09:33, 20 February 2006 (CST)
 * Well, is there any downside for changing the name of the section? If there's one I'll weigh it, but otherwise I perfer preventative solutions than post-patchings. -PanSola 11:48, 20 February 2006 (CST)


 * You stated the downside yourself. You don't want to do a crusade (because of the sheer number of articles).  Then we end up with battling formats and confusion.  Mass hysteria, dogs and cats living together, etc...  --Rainith 11:55, 20 February 2006 (CST)
 * Also I doubt that would solve the problem, even if you took the time to define "Special Items" people would still occasionally post that Fire Imps drop Water Wands (which has always really confused me, as I get a lot from them). --Rainith 11:58, 20 February 2006 (CST)
 * Speaking of defining special items, I think Sword, Axe, Hammer and Shield need to indicate which weapons and shields are common drops. I'd go with the assumption that common = dropped by X+1 monster species in at least half of the game's regions, with X being the greatest number of species that are confirmed to drop a known 'special item' (probably Obsidian Shard or Glob of Ectoplasm, since each is dropped by about half a dozen species). -- Gordon Ecker 17:11, 23 February 2006 (CST)
 * Hey, I *WANT* dogs and cats living together. And rabbits and carrots too! -PanSola 01:41, 21 February 2006 (CST)

Location / Icons
(Note: This sections has been moved here from Talk:Afflicted Horror) -- 05:40, 2 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Rainith, I am tempted to revert your edit. You removed the skill icons and the location Cantha. Mind to explain why? --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 23:42, 26 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Cantha because, Duh! That is where Shing Jea Island is.  The region is useful info, if you can't figure out what campaign you're in though...
 * And the icons because Style and formatting/Bestiary. --Rainith 23:46, 26 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Hmmm ... the formatting instruction doesn't say that icons shall be used, but it doesn't explicitely forbid them either. I admit the icons are merely eye-candy, and don't add additional information, but they don't hurt either. Make the article look a bit nicer. No reason to remove them when somebody bothered to put them in.
 * As for removing "Cantha", I don't see why the continent should be removed, but not the region. You might as well remove Shing Jea Island, because, Duh!, that's where Minister Cho's Estate is. And if you can't figure out what campaign you're in, then listing the continent certainly is even more helpful than the region. When we came up with the current structure (listing the region, but not the continent) there was no real reapon to list the continent, because at that time there was only one continent. But now that we already have 3 continents, and one more will be probably be added with each campaign, it does make sense to me. That all the old Prophecies articles are missing the continent info isn't a big deal, and I'd never deem it necessary do a crusade to fix it. But for the future, whenever we create articles with a location info, we should list the continent, IMHO. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 06:47, 29 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I like the new skills with icons thingy that some of the pages have, we should move that to the bestiary template actually. The template is not immortal and unchangeable.
 * That said, the continent is overkill. And if someone has no clue where Shing Jea Island is, they can click on it and it will say that it's an island in Cantha. But if your rationale is that someone might not know where Cantha is, well, no amount of clicking on Cantha can explain where Cantha is. :) Cantha IS Cantha. --Karlos 10:24, 29 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Again, I don't see the difference: If somebody has no clue where Minister Cho's Estate is they can click the Minister Cho's Estate link to find it out, just like they can click on Shing Jea Island. I say either we list the whole tree (including the root level, i.e. the continent) or just the last level. Anything else would be inconsistent. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 10:40, 29 May 2006 (CDT)
 * I prefer *some* tree. As more campaigns get released I think Continent will become necessary.  As for right now I can't really decide. - 10:52, 29 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Difference is common sense. Munich, where is that? Oh, that's in Germany. The odds of somone not knowing what Germany is are the same as someone not knowing what Europe is. So, qualifying Germany with Germany, Europe or even, more elaborately, Germany, Europe, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way... All that does not really ADD more info. It's not as black and white as you make it sound. Put a full tree or no tree. I don't think so. Why stop at Cantha? And how will you address the fact that Cantha the continent exists in Tyria the world? Why not say: Minister Cho's Estate, Shing Jea Island, Cantha, Tyria (world), The Mists, Guild Wards Universe? You know why? Because of... Common sense. :) --Karlos 10:58, 29 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Now you're comparing apples and oranges. While in real life it may be possible to extend the tree from continent to planet and further, in the game it makes no sense at all. In the game continents are the largest known "units" of land so far. (The realms of the gods can be counted as a continent. ;)) With ANet's current scheme every campaign will add one continent. We don't even know the name of the "planet" (Tyria is a continent, not the planet!). And while you can expect anybody to know the 5 real life continents, you can not expect everybody to know all the ingame regions. If everything goes according ANet's schedule, then in two years from now we'll have 6 campaigns, probably with about 30-40 regions overall. For a GW newbie who owns only 2 of those 6 campaigns and who is looking for a particular boss to capture an elite the continent does add more info!
 * Having said all that, I'll let it slide. No continent info in bestiary article, as you wish! But don't say I didn't warn you. If we realize in two years that listing the continent would have been helpful I'll give you a call and let you fix a few thousand articles. ;) j/k
 * Now, icons is a different matter. I don't see any harm done at all. We should add them to the bestiary template. That goes for skills used as well as items dropped (provided an icon is available). --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 05:40, 2 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Ok, I'm in from the pool for a while today (got a little burnt). If you want to add the icons, then do a crusade and go thru all the bestiary articles and add them.  My biggest complaint is that we have two different formats that we are following and that makes no sense what so ever.  Generally that seems to be the way things happen (NPC categories anyone?), some articles get changed while others don't and then people move forward with new articles depending on which one they looked at last.  --Rainith 10:50, 2 June 2006 (CDT)

