User talk:LordBiro


 * /Archive 1

Leave Me A Message
Hi...i was just wondering if you could maybe make an icon for me like you did for Gem. Just a hyperish once would be nice. You are awesome. Thanx!

&mdash; Hypernecrofear


 * No, that was a one off. And yes, I am awesome.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 01:33, 27 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Sorry LordBiro, I didn't mean to start a trend. :) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 03:18, 27 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Don't worry Gem, I can't even think of a good icon for myself!  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 03:21, 27 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I can tell. Btw, you ARE a awesome! --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] 03:22, 27 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Why thankyou, Gem, you're not bad yourself ;)  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 03:25, 27 June 2006 (CDT)

Nightfall Profession Icons
You're gonna draw us something sexy, right? Apologies if it's been asked already elsewhere. &mdash;Tanaric 07:16, 28 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Hey Tanaric :D I've been a little busy this last week so I haven't been keeping up with all the Nightfall discussions, so I don't know if it's already been asked. But to answer your question: Yes, I'll be making some icons ;)  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 05:01, 29 July 2006 (CDT)


 * Good, because the current icons people have made up, are...fugly. :D [[Image:UserImage Aubray1741 ClassicIcon.gif]] Aubray1741 16:12, 30 July 2006 (CDT)
 * The Anet's Paragon icon is ugly so hard to do something great with it.&mdash; ├ A ratak  ┤  12:06, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
 * You don't have faith in LordBiro? Heretic! Burnnn in helll!!! --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 12:48, 31 July 2006 (CDT) (Don't take that TOO seriously ;) )


 * Hehe, I have been thinking about it for a couple of days now. I'm not 100% sure what I'm going to do for the Paragon icon yet, but I think I know what I'm doing for the Dervish icon.


 * I don't like any of the icons used by the Priests of Balthazar, but I think the Paragon icon looks particularly out of place!  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 13:20, 31 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I said hard and hard is nothing for lordbiro.:) &mdash; ├ A ratak  ┤  21:17, 31 July 2006 (CDT)

Draft 1
I've just uploaded a first draft of Nightfall icons.



I'll explain my decisions first of all.


 * Colors are based on the skill colours of each profession. This is the same criteria used for the prophecies and factions icons.
 * I have mixed feelings about the orange color of the Paragon icon. Paragon skills are red and yellow. Red is used by Elementalists and yellow didn't look very good. :)
 * No dual colored icons; sticking with the 2 colors used for the Dervish icon would give a very different look to the other icons used on the GuildWiki.
 * No flower thing on the Paragon icon; again this would look out of place, but I have considered cutting a flower shape out of the hexagon on the Paragon icon.

Let me know what you think!  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 05:11, 5 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Blantantly awesome. I wish I had your icon-making skills, considering how long I spent making the monstrosity that is my signature icon... at any rate, I think these are excellent. I particularly like how well they go together and feel as part of a whole, even with the two new class icons. I support their use 100%. -- [[Image:Bishop_icon2.png]] Bishop [ rap|con ] 06:11, 5 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Excellent work. I would like to see the Paragon icon with the flower shape cut into it for comparison.  For Dervish, I don't think that the two colors would look too out of place, but I understand your reasoning and I don't feel strongly one way or another.  Although as future professions are added and the available color pallet gets used, I can see needing to use multiple colors to help differentiate.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 10:27, 5 August 2006 (CDT)
 * As always Biro, great work. Like Barek I wouldn't mind seeing the alternate for the Paragon icon, but even if I never see that, I'd be happy with these.  --Rainith 16:37, 5 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Great job! Why not make an alternative version of the dervish icon with the 2 colors and let the users decide? Not that it would matter a lot. Well done, you are still awesome! ;) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2006 (CDT)
 * [[image:profession-icons-ingame.jpg|right]]one could note that Dervish and Paragon are the only professions with dual color icons in game, but we're varied signifigantly from the eye-in-hand design of the mesmer, so i suppose it's not terribly important. top notch work, as always, my lord. ;) --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 17:26, 5 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Heh, in direct comparison, it becomes obvious that ANet should have hired Biro after they designed the initial set of icons, as his icon-series is both nicer-looking and more internally consistent than the actual ingame ones... -- [[Image:Bishop_icon2.png]] Bishop [ rap|con ] 18:00, 5 August 2006 (CDT)

Thanks everyone, you are all very kind, especially you Bishop :P

I'll work on producing a flower cut-out for the Paragon icon later today and you can let me know what you think. My only concern is that the Paragon icon is already a little fussy (the detail on the wings isn't very discernable at original and small sizes) and I think that adding a flower symbol might make it look overly complicated. I think it would probably be impossible to tell what it was at the small size. I'll give it a try anyway :) Really this is an issue I have with the Guild Wars Paragon icon; there's far too much detail in the icon that you simply can't make out at the size used in the Priests of Balthazar menu.

