Template talk:FactionIcon

I totaly agre with this merger of Alliance Icon Small, Horde Icon Small and Neutral Icon Small as well as the larger versions Alliance Icon, Horde Icon and Neutral Icon - but to take some of the work load off -- I think we should change the redirects on Alliance and Horde template to be Alliance for Alliance and Horde for Horde and make  be Neutral ((After the old  template has been changed to its proper neutral format)) -- that way we can still use  the Alliance and Horde templates and not have to replace them all ( my opinion). -- 22:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was personally thinking more the other way around. alliance and horde is terribly convenient. Put parameters on these for the (less frequent) need for the other icons. But that assumption may be in correct, which is why I put it up for discussion. 10:57 PM, 26 Jul 2009 (EDT)
 * At the moment Alliance and Horde both redirect to Alliance Icon Small and Horde Icon Small - going with your idea of merging the individual Icon template Alliance Icon, Alliance Icon Small, Horde Icon, Horde Icon Small, Neutral Icon, and Neutral Icon Small could be all merged into the template FactionIcon since it does both sized for all 3 factions - 1 main template -- and we can change Alliance and Horde to no longer be redirects but  become shortcuts to  and  . We can then keep Alliance and Horde on all pages as they are  -- and just change the pages that use teh Large and Neutral icons -- or better yet since Neutral no longer is used as a Reputation template it can be the  counterpart? --  03:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Side note, maybe it's FactionIcon that's missing combat support that was the problem with NPC. 12:00 AM, 27 Jul 2009 (EDT)

I would think to make things easier and have to type out less, that small would be the default instead of the large versions. 04:56, September 12, 2009 (UTC)

Sort order
I think this is a more reasonable sort order (FactionIcon/dev). Does anyone disagree? 6:31 PM, 13 Aug 2009 (EDT)


 * I figured that [[File:Alliance 32.gif]], [[File:Horde 32.gif]] and were more impotant factions thant  and  so did not put the latter 2 in perfect alpha order with the primaries. So I choose the way the Live version is (personaly). --  22:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ya but... it's not alphabetical. 7:05 PM, 13 Aug 2009 (EDT)


 * I agree it is not perfect Aldor, Alliance, Combat, Horde, Neutral, Scryers order but so far I have never see anyone use Aldor up against any other faction other than Scryers, or use Alliance with any other faction other than Horde or Neutral -- in this case it is in Alpha order Alliance will always be before Horde before Neutral and  Aldor is always before Scryers. Primaries and then Secondaries, then yes it is in perfect alpha order. --  23:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Going with what you just said, no need to architect for a situation that isn't happening yet. So I'm putting in the alpha sort, so that the template is easier to maintain. If any other icons are added, no changes will be needed to support them. If in the future this "natural order" sorting is a problem, we'll override it. 8:52 PM, 13 Aug 2009 (EDT)
 * That works for me. Easy is better (most of the time) -- 01:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Enemy factions
Could anyone make icons for the big villain factions please thanks--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Illidian's forces
 * Burning Legion
 * Scourge
 * Twilight Hammer
 * The current ones are reflective of the gameplay aspect. Why subdivide the combat icon?-- 04:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If that's the way it works okay but i was thinking if they did for aldor ad scryer they could do for the big bads since they are more impotant.--Ashbear160 (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Those icons represent how things react to the player.-- 17:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If that's the case, then there shouldn't be a Shattered Sun Offensive icon, or the Argent Dawn and Argent Crusade icons that were recently put in. Those aren't factions that players are affiliated with that would be contrasted (Aldor vs Scryer, and arguably, Oracles vs Frenzyheart). -- 08:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * However, unlike the Burning Legion, Scourge, and Twilight's Hammer which are always hostile, you have a choice with the others. You could mark At War with them and become hated. 08:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