I've only skimmed through the responses so let me know if I've missed anything. I personally don't agree with a "tree". I don't disagree with it either, but personally I subscribe to the "it's a link so I can click it to find out more" approach.

Regarding the icons, I quite like the look of them. :)  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 15:17, 2 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I don't mind the continent being added, though I don't see any reason to.
 * Its like saying I live in:


 * North America
 * United States
 * North Carolina
 * etc, etc
 * It's just not neccessary, imo.


 * And for the icons, I will admit I have gone through and taken them out and continue to take them out whenever I stumble upon one. I'm not one for crusades, so I haven't gone that far yet, but the icons space out the skills, items dropped, etc, and it just doesn't look uniform to me. And besides the icons being so small you can't see the detail in them and they don't seem to add any important information to any article. I feel this Wiki is about the information, not so-called "eye candy". Sorry if this seemed harsh, but I'd figure I'd speak about this issue before Tetris gets plenty of time to go through with it :P --Gares Redstorm 17:28, 2 June 2006 (CDT)


 * There should probably be two sections here, one for Locations and one for Icons.


 * The argument that we aren't about "eye candy" is a poor one; the point of the wiki has always been to provide information in as user-friendly a way as possible. There is no point in having information if people can't easily comprehend it. We use screenshots, maps and icons throughout the wiki to convey information in as user-friendly a manner as possible. For example, in many articles where we list a number of professions we use instead of simply saying "Ranger". If using skill icons is more user-friendly than just linking to the skill then skill icons should be used.


 * Personally I feel that skill icons are more user-freindly and help people to see at a glance the skills a creature uses.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 14:42, 3 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I think the point is that (IMO and I think for Gares too) the skill icons are not useful and actually detract from the simple list of skills. This is not true for the profession icons as they are rather simple (not meant as a slight against them) and are easily recognizable at a glance, whereas the skill icons are more complex and less easily recognizable.


 * More talk about the over iconization of the wiki can be found at GuildWiki talk:Style and formatting/Quests. I don't know the exact section and I have to go catch a plane soon so I don't have time to look for it.  --Rainith 15:27, 3 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Perhaps eye-candy was not the term to best describe my point. For one, maps and screenshots are definitely not eye-candy. You would use a picture of Gorgaan Hatemonger instead of trying to describe him in words such a "A Charr Warrior boss with a Yellow glow around his body. He carries a Tower Shield and a Longsword." Granted, that is pretty much what he is, but it would be conveyed better as a picture of him. Maps are useful in that they show a reader exactly where they need to go. You wouldn't give directions to a boss or NPC location by writing "Turn left as soon as you leave here, then go straight a little ways, then make a right, etc, etc."


 * Profession icons I can see how they would be useful, because they really are not that complex a picture and thus can be seen and noticed with a glance. But when it comes to skill and items icons at 25px, the detail is so small on a majority, not all, that there makes no sense to add them in. For example, [[image:CharrCarving.png|25px]], this is a picture of a Charr Carving at the size, 25px, I found it at in an article. There is no detail and unless you have already seen Charr Carving before and know what it looks like, I can bet that someone would just see a brown thing with a black background. Another instance, [[Image:Faintheartedness.jpg|25px]]. This is Faintheartedness, a necromancer skill. If you didn't know what it was, you would perhaps assume it looked kind of like something in the center with a green aura around it. Now, don't get me wrong, there are some skills and items that, even at such a low pixel, are still well detailed, [[Image:Heal Area.jpg|25px]] for one, but if not all are clear enough to see and be recognized, then none should be in place.


