Forum:Allow personal images

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Allow personal images
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 11 March 2010 by Calebchiam.

I have recently thought, why not allow personal images? The 2 most common reasons people dislike them are because it would be hard to maintain a limit and how can we restrict what the images can be of? Well I have the solution. We use this exact method over at the [[w:c:Waroflegends|WoL Wiki]], here is a quote of the policy.

Any registered user on the wiki is allowed to upload a maximum of two personal images onto the wiki. These images must be named after the user who uploaded them and must be screenshots of War of Legends. For example Pwninguser1.png and Pwninguser2.gif. The uploaded personal images may only be used on your own user page. To request for one or both of the images to be deleted, a request may be made to a sysop on their talk page.

This same method can be used for the here. It provides an easy way to keep track of them and it's as easy as deleting a page! We could have a template instead of no personal images to tell someone they moved their image to where ever. For the problem of maintaining what is uploaded and not, it can be only screenshots of the game allowed, like above. And by the way when I thought this idea up, Rob said "I like it!" (in bold) so that means it HAS to be good ;) scoot4.pngscooties 23:41, February 19, 2010 (UTC)


Oppose - If we allow this, it would be hard to get rid of the other useless stuff on the Wiki, such as Category:Fire breathers or Bukkit. You get my point. ----LiquidTalk 23:42, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Changed my vote, see below. ----LiquidTalk 01:24, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Runescape pics only? Twig Talk 772kZGs.png 23:45, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Yup scoot4.pngscooties 23:49, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
Full Support then Twig Talk 772kZGs.png 23:54, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - Its going to hell to handle... Twig Talk 772kZGs.png 04:24, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - We're not an image-hosting site. I can care less about what other Wiki's do and have done. This is why we allow Photobucket and Imageshack. How about we not do this and keep removing useless/personal images from the Upload log. The moment we allow this is the moment the Wiki servers go broke, imagine all 12,000+ users instantly upload 2 images. The Wiki servers are already slow, let's not make them slower. Ryan PM 23:57, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Wikia installed a then-new feature on Halopedia which inadvertantly caused hundreds [if not thousands] of duplicate images to be uploaded. The servers never died because of it, and I seriously doubt the unison of over ten thousand people to come back out of inactivity and upload images at the same time would ever happen. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!I have 12 friends. 06:28, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Mega Oppose - Per BlueSonic and Liquidhelium. We have got photobucket & imageshack out there! Why would we need personal images here? Liam - Beta Tester (talk) 23:59, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support- This is a great idea because i have no idea how to use photobucket or imageshock Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 00:02, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Just as easy as uploading stuff to the wiki. 00:10, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose- No, we do not need useless stuff. Use photobucket or imageshack for Pete's sake. 00:10, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - It's a waste of server bandwidth. I think that's how you call it Fishing.png NnK Oliver (600613) talk 00:13, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

I talked to Wikia staff, there is no server bandwidth limit for images. scoot4.pngscooties 00:17, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
Okay there was some confusion about the question but they said don't worry about running into the max image capacity. scoot4.pngscooties 00:21, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
File:Bull_Rush.gif - While this isn't a personal image, animations are files and would fall under this proposal. Check the file size and decide how many of these it would take to use up the server max. Ryan PM 00:27, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
Then we can say it must be a still image and be under X size. scoot4.pngscooties 00:33, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral/Pending - Haven't decided. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  00:47, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning towards a support - I would still use photobucket or the ImageShare Wiki, but if we want to attract more users, we must let them have their fancy userpage that is easy as 1 2 3. Guys, there is no limit that is easily reached..... Wikipedia allows personal images, imagine how big their damn server must be. Wikia is even recommending us to allow personal images. Although, the phrases "administrative nightmare" and "out of control" are popping into my head again. 01:00, February 20, 2010 (UTC)  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chicken7 (talk).