Using the two colors for the Dervish icon is a possibility, but I feel as though it strays too far from the simplicity of the icons we use at the GuildWiki. In my opinion a shape and a color should be enough to identify a profession. Since you've asked though I will try using two colors and see what it looks like :)  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 05:53, 6 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Don't need to thank me, I just call them as I see them. By the way, I share your concerns about the paragon icon, but my suggestion would be for you to get even more creative and make the icon even more stylized and less exactly-as-ingame because the current in-game icon is obviously the result of a brain fart. And what we really need is just something that looks good and is immediately recognizable as a paragon icon (but not nessecarily as the paragon icon).


 * About the dervish icon, the one we're currently using for the Dervish skill articles is actually rather nice in my opinion, and at least shows that it is possible to use dual colors and still make it look okay. I'm looking forward to what you come up with. -- [[Image:Bishop_icon2.png]] Bishop [ rap|con ] 07:07, 6 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Rather than a flower pattern, it may be enough just to use a circle or other simple geometric shape. I just thought it may look good to break up the large field of orange, but what you have now is trully excellent work, and we could easilly use it as-is.  I was just hoping to see an option, if you have time available.  Thanks for the great work on this.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:18, 8 August 2006 (CDT)

Draft 2


I gave the Dervish icon a two-tone effect. I really don't like it :P but let me know which you prefer.

I actually do like the flower cut-out on the Paragon icon. I think it looks coolio. Again, your opinions would be great :)  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 06:53, 11 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Amazing. Personaly I prefer the Paragon with the cutout and the single colour Dervish.-- JP 07:02, 11 August 2006 (CDT)


 * You have exquisite taste JP :D hehe.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 07:10, 11 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Great work, Biro! I prefer the dual color dervish icon, and the paragon icon with the cutout. We should stay close to the ingame original.
 * While we're at "staying close to the ingame original": Why on earth was it decided to use the feather icon for ranger instead of the ingame paw icon?? I know this was in the very early days of GuildWiki, and I wouldn't dare to question something that is established for such long time, but it has really puzzled ever since I started contributing. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 07:17, 11 August 2006 (CDT)


 * The reason for that Tetris is because when Guild Wars started there were no profession icons in the game. The prophecies icons are based on icons from the European manual, the only reference material available when I first made them. Subsequently ANet added the profession icons that you can see in the Priest of Balthazar menus today, and I think quite lowly of them. I agree that there should be consistency with our icons and the game's icons, but the official icons aren't even consistent with each other in their design. Summary: I hate them.


 * If, in the early days of the wiki, before any profession icons existed in the game, someone had come to the wiki offering the same icons that ANet were later to introduce I would have argued against their usage because they don't look very professional.


 * Incidentally, I think a paw would make a good icon for Pet Attacks as opposed to rangers.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 07:48, 11 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I very much like the Paragon with the cutout. But for the Dervish, I actually prefer the icon created by someone else  that is already in-use (sorry Lord Biro).  You do excellent work, that I could never hope to replicate - but in the case of the dervish I think that at the smaller size the less extreme curves of the current one makes it easier to distinguish the shape of the icon, and the two curve don't blend together as much. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 09:16, 11 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Note: this is only at the smaller size I prefer the current icon. At larger sizes where more detail is visible, your two color icon is superior in quality (see current image: [[Image:Dervish-icon.png]]). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 09:22, 11 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I can not believe people prefer my dervish icon to LordBirdo's icon... I like LordBiro's style as it is consistant with the wiki's other icons. we need a change of the Ranger icon to the paw print though, the feather is not right. --Jamie [[Image:Jamie.jpg|24px|(Talk Page)]] 09:27, 11 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I don't recall seeing the biggest Ranger icon before. From the smaller ones I always assumed it was a leaf!--JP 09:33, 11 August 2006 (CDT)


