Talk:Full Artwork

Awesome job.
This page must have taken a lot of work and consideration. Since uploading card art has been one of my main focuses on the wiki, this is really cool to see. Is there a particular order that they have been sorted by? Should a ordering be considered? Like the upper level sort is obviously Mana cost, but within that maybe alphabetically? Again, awesome page that could make updating card arts or uploading missing ones easier. --Beanchagbear (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. As for your question, some are alphabetical. But i did make a couple of mistakes, like putting two cards in the same row. Since this was already finished and I noticed it later, I simply added one of the cards at the end because keeping them in a session of six and being forced to move them one at a time, is a bit of a pain. An example is Ship's Cannon.Shammiesgun (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Just card art?
What's doing under 3 mana cards? -- Karol007 (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, it's Stablemaster, sorry for the noise. Nothing to see. move long. -- Karol007 (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Adjustments
Great job! A few things:


 * I've made some minor adjustments, most notably re-ordering the sections, mostly to match Artists, but more importantly just to put them in rough order of importance and stacking. The current ordering is not fixed, but should be better.
 * I'm not sure quite what the best title for the page is. It might be 'Full art', which would match what we have in the captions on the individual card pages. In the mean time I'll move the page from 'Full Artwork' to 'Full artwork', since we use sentence case in page titles. [Edit: Strike that, I've gone ahead and moved it to 'Full art' for now, since this seems to make sense. Still open to discussion, though. -- Taohinton (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC) ]
 * A concern for the page is loading issues due to the amount of images being linked on the page. Already editing the page requires a long load time, and my experience of pages like Rarity (before we split it into separate card lists) shows that if the page keeps growing it will eventually fail to load, making it impossible to edit. Since we get ~250 new bits of art with each expansion, and probably about the same with adventures when you consider the bosses and boss cards, this might happen pretty quickly. If so, the best answer would probably be to split the page either according to the current sections - collectible, uncollectible, boss cards, etc (although this would eventually have the same problems, albeit not for a while longer) - or by expansion/adventure. It's probably fine for now, though.
 * The current layout of 6 images per row is slightly too wide for my display (1280x1024), which results in the background texture breaking and requiring me to scroll to the right to see all the images. We've never established what page width the wiki should be aiming for, but 1366x768 seems to be the most popular. I'm not quite certain what percentage of readers have a narrower display than that, though; statistics online suggest about 30% of internet users. If that's accurate we might want to aim for 1280 in order to ensure a wider portion of readers can enjoy the page without it breaking up, reducing that stat to about 8%. Am I right in guess this page width is designed to fit just within the 1366x768 resolution?

Anyway, good job on all that work! :P -- Taohinton (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)