Trinity Staff

The images are on the staves page, they do not belong on the Trinity Staff page.

Then there needs to at least be a mention or link to it, as it's part of the nature of the weapon. A link in the item description should suffice.

So what you're saying is, on each page for any weapon, even things like Cutlasses, we should write down the entire list page on its page?...

I added a note that it is capable of bolt charging for intermediate magic on the staff's page...personally I feel a video is more appropriate for showing bolt charging, rather than a still image...

MSZ, stop reverting to your image. Your images have jpeg compression. Anemki's upload is crystal clear. Lighting isn't the problem, it's the compression of the Jpeg in your images. Natural PNGs are preferred over jpeg conversions to PNG

@Pyro: I said nothing of the sort. The weapon changes in appearance and has that natural effect. It's mentioned in the page, but there's no way to find the images unless you just so happen to go to the staff page. There should be no problem turning one of the words in the mention of it into a link to the gallery, or something of that nature. The concern is that players have trouble finding things on the wiki, because pages and/or databases are so poorly connected.

@SARIA: There is no visual change in quality, even with it being a natural PNG as opposed to the converted one. The only noticeable difference is that the emphasis is no longer placed on the effect, the reason for the image, contrary to what wiki policies require. Therefore, for those purposes, it was a downgrade. If it was done in similar lighting, I would have had no problems. Regardless, I've lost respect for the wiki in general, so I wouldn't have bothered to change it again, even if you had said nothing.

There is a change. Saving it as a jpg removes a bit of quality, then resaving it as a png has no quality change, but the first quality change already took place.

Plus its common sense to go to a weapon type's page to see what makes it special. It doesn't physically change its appearance, it's an xml effect.

Shadow, do you have a laptop or an LCD plasma screen?

@Pyro: That's why I didn't explicitly say "no change". Yes, I know there is a change, but it's hardly noticeable, and typically makes no difference. For that reason, it's only natural for the policy of emphasizing the subject to take priority over image type policy. If it were common sense to look at/for weapons via the type page instead of searching the name to go to the specific item's page, fewer people would have trouble finding an item, since the searching system can be finicky. Also, regardless of the exact semantics, the effect is recognized as part of, or belonging to the object.

@Anemki: I have both, and some other types. The only significant difference I see is with certain colors changing a bit on some screens. Even so, this difference is negligible.

If you tilt it, there are pixels or grainy areas around the edges. It's actually surprisingly easy to tell a Jpg froma Png. It's also easy to take images so they are not a Jpg, and resaving them as a Png doesn't make it better. :/

I made the "type" parameter in the weapon box now link to the list page of that type, in addition, better categorization is now used.