 * At the smaller size, the distinct curves of the current dervish icon keep it from visually blending into one large curve shape. At the larger size where more detail is visible and the curves no longer visually blur together, I prefer Lord Biro's.
 * As for the ranger icon, I prefer the leaf. As was said above, the paw is great for beast mastery, but there's more to a ranger than just that.  Incidentally, if we were to want to get the wiki icons to match the in-game ones more closely, we would need to redo the Mesmer, Elementalist and Assassin icons as well as they are visually very different from the in-game versions due to shape or color, etc.  But on all of those, I prefer the wiki icon over the in-game icon.  Well, I like both the in-game and the wiki icon for the Mesmer - but for the other icons, ours are visually clearer and more internally consistent in style. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 09:45, 11 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Back from Estonia. :) The second version of the Paragon icon is great and a lot better than the first one. The second dervish icon is better too imho, but it's not that important to me which one we use. Both the old and the new dervish icons look a bit weird in small size. The gap between the two parts shouldn't be so blurred but clear. I hope you can fix it. Great job again! --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2006 (CDT)
 * wandering the wiki and ran accross a reference to this again and saw the new draft, sooo pretty. someday you'll have to teach me that "summon greater icon" spell. 2 notes: shouldn't the paragon center bit be convex instead of concave? the dervish seperation isn't a large deal in my opinion, but that could be corrected by matching the inside curve of the lower arc with the outside curve of the upper arc, giving a consistant spacing. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 12:56, 13 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Thanks for all the feedback :)


 * As I've said so many times before I don't think we should aim to be too close to the Guild Wars icons, because they are rubbish. I would argue very strongly against changing the ranger icon to a paw symbol at this point.


 * Regarding the Nightfall icons, I can see your point about the blurriness of the Dervish icon at the small size. I will try to re-assess the shape as Sarah has suggested, making the inside of the larger curve match up with the outside of the smaller curve.


 * I'm still don't like the two-coloured Dervish icon, I've asked some of my friends off-wiki and they agree that it looks out of place.


 * Sarah, I'm not sure what you mean when you say that you think the inside of the Paragon icon should be convex instead of concave? Do you mean that, instead of being a gap there should be a change in texture? Or do you mean there should be a change in the shape of the icon?


 * P.S. I did some research on Summon Greater Icon for you!  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 02:58, 15 August 2006 (CDT)
 * so minor, but what i ment was that the paragon in game has a protruding sigil on top of the winged sheild, and your draft has a white dimple or hole. maybe reverse the shading on the center bit so it seems to be on arching twords the viewer, on top of the yellow. again, totally minor and not worth spending any extra time on. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 09:10, 15 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Imho LordBiros version is superior to the ingame image. ;) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 09:23, 15 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Because you do great work I'll give you some feedback, it's the least I can do. I like the feather that becomes a leaf at lower res, much better than the paw. I also agree that the Dervish icon would look a bit nicer with a bigger gap (and didn't curve in so much). The holy Paragon is great but I'm still not sure about the Dervish two tone or not thing, but I'm sure one will grow on me! ;) Oh and it goes without saying that LordBiro's icons are better than the in-game ones. --Xasxas256 09:26, 15 August 2006 (CDT)

Thanks for all the kind words :) I really appreciate the feedback!!  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 10:15, 15 August 2006 (CDT)

Draft Sarah


Is this what you imagined Sarah?  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 10:15, 15 August 2006 (CDT)
 * yes, but white. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 10:25, 15 August 2006 (CDT)



Easily remedied! Something like this? I'm not sure if I like it.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 10:30, 15 August 2006 (CDT)


 * ya that was exactly what i was thinking about. see it seems to stick out of the page like the white sigil is sitting on top of the paragon wing sheild? better/worse? i should go buy illustrator or something, i feel bad making biro do my bidding. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 10:45, 15 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Hehe, I use inkscape, it's awesome. I'm going to have to think about the white bit, I don't know how I feel about it. I think I prefer having just 1 shape and just 1 colour per icon.  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 11:17, 15 August 2006 (CDT)

The lower set looks too noisy when scaled down. Go for the upper set. Good job on all of the icons, but I do think the current Dervish-icon has a better shape, your version is too rounded compared to the in-game icon. Your choice of colours is fine, the Paragon-icon just isn't going to work very well in white. I might reconsider that later on, especially because I suspect all Paragon-bosses will have a white aura, but we'll burn that bridge when we cross it. --Black Ark 10:42, 15 August 2006 (CDT)


 * If the Paragon bosses do have a white aura then I'll definitely consider changing the colour of the logo to white. Orange is probably a poor choice of colour anyway!  &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 11:17, 15 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I think that the orange is fine. And the Draft2 Paragong version is better than the Sarah version. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2006 (CDT)

Draft 3


Ok, I've decided that draft 2 of the Paragon icon is fine, but as many of you have pointed out, the gap between the two parts of the Dervish icon was not discernable at the small size, so I've tried to address this by following Sarah's advice of matching the inside curve of the larger arc with the outside curve of the smaller arc.