That is where the naming comes in. It is easy to track who's is who's and as easy as deleting the image and putting a template on a user's page. scoot4.pngscooties 01:08, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
Maybe have something like [[starwars:Template:User-image|this]] too? --Iiii I I I 01:11, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
YES! scoot4.pngscooties 01:18, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Only if it is under a certain file size, not a .gif, in RuneScape, and does not say anything inappropriate in the images. Santa hat.png Powers38 おはようヾ(´・ω・`) 01:13, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Question - Wait... let me clarify something. I interpret "personal images" to mean images of oneself in real life. Do you mean images of one's RS character? ----LiquidTalk 01:21, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, or any image that is used only on a userpage.  Tien  01:21, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
Oh. ----LiquidTalk 01:24, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
Laff laff laff. Santa hat.png Powers38 おはようヾ(´・ω・`) 01:25, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
What? D= ----LiquidTalk 01:26, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Slight support - I do not see any valid reason to oppose, as long as the number of pictures is kept to a reasonable number (1 or 2). ----LiquidTalk 01:24, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Changed my vote again, see below. ----LiquidTalk 01:27, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - We're not an image hosting site or a social networking site, (there are already more than enough sites for those things). We're here to create a comprehensive RuneScape encyclopedia, not a shrine to the self ("if it aint broke, don't fix it"). I've opposed this exact proposal numerous times before and I've yet to see a compelling reason for this.--

Helm of neitiznot (charged).png Azaz129 Crystal shield.png Talk Edits Contribs

01:26, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

You say we aren't an image hosting site, but why can't we show what our runescape life is like in 1 image on our own userspaces on the runescape wiki. It isn't like we will upload images freely to show off all of the internet. scoot4.pngscooties 01:29, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
A wiki isn't about the individual, if you want to show your "RuneScape life", you can put those images on an imagehosting site, for your userpage. The wiki's space should be reserved for the project, not fifty people showing "Zomg I soloed *insert monster here*" or I got *insert drop here*"-- 01:38, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
What is the harm? scoot4.pngscooties 01:40, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
And that is what this discussion has always and will always devolve into, "What is the harm" Vs. "What is the point?".-- 01:43, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
And for that reason whats the harm should win. what's the point shouldn't NOT want it but be nuetral and not care. Whats the harm actually wants it. So its wants vs don't care. scoot4.pngscooties 01:52, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, What's the point would oppose it since it has no point. So, it's Support (No harm) vs. Oppose (No point). I think I'll stay neutral for now. ----LiquidTalk 01:56, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
False dichotomy, I didn't literally mean that those are the only two positions, over generalisation on my part. However, I do not hold the position of apathy, I believe promoting a more egocentric environment will be extremely detrimental to the wiki and personal images is the very personification of such a metality.-- 02:00, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
This kind of dips it's toes into a much bigger issue. We are not robots or zombies. We do not sit here reverting vandalism, editing pages and uploading images like there's no tomorrow. We chat with other users, beautify our userpages, crack jokes and in general, improve the sense of belonging and community-ness. We are a wiki: an encyclopedia edited by a community who are human beings here to help and have fun. This isn't a professional encyclopedia like Britannica. We can do our best to be like them, but can we not also have a community, user-orientated side of things as well? How are 2 personal images each for some users derogatory to the Encyclopaedic content of this wiki? Chicken7 >talk 01:58, February 20, 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict x2)
I have never said to get rid of the user element, however, I see personal images as an extension of an increasingly corrosive element presnet with the wiki of less focus on the purpose of the wiki itself and more on individual users who focus exclusively on the beautification of their userpages, chatting, etc. rather than doing anything of substance.-- 02:04, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
WORD *turns and walks away with chicken at my side* scoot4.pngscooties 02:00, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
We have to be SERIOUS on the Wiki. *Deep fries Chicken. Eats him. MMM Delicious!* Azaz is 100% right. ----LiquidTalk 02:04, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
There WON'T be a time when nearly every user only edits their userpage and the wiki loses focus. Although I agree we are getting an increasing number of users editing only their userpage, it is good they are actually making an account. Making an account makes it more likely for them to actually edit here, and editing their userpage is the first thing most new users do! I truly DO NOT see the problem with users chatting, editing their userpages, etc. Let's remember, there will always be users who wish to edit the wiki as well! But maybe they want personal images too. This isn't only for those users who only edit userpages, let's remember. This is for everyone. And, there isn't a limit on how many users we can have. We aren't going to be attracting the apparent "wrong type of users" who only edit their userpages. Chicken7 >talk 02:13, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