 * I do my best to try and make things around here more friendly and easily accessible to its users. It not only helps them, but helps myself when I need to reference something. But as the icon topic goes, that is why each skill and item have links. If you unfamiliar with a term, click on it, and go to its article. In my opinion, that helps the user out more, cause when they hit that link and they read what is in that article, they learn more then what they were originally after. After they are familiar with the skill/item, learns some new things that will assuredly help them in-game, they can always hit the back button. :D I hope that better explains my hurried response in my last post.


 * And it seems in my longwindedness that Rainith has beat me to it, but my comments agree with his. --Gares Redstorm 16:13, 3 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Don't worry Rainith, the icons are purposefully simplistic, so I would not take it as a slight! :) The points you make, Rainith and Gares, are reasonable. I do think there is still an argument for using skill icons. Take and . Just looking at the text the two skills could be easily confused. Someone who is familiar with the icons, however, can see at a glance that the skill is either spirit or aura.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 17:04, 3 June 2006 (CDT)

Maps
I've read the recommended format and seen the example, Alana Pekpek. I have also been lurking around articles as I do and noticed Ghial the Bone Dancer. That seems to look more uniform having it under the bestiary box like that. It seems to me like the top of bestiary articles are squeezed with the bestiary box, map, and ToC. Anyone agree to a reformat? --Gares Redstorm 12:34, 5 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Both examples render pretty much identically in Firefox, which browser are you seeing the major difference in? --Rainith 16:06, 5 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Firefox. In Alana Pekpek, the map is on the lefthand side of the bestiary box, and in Ghial the Bone Dancer, the map is directly below the bestiary box. I'm suggesting that the placement of the map below the bestiary box looks more organized and doesn't clutter the information on the lefthand side of an article. Perhaps it should be taken into consideration and the Style and Formatting be changed to reflect that. --Gares Redstorm 16:26, 5 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Not for me, in Firefox v1.5.0.4:[[Image:FF Pekpek.jpg|thumb|center]] --Rainith 19:40, 5 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Its the Wiki's preferences that are causing the mix up. I am using the Cologne Blue skin, both here and at work. I went to the Monobook skin after I saw your image and both maps on both pages are where they should be. I guess it depends on the skin as I just previewed them all and two of them have errors on the main page. Less work to do I guess. --Gares Redstorm 21:46, 5 June 2006 (CDT)

Categorizing multiple location monsters
Been organizing categories and correcting categories in bestiary articles. Got one question that has me perplexed. How do you categorize monsters that are located in multiple areas, like 5-8? It can be done and I don't mind doing it, but would all those categories in the articles look tacky? I really don't like how some monsters are categorized into generic locations, like Carrion Devourer or Shatter Gargoyle, where, imo, only locations and POIs should be.

I would also think placing them in respected areas would give more exact categories for anyone looking to see what is in an area and not using the area's article. Any suggestions or comments are appreciated...unless they are derogatory remarks. :D --Gares Redstorm 12:30, 6 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Since I have had this up for near a week now and no response, I take it no one objects. I will start on the project soon and also implement my idea for a comment to separate categories from the rest of an article, see Categorization of Bestiary (Bishop's talk page.) --Gares Redstorm 16:09, 12 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I swear, I thought I responded to this... I must be getting senile in my old age, next thing you know I'll be talking to myself... I like the idea of "exact categorization" for lack of a better term. If moster X is found in locations A, B, C, D, and E, then put it in those categories.  As for the comment to seperate catgories from the main article, it can't hurt, so I say go for it.  --Rainith 15:59, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

Fancy skill listing with icons..
Does anyone mind us putting the fancy skill listing with icons into the Bestiary template? (Like was done in Tahmu which Gares recently reverted for non-compliance.)