Let me know what you think :) <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 13:16, 16 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Umm, draft 3 isn't really the solution that I was looking for. I hoped you would just bend the curve of the large part in draft 2 a bit further away from the small one. The top of the two parts shouldn't be on the same level imho. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2006 (CDT)
 * what he said. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 13:51, 16 August 2006 (CDT)

Still completely circular. Maybe I'm being anal - after all, the Ranger-leaf looks fine even though the in-game icon is a paw-print - but if you're going for a Dervish-look I'd make the crescents less rounded. I'm undecided about the colours, get back to you later on that one. --Black Ark 14:16, 16 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I've decided that I will only be offering a single coloured Dervish icon. I really feel that using two colours makes the Dervish icon stand out from the other icons, and that's not what I want. Sorry if that dissapoints anyone!


 * I really prefer the draft 3 dervish icon to the other versions. I played about with altering the curve of the draft 1 & 2 shape and it looked dumb, so I started from scratch and came up with draft 3. I'd rather leave the choices as either draft 1 or draft 3. Is it such a problem to have both of the arcs aligned at the top? I think it looks quite neat :) <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 15:01, 16 August 2006 (CDT)
 * can i write in a vote for draft 2? the color difference makes the spacing a non-issue, and the extended lower arc doesn't look dervish-enough. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 15:07, 16 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Hmmm :( But it looks so silly! Every other profession is happy to be just 1 colour, but Dervish is like "Look at me, I'm special". It makes me sick.


 * I'd really rather not use draft 2, but if there are a number of people asking for it then I would cave under the pressure. :P <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 15:13, 16 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I'm forced to keep my vote with the existing icon or draft 2 as they avoid the blur issue and I've become mostly indifferent to the color question; but draft v1 blurs together too much, and v3 just looks odd having the arcs aligned. (note: after looking closer, it may be the shadow that's causing some of the bluring - perhaps just removing the shadow from the smaller version of v1 would solve it?) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:14, 16 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Removing the shadow from the small draft 1 icon might be a good idea. From the current drafts I like draft 3 the most. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I'd rather not remove the shadow from draft 1 all together. Even touching up the shadow by hand there is some bluriness. I could remove the shadow from all the small icons, I would be happier doing that, but I quite like the shadow. <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 15:30, 16 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I didn't quite understand. Why not remove th shadow from the draft 1 small version only? --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I also like the shadow, it adds depth and quality to the large and medium sizes; but it appears to contribute to some of the blur of the smaller icon. I'm unsure from your reply, but it appears that you're open to trying the smaller sizes without the shadow (your post confused me a bit, so not 100% sure what you meant). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:46, 16 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Sorry about the confusion there, I was in a bit of a rush!


 * I would consider re-uploading all of the small icons without the shadow. I would not be willing to leave all of the small icons as they are and only upload the small dervish icon without a shadow. I'm not happy about having non-uniform icons.


 * Here is a comparison of the icons with and without shadows:


 * [[Image:Small-icons.png]]


 * Do you still think that having the small icons without shadows would be preferable Gem and Barek? <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 16:39, 16 August 2006 (CDT)

Well, the small purple Dervish-icons look cluttered with the shadows. With those, they kinda look a bit like... Black arcs. Nobody likes black arcs. They're loud and obnoxious. --Black Ark 16:54, 16 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Okay. Keep shadows on everything, draft 2 for Paragon and draft 3 for Dervish. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Actually, the one-color small v1 without the shadow looks good to me. The bluring of the shapes is reduced (they meet at the ends of the lower arc so some blur still exists, but the center is clearly differentiated now).  As the shadow supplies very little in the small size, I like the idea of dropping it at that size - although I strongly support keeping the shadow in the medium and large sized icons.  But, if no one else likes it, I suppose I could eventually grow accustomed to the v3 with the shadow. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:00, 16 August 2006 (CDT)
 * i still prefer the shadow'd draft 2. the one-color dervish just doesn't look dervish-ish. which paragon isn't very critical, they all look good. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 17:09, 16 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I'd go with the shadowed draft 2 for Paragon, but I'm not sure yet about the Dervish. I'll wait with seeing what colour they choose for the boss aura before setting for something. --<font color="midnightblue">84-175 (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I updated the image of all the small icons with the draft 3 dervish icon. Even if you don't like it, I still do :P <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 17:28, 16 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I still prefer v1 without the shadow. The uniform start point of v3 just look like two half circles, or maybe a representation of an ark.  As for color - I've become indifferent, and certainly see no reason to limit ourselves to the in-game two-color style unless we really want it.  I mean, just compare our Assassin icon to the in-game one - complete variance in color and even style - and to be blunt, Lord Biro's is what they really should have used in-game. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:47, 16 August 2006 (CDT)