I truly DO NOT see the problem with users chatting, editing their userpages, etc. Straw man, not my argument, we in fact agree on this point. However, to change from the status quo, you have to demonstrate how this will benefit when we already have a satisfactory and easy system in place.--

Helm of neitiznot (charged).png Azaz129 Crystal shield.png Talk Edits Contribs

02:26, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah right. That's what the European monarchs said about democracy. That's what conservatives said about socialism (unfortuantely, as a conservative, I hate to see socialistic values slowly take its grip over society). If we keep letting the wiki discussions getting to personal glorification, then we wouldn't have a very good wiki anymore. ----LiquidTalk 02:20, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
Lol, I actually do not support or oppose personal images. I would just hate to see the day when the "life" of this wiki is taken away and it is just all about writing an encyclopaedia. I hate the community aspect of Wikipedia, but love it in this wiki. I see a lot of benefit in allowing personal images, and a lot of down-sides. I have nothing more to say in this argument. Also, we should have more debates like this Azaz Smile Chicken7 >talk 02:31, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
The life of this wiki will never be taken away. It will always be maintained in through the users who are serious about editing. I don't think ANY of our users are pure robots (except maybe for the users in this category, him, or maybe him). What Azaz is trying to do is prevent the number of users who do nothing but edit their userpages from increasing. Community is allowed and supported in this wiki. If you look at any serious user's talk page, I'm sure you'll find many nice conversations. The ability to upload personal images will NOT significantly affect the users who are serious about editing the wiki, but it WILL encourage the users who care about nothing but their own userpage. ----LiquidTalk 02:37, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
So what if we get more users who only edit their userpage? They aren't harming the encyclopaedic side of the wiki. In the long-run, they are more likely to be strong editors anyway. (So much for nothing more to say, lol) Chicken7 >talk 02:39, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
They aren't directly harming the encyclopediac (I have no idea if I spelled that correctly) side, but they are indirectly harming it. Whenever someone makes an edit to his or her userpage, unless that edit is marked minor, it will show up in the Recent Updates. That will make it harder for legitimate users and admins to monitor the changes to the encyclopedia and possibly revert vandalism or catch a page that needs improvement. They're a distraction to the legitimate editors. ----LiquidTalk 02:44, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
Let's delete all userpages, then. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!I have 12 friends. 06:28, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral, lean ever so slightly to oppose - Well, Azaz brought up a good point. There is no reason to support either. Since I can't come up with a reason to vote either way, I'm going to be what I hate: the apathetic voter without his or her own ideas. ----LiquidTalk 01:27, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - I have just come up with the reason: We MUST be serious on the Wiki. Would a business allow its employees to goof around? Would the government allow its bureaucracy to constantly joke around? No. Therefore, we shouldn't either. If anyone wants personal images on his or her userpage, there's always photobucket. ----LiquidTalk 02:04, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Well if you think that people have to be serious then why should there be photobucket be allowed I dont think that these are necessary but we already let people use the images is we want to be more serious then we chould remove the images. Dragon helm.png Team6and7 Talk Dragon boots.png 02:11, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
This isn't a business. This isn't a Government. This is a community. A place when there are times for seriousness, and times for fun and enjoyment. Not one or the other alone. Chicken7 >talk 02:13, February 20, 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)
Excatly my point there don't think thats a good arguement if we shouldn't be hosting the images due to seriousness when we alllow the images to be linked im going to go ahead and say Support Dragon helm.png Team6and7 Talk Dragon boots.png 02:19, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - You didn't actually give any reasons/advantages why this is a good idea. Allowing personal pictures would not add anything that can't already be done, but would require a lot of monitoring and maintenance to make sure that players upload the images with the correct names, checking they only upload 2 images and telling them about photobucket if they try to upload more then 2. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 02:21, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Evil Yanks. --goldstar-1.png Aria Ryuko (Talk) miniMint.png 02:54, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Per Rswfan FredeTalk 07:56, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I think allowing two personal images would

