File talk:Gil.png/Archive 1

Delete: Duplicate of Image:Gil.jpg. This image shows 2g, the original intention of the Gil document is talking about a single currency, do not need to have quirky comments of "my two cents". --Wayka 05:39, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

Keep: an obvious non-duplicate. check the filesizes. its fairly obvious. ...if you want to delete it such that i can Re-upload a "normal" version without the whole 2 cents pun, feel free. But put a message on my Talk page, please and thank you. --Pandora Xero, Destroyer of ovesized images 10:23, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

Delete: You don't re-upload a new image during a deletion discussion, that defeats the entire purpose. Irregardless, I prefer Image:Gil.jpg. --User:Charitwo/Sig 11:25, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

Comment: Since the revert function is now active, it is appropriate to upload new images to correct problems that necessitated the AfD in the first place. --◄Chrisjander► t/ c 11:31, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

Sorry for the deletion. It looked identical - slightly crisper - certainly smaller. --GAHOO t/ c 11:26, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

Ok. Thanks. Here they are. I can't see a difference. --GAHOO t/ c 11:27, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

vs. File:Gil.jpg

Keep: I can see a difference. The PNG is 8KB, and the JPG is 14KB. --◄Chrisjander► t/ c 11:31, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

Comment: 6KB is not a determining factor for deleting an image, I feel Pandoraxero sometimes goes too far in replacing images to what he deems necessary as a "better version". It's clearly a better quality in that aspect, despite the extension. --User:Charitwo/Sig 11:36, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

Keep: That would be the intended Difference. naturally, i usually go for no other differences. slightly higher quality is usually a side-effect of my efforts --Pandora Xero, Destroyer of ovesized images 11:32, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

Comment: The one on the right is clearly better. The PNG version's font is blurry and slightly distorted. The JPG version font is much sharper and clearer, and the background is darker and more uniform with the type of background items look best with. Just because it has a filename that usually has better quality, doesn't make it that way all the time. The JPEG version is slightly larger because it's of better quality. It did not need to be replaced, for more information, for those unaware, please see the Image Policy on Image Replacement. --User:Charitwo/Sig 11:35, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

Comment: i disagree. the jpg version looks muddy and distorted to me. --Pandora Xero, Destroyer of ovesized images 11:42, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

Comment: Hardly, you're clearly being biased because it's your image and you want to keep it. Just because you say it's muddy and distorted doesn't make it so. Just because it was uploaded with a PNG extension doesn't always make it better. You can't even justify the way you described it, at least I explained myself. --User:Charitwo/Sig 11:44, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

Comment: Except for the difference of background, they look exactly the same to me. And Charitwo, tone it down, you are now entering the realm of personal attacks and not assuming good faith. --◄Chrisjander► t/ c 11:45, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

Comment: He didn't explain himself, see my comment stamped on :35. The difference is in the clarity of the font. --User:Charitwo/Sig 11:47, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

Actually, looking back, he explained the only reason he uploaded the PNG version was because of the file size alone. Again, I re-iterate, just because it's smaller in size does not make it better in quality. --User:Charitwo/Sig 11:51, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

I re-assert my view on image formats. that is, JPEG is inherently distorted. the PNG is showing the image exactly the way it is stored. ie. sans gamma adjustment. --Pandora Xero, Destroyer of ovesized images 11:54, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

Comment: I see little difference in clarity. the font on the jpg version certainly looks more yellow, though --Pandora Xero, Destroyer of ovesized images 11:49, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

Keep: Image:Gil.png appears to be more like I would see in game. Further, Image:Gil.jpg font in the amount of gil does not appear to match the standard in-game font, while Image:Gil.png does. Rylan 11:54, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

Actually, there are multiple background options, 7 I believe, from the Window section of the Config menu. --User:Charitwo/Sig 11:58, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

Comment: You both have different points of view. You each, for some reason, see blurry images in the other format. I can assume this is because of your computer's graphics capabilities and settings. However, both Gahoo and I can see no appreciable visual difference between these two images, so both of you can consider that your position that the other image is "blurry" may be incorrect. You two have your opinions as to which image is blurry, and they're both valid opinions. I believe both of you have explained yourselves adequately to state your point of view, and there is nothing left but for you two to agree to disagree and leave it to the admins to decide. --◄Chrisjander► t/ c 11:55, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

Comment: I'm not an admin, obviously, but that shouldn't matter here. I honestly see no difference between the two, beyond colors. However, who am I to judge? If someone wants to spend their day updating countless images from JPG to PNG, go for it. I think the only thing that should be noted is that PNG is typically larger, and therefore will use more hard disk space, as well as use more bandwidth. All comes down to how much more you want to pay a month for these images. --TtOaXrIuCTC 12:05, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

Comment: Actually, the PNG is the smaller of the two in this case. --◄Chrisjander► t/ c 12:18, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

Comment: I usually don't upload larger images (i have in a few cases, Image:RabbitMantle.png for example) --Pandora Xero, Destroyer of ovesized images 12:20, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

Comment: Though the differences are infinitely subtle and both images would serve the purpose perfectly, I do feel the font used for "1 G" in the PNG image is more true to the game. This is the only reason why I would be partial to Image:Gil.png though. User:Sigma/Sig 12:10, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

Comment: This'll prolly be my last comment on this one: I checked on the monitors at school: they look roughly equal there. any appearance of blurring from Charitwo's perspective is likely due to the presence of brighter text colors in the png version. In any case, the 2 images DO seem roughly equal. and from the looks of the turnout from the fundraiser, this site could use something that'll lower bandwidth, if even slightly. --Pandora Xero, Destroyer of ovesized images 22:34, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

Keep: With the new upload it is fine to keep now. The only problem I had with the original upload was the "2g" and comment that came with it, the image should of just shown "1g". Setting delete flag for the jpg now. --Wayka †Talk† 06:19, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

Comment: If the two are deemed identical in perspective to a majority of people, the original should be kept, not the duplicate. --User:Charitwo/Sig 07:51, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

Resolution: Keep .png. Identical but smaller footprint. --GAHOO t/ c 07:54, 22 May 2007 (CDT)