New icons
It seems we are getting some new icons... What do people think of this?-- 21:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Possibly.. I haven't completed decided if we all want to add more, a vote can be had... however, I'd like to use the new Horde and Alliance icons, change to a PNG format (rather than GIF) and add the capability of xlarge icons to this template. Unless there is any disagreements to that. Of course, have to wait till [[File:Neutral 15.png]] fixes itself from having a white background, before I do that. 21:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I still would like icons for the main enemy factions in each expansion. trough i see no problems with adding icons for others.--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, the new Alliance/Horde icons have be switched over and many templates that used the old ones have been switched over as well. We'll probably keep Alliance Icon and Horde Icon for the ones that want to use the older icons... otherwise everything should be switched from them to Alliance/Horde. 05:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "Getting some new icons"? What did I miss? Where are those icons from? From an official source, or are they just created by Fandyllic? -- 08:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Fandyllic likely took the images from tabards or banners from game files to make them... so they're official. 08:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The "neutral", Alliance and Horde icons are not reflected in-game, and same goes for all icons under Npcbox section.
 * Sons of Hodir doesn't have a symbol or icon, yet Fandyllic created one. Same with taunka, kalu'ak and frostborn.
 * I understand that he's very enthusiastic and likes to create icons, but I thought that the template wasn't to create faction icons, only factions that differentiated from one another? (Alliance vs Horde, Scryer vs Aldor) We already have  for the factions that players don't choose to align themselves with. -- 08:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The icons have been made it doesn't matter if they're not used beyond their own page.--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That double negative made no sense.
 * No matter if they have been made or not, it doesn't mean that they should be used. -- 17:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, technically they're used on the official website. Check out the faction symbol on http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/faction/the-hand-of-vengeance for example... though there isn't a neutral one currently there. Grissom (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The Horde and alliance icons are on the official wow page so we're using it howerver i think we're talking about the icons for the other reputation factions.--Ashbear160 (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that this would all require a lot of time and effort that, personally I don't see worth it. I like the new icons for the Alliance and Horde. And I know a lot of effort was put into these new icons and all but the problem is that people such as Sylvanas are aligned with the Horde but Also the Hand of Vengence, above all I have to agree with just keeping it in their affiliations, I support new icons with the factions such as say Sons of Hodir and The Knights of the Ebon Blade and such. But for members of the Warsong Offensive and other Horde and Alliance Subfactions, I do not. MoneygruberTheGoblin (talk contribs) 19:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Most of them would end like this Money Argent Dawn(check the top of the infobox)--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds logical.There is no good reason not to and it displays a symbol of the factions. MoneygruberTheGoblin (talk contribs) 22:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the entire point of the old symbols was to show how the factions react from a gameplay standpoint. Showing the faction icon there instead tells you nothing. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It tell us what's their faction symbol is in the faction pages, it looks cool and improves the article.--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And what, exactly, does seeing their faction symbol there tell us? Nothing. The Neutral/Combat symbol tells us how that faction reacts to us as players. That's the very first thing we see, before we read anything else, and it's a very important piece of information. Making the article "look cool" should never come at the expense of the information being displayed. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It tell us the exact same thing a horde and alliance icon tell us, it's their icon/crest/flag, and you're putting gameplay mechanics over lore, besides the neutral icon should only be used in lists where it's appropriate.--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The Horde and Alliance icons have gameplay meaning, telling you how they will react to you based on your faction. And yes, I am putting gameplay mechanics over lore, because that's precisely what it's supposed to be indicating. The gameplay mechanics of the faction's reaction to you as a player. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dark... however, just to take a few factions that react to players differently. The Timbermaw furbolgs start out hostile to players and work their way to neutral, same with Sons of Hodir, the Bloodsail and Steamwheedle cartel can vary per player as well, so often times or  isn't always best either and that's why we use aggro in the npcboxes... or at least should be using, but even that has its limits as we only show the 90% of the time how they should react.  23:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I prefered if the articles were more true to the lore than the game mechanics... can't we have both icon? would that solve the problem?--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean both icons? Like 2 icons in the same spot on the NPCbox? 23:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