  1. Stop the deletion of some of our new users first contributions, which I could see being a big discouragement to newcomers and potentially driving people away.
  2. Give new users the chance to test the image upload interface without having to find something that must contribute to the project. Sending them to photobucket only teaches them how to use photobucket.
  3. "Your image has been moved to ..." sounds much more welcoming than "Your personal image has been deleted, don't upload any moar or you'll be banhammered!"

I know there is some strong opposition to this change, but if Wikia staff are trying to encourage it, there might be something to it, just think about it. Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 09:33, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Per others Farming Supawilko 10:54, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Go to Photobucket or Imageshack and you can have your personal images there. How would you check that people only have two personal images anyway? Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 11:30, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I'd like to point out Template:Extimage. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 14:36, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Comment Give new users the chance to test the image upload interface without having to find something that must contribute to the project. Sending them to photobucket only teaches them how to use photobucket. Why would new users need to? There is loads of wiki's to test things on, isn't there? Liam - Beta Tester (talk) 16:24, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Good question. For me, I don't upload pics often, usually because other more enthusiastic users beat me to it. Often we have solid images of any brand new content with the first day or two of its release. With everything so quickly covered, how is a new user supposed to find an image that we actually need? I'd much rather they try using our upload interface on this wiki. They can get the hang of it, and when they do find places where we need images, they'll know what to do. Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 20:24, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
Also, many new users to wikis don't know much about other subjects and may not even know how to get there. How can they upload images to test if they don't even know anything about those. scoot4.pngscooties 20:58, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Slight support - Per Tollerach.  Ranged-icon.png Zap0i TalkRune scimitar.png  17:02, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - RS:NOT. We are Not your web host, Not a forum , Not a tabloid , and Not a blog. I believe the use of personal images will always fall into one of the category's listed above, so allowing personal images would weaken RS:NOT significantly. As I'm sure other people have brought up, there is also the question of the amount of memory/bandwidth used if everyone upload an average of, say, 2 personal images each. We have about 17,247 contributors here, so lets even cut that number down and say that only 15,000 uploaded personal images. Now lets say that the two images that people upload can basically be boiled down to a simple [[:File:Zamrobetop.jpg|picture of their outfit]], as well as a picture of them doing something. The first image 20 KB is and the second image is 356KB. again, for simplicity's sake lets call the sizes 20KB and 350KB. now, we multiply 370KB (the 20KB images plus the 350KB image) by 15,000 and get 5,550,00KB, or about 5GB. Now, that may not seem like much, but keep in mind that our wiki only has about 26,492 files. We would be increasing the number of files on the wiki by about 30,000 or 113%. And keeping in mind how many of our files are tiny, that's a HUGE increase. Also, remember I've estimated that only 15,000 people uploaded 2 images each, when we in fact have 1,892,141 users registered on the wiki. Also, how would we enforce size restrictions, appropriateness, etc. It seems like an administrative nightmare and an easy way to get users mad because "my image got deleted but his didn't but its a rule-breaker too so that's not fair". Disaster. Final point, what makes it harder for a user to upload an image to one of our off site hosting options? in my opinion, nothing. In a nutshell, for those thinking "TL,DR": 1) Not your web host, 2) Too many files/too much memory/bandwidth, 3) Administrative nightmare, 4) KISS. 'Nuff said. --Aburnett(Talk) 21:53, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - It's just going to be another thing that requires monitoring. It's not like using photobucket and imageshack is very difficult either. --KgnomesTalk 21:57, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral, pending towards Support - Per Tollerach. Quest point cape detail.png Brux Talk 00:29, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - We don't need it.