I have not followed it closely, so I don't know if there are any technical glitches it introduces, but if not, then I think we should use it. Ideas? Thoughts? Hate mail? :) --Karlos 00:37, 10 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I agree; but see the Location / Icons discussion above - it looks like we're a ways from any concensus. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 00:40, 10 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I've stated before, I personally don't like them or find them useful. If we come to the consensus to put them in, I won't make a fuss, but a mass updating crusade should be done so that all the bestiary entries are uniform, otherwise it is pointless IMO as people just copy what they see in other articles.  --Rainith 00:46, 10 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Rainith is a conservative like Tom Delay, he's against Abortion and Gay rights and New Skill Icons. :) I think they are mildly useful (quick identification of many skills) and they are not harmfull, and they look pretty. I also think that slow migration from one style to the other is irrelevant. :) Even if it takes place in years. --Karlos 01:53, 10 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Actually I'm more liberal than most liberals out there... But if we're going to make a change it should be done right the first time, not so that we have to correct every new entry made.  --Rainith 01:59, 10 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I think, as I argued above, the icons can be useful, depsite not always being useful. I recognise and  by icon and not by name.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 04:42, 10 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I have stated my opinion way, way, way above in Location and Icons. I was waiting till a consensus was reached and from what I have been lead to believe, this Wiki strives on community decisions, and since no decision has been made, I reverted the skill icon edits of Boozer69n, even left a message on his talk page. Even I have been caught trying to be a cowboy, so I don't see why this case is any different, except for the fact that you personally like what he is doing. If the community does agree to add skill icons, I will not oppose (after the vote of course :P ) and will help add the icons onto the bestiary pages. --Gares Redstorm 08:38, 10 June 2006 (CDT)

I do not find the icons harmful. So despite I doubt its usefulness most of the time, I am not opposed to it. - 12:47, 10 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Personally, I like the skill icons. In-game, I look at the icon to recognize the skills, almost never do I read the name/text.  I like having them in the wiki for the same reason.  Yes, some are somewhat difficult to read at low pixel counts; but most still come out clear enough to be easilly recognized for what they represent.
 * On a related subject, I've seen the skill icon template used sporadically for inventory items from drops. I've left the few I've seen (even migrated a couple from the 'icon' to the 'skill icon' template; but there are enough items that share similar or even the same inventory icon that the use for dropped items serves no real purpose to me. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 14:00, 10 June 2006 (CDT)


 * So, as it stands now we have 3 people for (me, Biro and Barek) and the rest don't see the use. It's a huge task updating all those articles, but it can be much easier if we update the template and then add it to the task list. Already there are people who like it. --Karlos 02:41, 11 June 2006 (CDT)

I was against the idea, but then I thought "Y'know, it's mighty convenient to be able to look up a boss or monster and go 'What the heck was that weird thing I've never seen before?'". Seems that adding the little tiny icons helps that a bit. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 22:29, 11 June 2006 (CDT) )


 * At the same time... they don't scale with the text, and there's no way to make them scale with text. This always concerns me, as it's a potential usability issue. And PanSola is right about some of them just plain not showing up. Still, since the material is supplementary in nature, it doesn't really hurt to put them in - the actual clutter factor is minimal, so the icons being useless to some people doesn't make the rest of the page any less user-friendly. &mdash; 130.58 (talk) ( 22:43, 11 June 2006 (CDT) )

Choices
1. Example:

Advantages:
 * Quicker identification of skills
 * Gives skills section some color, i.e pretty

Disadvantages:
 * Not all icons are clearly visible
 * Spaces out the skill lists

2. Example: Balthazar's Aura

Advantages:
 * Simple link
 * Already in place for the majority of the pages

Disadvantages:
 * Some players cannot identify well with just the name of a skill
 * Too plain

3. I'll vote for whoever offers me the best bribe

Vote
Vote for #1
 * 1) Does no harm and could do some good. Using images to promote association is good interface design. Don't think it contravenes GW:CONTENT.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 06:00, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
 * 2) All I see are positives; the only negative to me is the time to implement to make all consistent - not a reason to avoid a design improvement. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 13:41, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
 * 3) At first I thought the icons would "weigh to heavy" in the eye, but the example looks quite nice to me. Therefore an Aye to #1. --MRA 15:23, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
 * 4) As a wise cow once said: Moo. --Karlos 17:45, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
 * 5) Hmmmm, icons, yummy! --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 03:07, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
 * 6) I've clicked countless times on text links only to see the icon and instantly recognize the skill. So, pro-icon from me. --Chi Li [[Image:Chi_Li.gif|Chi Li]] 03:23, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
 * 7) These are a HUGE help for me as I am very bad remembering names. I recognize most skills faster from icons and so do many other people. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 13:05, 12 June 2006 (CDT)
 * 8) Ooooo shiny! -- [[Image:Bishop_icon2.png]] Bishop [ rap|con ] 16:16, 12 June 2006 (CDT)

Vote for #2
 * 1) Some players can suck it. GW:CONTENT. – 70.20  ( &#x260e; ) 2006-06-11 10:50 (UTC)
 * 2) Me don't like. --84-175 (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
 * 3) Waste of bandwidth, most icons unreadable at that size. --Rainith 19:13, 11 June 2006 (CDT)
 * 4) See my comments, here and here, above for my opinion. --Gares Redstorm 22:02, 11 June 2006 (CDT)

Other
 * 1) (Add your vote here and explain)