From my standpoint I think that Sons of Hodir, Therazane, Steamweedle Cartel, Bloodsail, and the Oracles and Freazyhearts should have faction icons, but not the Timbermaw they are only unfriendly in cataclysm. And altthough a stretch, possibly Raveholdt and Syndicate icons. Anyone in agreement? MoneygruberTheGoblin (talk contribs) 23:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And what would that accomplish? Some factions would have an icon showing how they react, while others would have an icon showing... That the faction has an icon? -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It would accomplish showing that they are not a normal neutral faction, you can loose reputation and become hostile or exalted with them. Factions such as Kirin Tor don't have anyway to decrease reputation. It shows you have a choice to align with the faction or be hostile. [[Image:IconSmall Goblin Male.gif]][[Image:IconSmall Goblin Male Alt.gif]][[Image:IconSmall Gallywix.gif]][[Image:IconSmall Gazlowe.gif]][[Image:IconSmall GoblinDeathKnight Male.gif]][[Image:IconSmall UndeadGoblin.gif]][[Image:IconSmall Gilgoblin.gif]][[Image:IconSmall Hobgoblin.gif]] MoneygruberTheGoblin (talk contribs) 00:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes Cobra something like this on top of the infobox
 * [[File:Argent Dawn 32.png]] The Argent Dawn
 * Or
 * [[File:Argent Dawn 32.png]] The Argent Dawn
 * i prefer the second trough, the same could be applied for the hand of vengeance with the horde icon instead of the neutral icon--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought of that, but I can't say I like how it would look with two icons. 05:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I may be late, but god, the new Alliance and Horde icons are fugly, imo :S.
 * Also, WoWPedia's smallest icons are too small, you can't even tell what they are most of the time. I think they should be the size of RaceIcons.
 * However, the idea is good. Would be nice to have a small FactionIcon for every existing tabard. For easier-work purposes, whoever does it could just remove a part around the images and give it a "shield" form, without needing to clean everything around the symbol.--Lon-ami (talk) 09:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just checked, WoWWiki's are 15x15, when they should be 18x18.--Lon-ami (talk) 09:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WoWWiki is bad. Period. We really shouldn't take after them. IMO the Alliance and Horde icons should have stayed with how they were.
 * I agree with Dark T Zeratul - there are way to much icon obsession lately (race icons to name one). -- 09:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I loved the previous ones, these ones are just wrong. Also, the Alliance one is clearly "Stormwind".
 * However, I'm fine with icons. They're good for lists and give life to articles. Of course, when they're not pointless. I think that having faction icons for the most relevant factions (allied, neutral or enemy) would be nice; but they need to be 18x18 and use mpq images as source (MyWarcraftStudio or just mpqeditor and conversion) to get a clean picture, and not just a screenshot.--Lon-ami (talk) 09:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Lon-ami blizzard use these icons in their official website(alliance and horde) and the old icons were also severely outdated(the alliance one was a more of a lordaeron shields) you're right in the amount of pixels trough, there should be more--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And those "outdated" faction icons are used in-game to mark PvP players. Bring it up with Blizzard if you want to change that. -- 13:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Me no play long time--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I figured that one out a long time ago. -- 13:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I for one think that the new icons are pretty ok, maybe no the most amazing damn icons of all time, but they're prefectly fine. Also the argument like "And those "outdated" faction icons are used in-game to mark PvP players." isn't very valid. The nameplate didn't change since vanilla much, since Blizzard doesn't care that much about sth, a lot of players don't give a s... about since they use whole bunch of addons to change (which I don't get myself imo, since Blizzard UI at least gives you the Warcrafty feel, and doesn't look like hyperspace-super-lmao-whatever-cosmic-thing style interface a lot of people sport these days). 16:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Go back to the old ones, then? By the way, I don't remember having seen the new ones in the official site, although I don't check it often anyway.--Lon-ami (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * They should stay, the look nice and refreshing, it's been many years now since the old ones were introduced, and well the new ones were used in the 10 years anniv mosaic art piece so well, they are offical. 18:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * here's a example Lon-ami http://us.battle.net/wow/en/faction/ --Ashbear160 (talk) 23:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like to re-open this discussion, I firmly believe that these icons should be used however only for the following factions. MoneygruberTheGoblin (talk contribs) 19:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Steamwheedle Cartel
 * Bloodsail Buccaneers
 * Therazane
 * Sons of Hodir
 * Frenzyheart Tribe
 * Oracles
 * And I firmly believe they shouldn't. -- 19:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Using icons for some factions and not others is just going to make things even more complicated. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I firmly believe that we should have them.--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, since it seems more of the community dislikes the idea of having icons for each faction, and I agree, it should either be all factions or none of them so as to not complicate things... the Argent Crusade/Dawn and SSO will be removed shortly, since others will not be added. Aldor and Scryers will stay.. and if it were possible Oracles and Frenzyheart would have icons as well, but they don't have tabards, banners, or really any type of markings to make a usable icon.

I might keep the 32x32 versions though for the perhaps of just displaying on the faction page's infobox, though that too would probably be disliked. 21:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the icons themselves, and I think they could certainly find some use somewhere, I just don't think replacing the infobox icon is the way to do it. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I still think they should be added we could find some use for them.--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a matter of finding out what we should use them for [[Image:IconSmall Goblin Male.gif]][[Image:IconSmall Goblin Male Alt.gif]][[Image:IconSmall Gallywix.gif]][[Image:IconSmall Gazlowe.gif]][[Image:IconSmall GoblinDeathKnight Male.gif]][[Image:IconSmall UndeadGoblin.gif]][[Image:IconSmall Gilgoblin.gif]][[Image:IconSmall Hobgoblin.gif]] MoneygruberTheGoblin (talk contribs) 01:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)