Love the icons&mdash;I am a fan&mdash;but I can't look at that Paragon one in the two smaller sizes without thinking of cattle. I'm not sure if the orange has anything to do with that, but I know that the shape definitely does. Cattle and branding. -- Dashface  05:32, 26 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Hi Dashface! Ummm, I don't know what to say to that :P <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 05:35, 26 August 2006 (CDT)

Draft A
The A is for "Another draft? You must be kidding!"

As if the decision wasn't hard enough already, I started working on a completely different style of profession icon a while ago that I think looks cleaner. I'm not suggesting that we should switch to these icons, but I thought that since I'd done them and we were on the subject of icons anyway I might as well show you.







<span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 02:46, 17 August 2006 (CDT)


 * The black outline and the higher color saturation makes the old version look a lot clearer. The low contrast makes Draft A look blurry, especially the small version.
 * On a side note, can you please use a white background instead of the current grey? As you know, background transparency of PNG doesn't work on IE, so IE users see an uggly grey box around each icon. --[[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 03:20, 17 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Hehe, I realise they are more subtle than the original icons. I actually created them like this simply for a design document that I'll eventually upload which is in SVG format.


 * I don't mind uploading examples on a white background, but just so you know I'm still going to upload the icons on a transparent background, otherwise pages like Elite skills list (and any page that uses a profession icon on a coloured background) wouldn't look very good at all. <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 03:24, 17 August 2006 (CDT)


 * The draft A icons look really cool, but don't put them in use in the wiki. :) --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 05:34, 17 August 2006 (CDT)


 * lol :) "Thanks but no thanks", eh Gem? :P <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 05:36, 17 August 2006 (CDT)


 * They are really really cool. But the old ones suit the wiki so much better. These would fit in somewhere else. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 05:41, 17 August 2006 (CDT)


 * A fourteen-year old girl's room, circa 1990 to be precise. These are... way too saccharine, regardless of the fact that there's the familiar Necro-skull icon in there. You got a good thing going with the old design and the new icons that go with said design. Please, please keep the black outline; the contrast works very well to make the icons noticable, but not noisy. The same can't be said for this batch. --Black Ark 06:01, 17 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I just uploaded these to see if anyone liked them. If you don't that's fine, as I said above I'm not suggesting that we should switch to these icons, I just thought that there was a slim chance that some people might prefer them.


 * What are you trying to suggest Black Ark? You calling me a girl just cos I have my room decorated like this? I'll knock your melt in! <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 06:30, 17 August 2006 (CDT)


 * At smaller size, I do like that the Mesmer icon is easier to recognize - but in general these do appear too washed out compared to the originals. I need to agree with the others that overall, the current icons are the better of the two style families.
 * pretty flat; looks like someone took the textured version of the icons and ran over them with a steam roller. might be better for press, but the 3d icons look best on the site. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 10:22, 17 August 2006 (CDT)

Draft π
For your attention, a modified Draft 1 Dervish shape:



Does this solve the problem of blurriness at small sizes? <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 06:57, 17 August 2006 (CDT)


 * This one is the best! --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 07:10, 17 August 2006 (CDT)


 * You bring me π! Where you get π? --07:26, 17 August 2006 (CDT)


 * That works for me - solves the blur and I prefer the shape over v3. I vote π! --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 09:05, 17 August 2006 (CDT)
 * everybody loves π! i still like the two color, but this is the best shape. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 10:26, 17 August 2006 (CDT)

Uploaded
I have uploaded the new Dervish and Paragon icons. I know the Dervish icon is only single colour and that this issue hadn't been properly resolved yet, but I figured that it can always be replaced/reverted in the future.

I padded the two small icons to 25x25 pixels. I'm interested to know if you think it will be better to pad all of the small icons to a uniform size or have them trimmed to be as small as possible (after all, they are supposed to be small icons).