Bonziiznob Talk

04:33, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - No. It would be very difficult to maintain all of them. --Nup(T) 05:07, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Aburnett. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  06:11, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - besides the fact that anyone can use Imageshack or Photobucket, it would be hell trying to keep track of how many personal images every one of our thousands of editors has uploaded. I don't know about any of you, but I don't want to waste my time going through upload logs every time I see something new on Recent Changes. Andrew talk 06:23, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment -
@Aburnett - You say we have 17,000 members, that is true but only about 2,000 are active. AT MOST, 100 people will upload an image at the same time for the first day. Like said above, it is not the fact that it is harder (though in fact many more clicks), it is that new users having a "Your image has been deleted because you didn't follow the rules" told to them is a bit cold. We want to welcome them not tell them they are breaking the rules on their first few edits.

@Soldier - What you just said is many many admins do every day checking for personal images to delete. I fail to see how doing that would be any different. If I'm missing something please enlighten me. scoot4.pngscooties 07:45, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Images are as easy to upload to other websites like Imageshack and Photobucket than they are the wiki, I think that even uploading images to those said sites would be more efficent and useful due to image editing sections upon the website. If we allow personal images, imagine the amount of unused files that shall exist, that many users will probably upload, and not use, I have had one to many bad experience with complications due to personal images across wikia. And it just seems to much of a task, and to less of a reward to support. Ruud (talk)(Suggest me naems) 08:54, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a new task, it is just replacing an old task for the same amount of work. scoot4.pngscooties 17:44, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per Ruud and Dave Lopo. --  Nequillim  T C E   17:55, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - @Tua: I understand only about 2,000 are active, but you have to add time to this equation. Hundreds, if not thousands of new users come, make a nice userpage, and then never edit the wiki again. The amount of uploads over time would make it up to the numbers I estimated (very roughly). I do agree with your comment about the "rulebreaking" nature of uploading personal images. At very least, could we find a nicer, more welcoming way to tell users? Or maybe, if the person who deleted/tagged the image was really nice, they could simply go ahead and move the image to the Photo share wiki and leave the a message saying "Because personal images are not allowed on RSwiki, your image has been moved to". I still oppose allowing personal images, per my reasons above. --Aburnett(Talk) 18:03, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - The wiki is not a webhost. Besides Photobucket works just fine IMHO. Korasi's sword.png Archmage Elune  TalkHS Void knight deflector.png fetus is my son and I love him. 23:47, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per all. Photobucket and Imageshack work just fine for this, and trying to implement and enforce a policy like this would be a nightmare. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 05:17, February 22, 2010 (UTC) 

Oppose - I agree with everyone else, uploading onto PhotoBucket isn't that hard. Swiz Talk Review Me 16:10, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Today in the IRC, Chia asked VSTF member Joeyaa about the issue of space.

<Chiafriend12> Wikia stands by their claim that server space is NEVER an issue for Wikians, correct?
<joeyaa> yes

Also, I know that uploading imageshack is easy, but so is the personal images. There are benefits for allowing it but none for disallowing it. There is also no more work than we have to do now in terms of dealing with them. Some people are saying that we are not a social networking site, but if you read the first paragraph here, you will see that we can have people get to know us in our userspace. So i guess we are all in a violation, as Chia said, "My userpage is 71kb. Only 1kb is about me; the rest is music! It breaks the policy. Ban me." This rule is completely unfollowed by almost everyone on the wiki. Anyone that has anything not related to themselves on it should get blocked (don't actually do it, I'm proving a point >.>)! scoot4.pngscooties 03:00, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

