If you save them as gifs theys stay animated. Try to upload them as anything else they lose the animation.Baggins 00:42, 4 January 2007 (EST)
- You want GIFs instead? --Voidvector 00:45, 4 January 2007 (EST)
- Well animated gifs are fun :). Plus they give you best possible view of the image. Any other non-animated icons are fine as "png".Baggins 00:52, 4 January 2007 (EST)
- I'd like to revert to Zeal's last version of the article, but I'm not going to do so at the moment, since I think that would only inflame the edit war going on.
- Theron, you have reverted the formatting of article five times in the past few days, overriding the contributions of three different editors without contributing a single comment to the talk page, and only providing so much as an edit summary in the last two changes, neither of which addresses the issue of image placement. This approach is not helpful.
- Then again, perhaps we haven't been clear either. Placing left-aligned images disrupts the flow of the text, particularly when they are large, as here, and it's further exacerbated by having both right and left aligned images opposite each other. There is currently a Manual of Style under development which provide a guideline for issues such as this, so any discussion as to the aesthetics of formatting should probably occur there.--Aeleas 14:11, 10 January 2007 (EST)
- I have placed a comment on Theron's talk page, and have reverted back to the proper article version. If he feels we are reverting his changes, I will merely point out to him that, no, actually he started by reverted mine and Zeal's tidying. As Aeleas says, left aligned images = not so good. 14:46, 10 January 2007 (EST)
Sorry, but I personally find this ridiculous. Placing images on the left is not a problem as far as I can see. Being a long time contributor of Wikipedia I belive that I can say so, since no one has complained about me for placing images on the left. "Vandal" you call me? You are not being really nice to me either when you edit something I did and say "theron stop reverting. your changes were wrong". Regards, --Theron the Just 07:41, 15 January 2007 (EST)
- Theron, you seemingly still don't get it. You are inciting edit wars, and not even discussing the issues on talk pages. When people have reverted you, it's been more often than not because you didn't read the talk page, which is the case of "theron stop reverting. your changes were wrong" and why this little section here exists. You did not see fit to discuss it, and repeatidly ignore warnings and attempts to get you to discuss. Therefore, you have become a vandal to the wiki because of your poor editing practices and lack of communication with others.
- As to the issue at hand, me and Kirkburn cleaned up the image placements, as having them both sides under that section looked horrible squashing the text. I also moved the images and changed the size so the Lordearon Knight (from his shield's crest) was under the correct section heading, while the unmarked human knight is free to be in the rest of the article, in this case, under the Azeroth Knight section (which granted this knight more than likely is a member of anyways). You felt fit to undo these changes, without discussion, so they were reverted with a basic explanation and i added the note to the talk page to initiate talk on the matter if you felt you had good cause. This is all your own fault, you seem to have a clearly stubborn and arrogant attitude which you act upon, i suggest you sort it out as only you can before an admin has to intervene yet again.. -- 16:59, 15 January 2007 (EST)
Do I sense hostile tone? Regards, --Theron the Just 02:02, 16 January 2007 (EST)
- 'Theron', you bloody well do, yes. It's quite natural to feel hostile to people who tread a very very fine line between being declared a vandal and someone who is an asset to the wiki. I hope you stay as the latter, as you do make some very good edits. But please remember, no-one owns wiki articles. If you have a problem with one discuss it. If you do not, you know well the consequences. 02:42, 16 January 2007 (EST)
I dearly "hope" that the current form pleases all people. Why do I think that Human_Knight..jpg would show a knight of Lordaeron from the Third War? Compare the art and knight model from Warcraft III, you should see. Regards, --Theron the Just 13:25, 24 January 2007 (EST)
- Looks good to me. :) It would be nice to get a proper WoW picture in the article (in lieu of the WC3 image), if anyone finds one, please add! 13:32, 24 January 2007 (EST)
- Well, i'm gunna bring back the WC3 icon, but put it where the old one was tbh. Don't feel it needed removing. And i don't follow you on the Knight stuff for the top image, but i don't care, so it's fine. -- 14:02, 24 January 2007 (EST)
Excuse me. I'm new here but I wanna ask. Shouldn't Lothar be in here. I mean he's not a paladin but a knight. He is the greatest knight humanity has seen yet. Don't you think?
Knights and Paladins
- In WCII, paladins were knights with holy powers. They still mostly are. They are called the Knights of the Silver Hand and Blood knights.--User:Sandwichman2448/Sig 21:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Don't forget that Archbishop Faol, who was not a knight, helped found the Paladins. So does this mean we have to include other organizations, if any exist, under the Knights category since they are technicaly knights? For example, exemplars, cavaliers, templars, etc. Rolandius (talk - contr) 03:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Archbishop Faol was not a paladin either, and while he was part of the Order of the Silver Hand, he did not stop them from doing knightly things. Throwing technicalities around complicates things. Types and orders are two completely different things, so I have no idea why they are grouped. Also, you listed classes, not orders, which, while relevant to the section, are not organizations. Types and orders can be synonymous if an order is all of one type, but I do not see that here.--User:Sandwichman2448/Sig 21:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Are there really large amounts of knights left in the Alliance?
By Knight I mean Knight, not Paladin, and here is the reason I ask.
First the Knights of Stormwind/Brotherhood of the Horde were all slain in the First War
Second the Knights of Lordaeron mostly either died or turned to the Scarlet Crusade
Third Stromgarde is in ruins and the Horde has pretty much slaughtered everyone in it from Stromgarde
Fourth there is a complete lack of any mobs called Knights in Theramore indicating Jaina didn't bring any with her
Fifth if there were Knights in Kul'tiras Jaina would have brought a lot of them, she didn't so Kul'tiras probably doesn't have many.
This might be speculation but how many non dead Alliance mobs called Knights are there?
- Actually lore wise, many Alliance warriors are knights. They don't appear in game as the term knight is divided between those who are paladins and warriors. Take Lothar and Tirion for example, both are considered as knights but Lothar was not a paladin. It's more of a title than a class so the page's actually a list of those who are known to be knights. Crimsonknight17(talk) 09:59, 16 August 2009