Thanks again for all your feedback so far! Keep it coming :) <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 07:31, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
 * The small icons mostly get used in lists of mobs or skills. Keeping the widths the same will keep the attached text aligned when there's different professions within the list.  --68.142.14.32 07:51, 20 August 2006 (CDT)


 * While that's true I should point out that it will increase the size of all of the icons. Here is an example:



This is to accomodate the height of the Ranger icon and the width of the Paragon and Ritualist icons. <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 08:04, 20 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Ah, took me a while to read through the talk page, but you had a really interesting discussion here.
 * I have to admit that it's some really superb artwork, but that is not my reason for posting.
 * What I wanted to ask is why the icons have a grey background, when they are saved as transparent? Mozilla Firefox show them in an excellent way,
 * but as the three of us (me, my computer and Firefox) don't get along very well, I'd like to see it work on Internet Explorer aswell. Explorer cannot add the grey itself, can it?
 * 11:19, 21 August 2006 (CDT)


 * It's IE:s fault. If you really want to use IE and see them wihtout the gray, download IE7. --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I intended to reply to this earlier, but with my computer breaking I completely forgot. There is a way to get IE6 to display PNGs properly, but it requires some JavaScript to work properly.


 * If you take a look at my blog in IE6 you can see that the PNGs are rendered with a grey background and then replaced (might be best to view this post since it has images in it!). This is thanks to this iepngfix.htc file which is included in the markup like this: <style type="text/css"> img { behavior: url("/iepngfix.htc"); } . I don't know if Gravewit would be interested in implementing this (it's a big of a pain) but it might be worth mentioning. <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 05:42, 26 August 2006 (CDT)

GuildWiki Policy
I've messed with Policy. I don't know if you still bother with this sort of thing, but I'm warning all the admins so as to get everyone on board. :) &mdash;Tanaric 18:45, 5 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Hey Tanaric, I do like to keep up with policy changes so thanks for letting me know! <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 05:53, 6 August 2006 (CDT)

Banning Question
Hey LordBiro why'd you ban me. I didnt do anything to unappease the gods. Grenth&#39;s Sword 22:56, 8 August 2006 (CDT)
 * In the logs, Lord Biro hasn't done a ban recently. Did you post on this page on the same connection on which you received the warning?  If so, then the fact that you can post now suggests that the ban message is likely a result of a known bug.  A false ban message is sometimes presented.  It most often impacts users who are not logged in (using an IP address) at the time that the error was generated.  :It could also be that you're using a dynamic IP address, and the random one to which you were assigned by your ISP just happenned to be a blocked one from some other user being banned. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:07, 8 August 2006 (CDT)

When i tried to make a change to one of my builds, it said id been blocked. then i posted that message on Lordbiro's page, and it allowed me to. Then i tried to make the edit to my build again, but that time it said i was blocked. yet you say Lord Biro hasnt blocked anyone lately. Rarrrrrrggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Lol i tried to post the above message ^ on my user page, but it aid i was blocked. i logged on and didnt know i got a warning. i logged in then tried to make a build change, and the rest is above. Grenth&#39;s Sword
 * If you know your IP address, you can try sending me an email at spam.home@comcast.net and I can verify its ban status; but if you're able to post intermittently, it sounds like the bug to me. When you get the error, you can try going back to the prior screen then try posting again. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:24, 8 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Hey Grenth's Sword, as Barek said I haven't carried out a ban for some time now, and even then I very rarely carry out bans other than for mass vandalism. I can't suggest any more than Barek has suggested. If you'd like my email address to discuss this off-wiki then just ask :) <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 03:36, 9 August 2006 (CDT)

Rit icon
i just ran into an interesting problem with the formatting of Unique items list (Factions), the Rt icon is too short and it's throwing off the table layout. since you're draft2 icons are undoubtedly going to be the next version, could you center the icons on a standard sized transparency to prevent this style of formatting wierdness? --Honorable Sarah 12:11, 16 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I've updated the icon. The only problem I foresee now is that, even if I pad every icon so that it meets 36x36, the Paragon icon is very wide and at the size in draft 2 it would be 46 pixels wide, including the shadow. I can trim a few pixels off that, but probably not 10. What do you think? <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 12:56, 16 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I think we should be able to standardize the profession icon size. I don't see any reason to limit ourselves to having that standard be 36x36, we could set our own standard to whatever size works; using a 36 height with a 46 width for all icons should work just as well, shouldn't it? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:20, 16 August 2006 (CDT)
 * i don't think a square box matters so much, as long as it is the same box so they can be inserted uniformly. it's ANet's fault, stupid wrong-aspect-ness-ritualist-icon. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 13:45, 16 August 2006 (CDT)