Music can relate to yourself. If you like it, it tells something about you.  Tien  03:23, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
And so do personal images. scoot4.pngscooties 03:27, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
Well, music isn't uploaded via the wiki, so it's not really a problem.  Tien  03:34, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure about that? There's a song I like. It's about rape. I can put it on my userpage without any log to make it known that it was put up. Images are logged, so it wouldn't be hard to check on new additions. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!I have 12 friends. 03:41, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
If you hadn't used that as an example to disprove my point, I doubt you'd ever put such a song on your userpage. If you would, then that tells me you have strange tastes. Lol  Tien  03:47, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
Pwnt. scoot4.pngscooties 03:51, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I haven't supported or opposed yet. Before I leave for the night... -rawr-  Tien  03:56, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Trust me when I say that it turns the wiki into a userpage collection... er... more so than it already is :S Ajraddatz Talk 03:31, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Per all.  Tien  03:56, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me of a bad decision like how you opposed here. scoot4.pngscooties 04:04, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
You said "Per all". Could you please state what the others said? Because it seems I rebutted each and every 'good' point that everyone said. Thanks. scoot4.pngscooties 04:11, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
I've responded to some of your comments on your talk page. To say the least, I'm disappointed. However, you did ask nicely, so here are my reasons for opposing, although I'm probably just repeating what everyone above said:
  • We're not an image-hosting site.
  • "What's is the harm in allowing personal images to be uploaded through the wiki?" Well, what's the harm now in using Photobucket or Imageshack? Are they broken. If not, I see no reason to fix it.
  • "We have plenty of server space." Is it absolutely imperative to fill up this space?
  • Would be hard to maintain.  Tien  21:37, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
Again, I'm not fully supporting this. But I'd like to prove a point so I'll rebut those points Smile
  • We're not an image-hosting site.
I guess that means we do not host any images at all? And even though that is policy, the point of this discussion is to change it.......
  • "What's is the harm in allowing personal images to be uploaded through the wiki?" Well, what's the harm now in using Photobucket or Imageshack? Are they broken. If not, I see no reason to fix it.
What's the harm? We ask users to leave our site and go and make an account somewhere else. Then we ask them to learn how to use external linked images rather than internally linked which is how we do it in articles. Then after awhile, the images get old and are wiped by those websites.
  • "We have plenty of server space." Is it absolutely imperative to fill up this space?
If we've got space, we should use it. Wikia wants us to use that space.
  • Would be hard to maintain.
You could say this whole site is hard to maintain. It is just more images. As we grow, the site is going to get more images either way, no matter whether they're personal or mainspace.
My 2c. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 05:31, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
We are just a few short of forty active administrators. Tell me, how would it be hard to maintain? We are maintaining the rest of the site just fine and some more images will not overload us.
But yes, Wikia wants us to use the space. From all the discussion that has gone on, the only reason I see that we shouldn't allow personal images is the false fear of an administrative apocalypse. Jazz was a disease that infected most youngsters in the 1920s in America. Everyone was going to die and sign their souls to the Devil and there was going to be no hope that the world could survive. And everybody lived.
One big thing: consensus is not permanent. I find it very hindering to Wiki growth if we cite current policies as a reason not to change those policies. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!I have 12 friends. 07:18, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
Our mainspace images are technically not "hosted" here. They serve practical purposes, while personal images do not. We aren't sharing them for entertainment; rather, we're using them as informative references. I also don't see how letting users create accounts on actual image-hosting sites is harmful. You're learning something new, which is always good. I'm actually glad that I learned to use Photobucket, because I know it may helpful someday. Also, to make myself clearer, I should have said "harder" to maintain, not "hard."
As for space... the fact the Wikia wants us to use it is not a particularly stimulating reason. An explanation as to why Wikia wants us to fill up this space would be nice.
Of course changing policies would promote growth, but not if the change isn't beneficial. And our wiki will obviously grow over time, but gradually and in terms of mainspace images. We don't currently allow personal images, so I don't why you mentioned growth in terms of those. Lol And as I've said, more personal images won't help in my opinion.  Tien  00:35, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Changed vote to Support - Per Chicken7's last comment and Chia. Quest point cape detail.png Brux Talk 00:23, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I don't see any good or valid reasons for this. Black platebody (h5).pngPtmmtp TalkBlack full helm (t).png 01:32, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