 * I think the problem with the paragon icon is that the current draft is too fat (I've already told you how much I love your work, I'm allowed a little criticism too, right? ;)). Methinks the (hexagon?) base shape is too wide and it wouldn't hurt to snip a good portion of it, bringing the total shape more towards a bird and less towards a Lego with wings. With my limited GIMP-skills, I've made something that slightly resembles what I mean, for reference: [[image:para36x36.png]]. All I did was cut out the center 5 pixels, crop and resize to 36x36. -- [[Image:Bishop_icon2.png]] Bishop [ rap|con ] 15:33, 16 August 2006 (CDT)


 * That's fair enough Bishop, but what about when you consider the flower cut-out as well? You lose some detail when you try and get that much detail in a 36x36 block.


 * Besides, I really wanted it to look like a hexagon with wings. Seriously. :P


 * If you want to continue playing with the shape Bishop then I would suggest that you presume that draft 2 of the Paragon icon is going to be used. <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 17:14, 16 August 2006 (CDT)


 * isn't it supposed to be a shield with wings? that seems like an ideal icon for a holy commander. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 17:19, 16 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Initially I started working from that, but it looked very much like a Warrior icon with some wings shoved on it. And I didn't think that was good enough. So I thought, you know, a hexagon shape would be cool. So there you go! <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 17:26, 16 August 2006 (CDT)


 * i still think it looks like a shield, maybe one of those Ornate Shields. whatever. i like it.--Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 17:35, 16 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Well, uh, I didn't work from the cutout shape because while I think it looks really great at the large size, it looks like someone shot a whole through the icon at the smaller sizes. In other words, it is detail overload -- there's just too much going on with the wings and the hole and the shape to fit into a small icon for the small purposes it needs to fill. -- [[Image:Bishop_icon2.png]] Bishop [ rap|con ] 02:53, 17 August 2006 (CDT)

I realise you can't make out the flower shape at the lower size, but I don't think it's to the detriment of the icon really. It does look simply like a hole in the logo, but I quite like that. <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 03:11, 17 August 2006 (CDT)

Background Question
I use IE while at work - I've read that IE has a problem interpreting .png transparent backgrounds correctly, so I've just accepted the constant gray background that I see. But, oddly, I noticed in the Rune article that the Dervish icon shows the background color in IE, not a gray box like all other icons on that page. Is there something formatted differently with that allows the transparent background to work, or is it a random fluke that in this one case IE was able to interpret it correctly? (note: it's only this size where it works - when I view the smaller icon, I get a gray background for those as well). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 11:20, 17 August 2006 (CDT)


 * It is not that IE can't interpret transparent PNGs, as such, more that it can't interpret translucent PNGs. As you can see above the Dervish icon has been anti-aliased on to a white background and then the white pixels have been deleted, so on a light coloured background it looks fine. If this icon had a dropped shadow it would be noticeable even on light backgrounds. <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 11:38, 17 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Heh, I knew you were the right person to ask - always go to the expert! Thanks for explaining it!  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:58, 17 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Hehe, you are too kind Barek! And it's not a problem :) <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 15:57, 17 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Is there a setting in photoshop to change from using translucent PNGs to using full transparency? I find that even if I set the alpha channel to fully transparent in a typical PNG, it doesn't display correctly in IE. I was horrified when I first saw my user page which looked fine in Firefox but has the grey boxes in IE. --Thervold 15:55, 23 August 2006 (CDT)


 * My understanding is that it's a limitation of IE. If a miracle occurs, it may display correctly when IE 7 eventually comes out.  LordBiro likely has more accurate info though. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:59, 23 August 2006 (CDT)


 * IE6 can't interpret transparent PNGs in 24 BPP. But it CAN interpret this one: [[Image:Para36x36.png]] But its background is white all the time. But it's not grey anymore... I'll never understand Microsoft and their IE. I'll keep being a firefox user. --numma_cway 19:06, 25 August 2006 (CDT)




 * If someone is interested, this probelm isn't present at IE7. I just had to check. :P --[[Image:Gem-icon-sm.png]] (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Ha! I just did the same thing.  I  got the IE7 RC1 last night, but I couldn't get to guildwiki at the time.  I was just checking it now when I noticed your post Gem.  --Rainith 20:04, 25 August 2006 (CDT)

timing
so when can we see the draft π icons in production? the current icons look wierd resized. --Honorable Sarah 12:56, 20 August 2006 (CDT)
 * I'm pretty sure that they're already in. Try clearing your cache. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:15, 20 August 2006 (CDT)