invincibly-strong-ultra support- i have yet to see a reason to not allow this- maby we arnt a image hosting site. but why not? it doesnt hurt anything, unless people upload like, hundreds on 1 page or something, which this would prevent. Third age robe top.png 3rd age farcaster Third age druidic robe top.png 01:37, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Like Azaz said, this issue always boils down to What is the harm vs. What is the point. Let's not get into that debate again. --LiquidTalk 01:39, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

comment - this is the RUNESCAPE wiki. anything that has to do with runescape should be allowed here. we should have forums, but have them outside of the mainspace. we should have people screwing around with "bukkits" and such, but not in the mainspace. as long as its runescape, it should be allowed IMO. the only restrictions should apply to the mainspace.Third age robe top.png 3rd age farcaster Third age druidic robe top.png 01:41, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - We are not an image hosting site. There are plenty of sites that do this (image shack and photobucket makes one more than we already need), and there is a template for external images that makes them look like regular images, thus destroying the need to upload them to the site even further. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 01:46, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

1st: What if the user wants to resize an image on their page without having to use an image editor? 2nd: This is from Chicken, "I guess that means we do not host any images at all? And even though that is policy, the point of this discussion is to change it......." This is a quote from RuneScape:Consensus#Not_permanent, "...nothing is permanently fixed." scoot4.pngscooties 01:52, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
I understand it's not permanent, but I like how it is not a web-host and would like the wiki to stay that way. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 02:30, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
You say we are not a web host, but in reality we are. All the images on here are hosted on the server making each image on the 'web host' (us). Also, generally, web hosts and image hosting sites have the images for external use. If a file wasn't on any page, it would just be deleted. So we can easily make sure it is being use internally. Last thing, you said "and would like the wiki to stay that way", so you are in reality opposing because you don't want change. Change can be good... scoot4.pngscooties 02:40, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
Adding to that, you haven't given reasons for why you'd like it to stay that way. Smile Chicken7 >talk 04:53, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
Forgive me if I am wrong, but I think the exact wording of the page is that it is not your web host. The reason I would like it to stay that way is because when looking through files, it would make it harder to find the one you want because there may be a stack of similar images of a personal nature. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 19:37, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

NOBODY has given a reason other then "we are not an image hosting site." to that i ask, why not? Third age robe top.png 3rd age farcaster Third age druidic robe top.png 03:01, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

People just don't want images being uploaded for off site use. scoot4.pngscooties 03:07, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
Not off-site. For use here. On their userpage. On our wiki. Chicken7 >talk 04:53, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
Confused =X scoot4.pngscooties 05:13, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

but only 2 images per person... nobody will do that. Third age robe top.png 3rd age farcaster Third age druidic robe top.png 03:23, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

2 images DOES NOT make us an image hosting site - What kind of image hosting site only allows people to upload only 2 images??? Not a single one (at least not one that anyone would want to use). This doesn't make us an image hosting site, it also doesn't make us a social networking site. Just like we allow people to make elaborate templates for their userpage and signature, we are proposing that 2 (only 2) images for use in discussions, on their user page, on project pages, or the like be allowed. I see no harm in that, and I've explained the potential uses of these images in my post above. Let's not just dismiss this issue out of hand, let's consider the possibilities. Cheers, Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 21:15, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Where does it stop? First it will be "upload 2 pictures but then go to Photobucket or imageshack". Then it'll be "why not have 5 images instead?". Then 10, 20, etc. The problem with these things is that it's so hard to draw a line. That's why this will make us a hosting site, because within a year the limit will be changed from 2 to at least 5, then it'll go up and up and up and we'll be the new ImageShack. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 21:23, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Woah, good point. Swiz Talk Review Me 22:13, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
That's why we make the rules, if the user has over 2 images, we delete them. If consensus wants 5 image in one year than it is a different time, just like it is a different time now. Change happens, it doesn't always have to be like it was year ago. scoot4.pngscooties 23:11, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
I'm a conservative. Therefore, I'm not the largest advocate for change. --LiquidTalk 00:18, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
Replying to Oli, I agree that after a while, people will suggest "Why not have 5 images?". But that is why we have consensus discussion, and that proposal will probably be shot down. And if it isn't, it means it is the way the community wishes to proceed and that is perfectly fine. Chicken7 >talk 05:36, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
In reply to most of you, especially Scoot - why change something that already works extremely well? I honestly only see trouble coming from this. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 12:31, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