 * The icons have been uploaded, but I guess Barek is right, your cache may be out of date. I was thinking that, in order to force people to see the correct image I could upload the icon under a different name and temporarily modify and  . After a week or so we could change back and that should be fine. What do you think? <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 13:32, 20 August 2006 (CDT)

Not sure where to put this
I can't quite fathom the above :o

Consider using a musical symbol for the paragon if the wings won't fit, they have all the chants, anthems and things. And another thing, would it be possible to blur the small mesmer icon a wee bit, it looks a bit jaggy! Great work btw ^^ &mdash; Skuld 11:32, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

For your consideration
If you would be so kind to take a look at GuildWiki talk:Don't immediately delete. Thanks. -Gares 12:48, 21 August 2006 (CDT)

Nightfall Guild Emblem Contest
just wanted to make sure you got your entry in, must be postmarked by tomarrow. i want a Greater Icon, not another beaver. Nightfall Guild Emblem Contest. --Honorable Sarah 10:09, 23 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Hey Sarah, I doubt I'll be able to enter anything; my computer died yesterday. Equally this means I won't be able to do much/any work on the icons! :( <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 12:38, 23 August 2006 (CDT)
 * oh no! poor thing. i hope your baby feels better soon. ;) --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 14:42, 23 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Hehe, I love that you called it my baby, that's what I call it too. Don't go telling people that though, I have a reputation to maintain :P <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 15:13, 23 August 2006 (CDT)

Builds discussion re: site policies
You may already be aware of it, but if not can you take a look at the (long) discussion at GuildWiki_talk:Style_and_formatting/Builds and voice your opinion? I'm asking several of the currently active admins to take a look. The issue, to me, is one of interpretation of site policies and practices. I was involved in the discussions earlier, so I cannot consider myself totally unbiased in any attempt to resolve it myself. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:58, 23 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Hi Barek, I was aware of the discussion but I wasn't aware of the recent change in opinion brought on by xas' comments. Thanks for the heads up! <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 13:10, 24 August 2006 (CDT)

Totally unimportant layout issue
It seems that your sig is messing up the table here. Any idea why? --Xeeron 04:29, 24 August 2006 (CDT)

Skill quick reference layout
You have been taking part in the discussion earlier so I thought I might post to you among some others. I want this to be resolved pretty soon, so plese consider taking part in the discussion at GuildWiki_talk:Style_and_formatting/Skills. -- (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2006 (CDT)

Timestamp
You're trying to get a custom-formatted timestamp? If so, I changed User:LordBiro/Timestamp so it works, but it must be substituted and not included. produces 2006-08-25 03:58. (Apparently UTC.) --Fyren 22:58, 25 August 2006 (CDT)


 * Good stuff Fyren, this is exactly what I was after. I wasn't aware that you could use the tag inside template calls! <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 03:31, 26 August 2006 (CDT)

User:84.69.228.214
Isn't 1 week a bit short? I know I overlengthen sometimes but isn't that doing to the oposite? :P &mdash; Skuld 18:55, 26 August 2006 (CDT)


 * No, it's not too short. If he does the same again he'll no doubt be banned longer by anyone else who notices, and if I ban him again it will be for a month. I don't see the point in banning an IP address for a ridiculous amount of time when they'll probably not be back anyway. If they can't vandalize right now I imagine they'd lose interest after waiting even an hour or two. <span style="font-family: Georgia, serif"> &lt;LordBiro&gt;/&lt;Talk&gt; 03:32, 27 August 2006 (CDT)
 * Doing a quick look at that IP address, it appears to be from some DSL user in the UK, I don't know about there but in Australia, if you're on DSL that chances are that your IP address changes regularly (Static IPs are only avaliable on some business plans or are an additional cost). So that person who did the vandalism gets a new IP in a few days time and someone else picks up 84.69.228.214 and finds they can't edit the GuildWiki. They also can't just create an account because it won't let them and probably couldn't be bothered working out how to email an admin and wait for the IP to be unblocked manually. So our anti-social vandal ends up winning again :( That's the big problem with banning an IP address, often a new person will get the address soon after. So I guess I agree with LordBiro there, if he/she comes back after a week doing the same thing, we can block for a longer period and with greater confidence that the IP "belongs" to that user. Shared IPs are another thing to think about though... --Xasxas256 05:58, 27 August 2006 (CDT)