oli, you dont have a shred of evidence to suggest your claim. Third age robe top.png 3rd age farcaster Third age druidic robe top.png 00:48, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

I do. Read it again - things like this happen all the time. Small changes lead to big changes which then lead to huge changes which then lead to trouble. It has happened gazillions of times in history. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 12:31, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Why trouble trouble when it's not troubling you? If you honestly can't put up the trouble of wasting a few minutes switching it from your pc to Photobucket to here, there'll be another person who comes by and will get a similar shot and do that. I see this project as something that will require more monitoring than the profit of having images here. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 01:21, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

That's the thing...the more work needed is minimal! It is just replacing the work of one thing (deleting personal images) with another (MAYBE moving/deleting). scoot4.pngscooties 02:37, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
No it won't. Admins will need to check whether someone really has only 2 personal images, then after they upload another image will have to check it again and again and again. This will lead to a big amount of extra, unnecessary work. Photobucket and ImageShack are great solutions for the personal-images-problem, so why change that? It has worked in the past, it works now, why wouldn't it work in the future? Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 12:33, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

maby things like this do happen all the time, but that does not mean it will happen here. people die of heart attack all the time, that does not mean everybody dies of a heart attack. Third age robe top.png 3rd age farcaster Third age druidic robe top.png 16:44, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

That comparison doesn't make any sense. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 19:28, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
I think she means that because it happens in other places, doesn't mean it will happen here. scoot4.pngscooties 19:35, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

correct. what oli is saying, it seems, is that because there are cases of people getting the right to two things and asking for five, and then asking for ten, etc, it happens 100% of the time, something he has no evidence for.

even if people upload 2-3 over the limit and the admins dont notice, so what? it still wont become a image hosting site, due to the fact that if you were to upload, say, 10 or more, someonewill notice. also, since it will be offically againt the rules, you will need to be in constant fear of the images being remove, thus it will be very impracticable to use this as am image hosting site. i cant say i have EVER seen, on any wiki, a userpage filled with what seem to be personal images. Third age robe top.png 3rd age farcaster Third age druidic robe top.png 20:19, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying it doesn't matter if someone breaks a rule? Then how is it a rule?
Also, I do have evidence. I'll give an example (it's not perfect, but it kinda shows what I mean) - the NSDAP in pre-war Germany. No politicians liked their ideas, but they had to give them some rights. Then they slowly got more and more power, overthrew the government and pretty much started World War II. Not really a perfect example, but it shows what I mean. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 20:30, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

i know what it means, however, that doesnt really mean it will happen here. it could, and i wouldnt rule it out, but i also wouldnt rule it out that it wont happen.

and, the point of the rule is to stop people from making this an image sharing site. say somebody uploads 3 images and doesnt get caught. they have broken the 2 image rule, but they may not be using it as an image hosting site. i have little knowledge on the topic of image hosting, however, wouldnt most image hosters upload alot- say, 10, 20, 30+ images? im fairly sure that that would get noticed quickly here. Third age robe top.png 3rd age farcaster Third age druidic robe top.png 21:27, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

No, the proposal is to allow two personal images, and that's what I'm opposing. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 21:30, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

whatever. do you have any other reason that ur against it other then the fact that you are so sure the rule will be modified to allow more images in the future? Third age robe top.png 3rd age farcaster Third age druidic robe top.png 00:06, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

If you think 1 image is better support this proposal for 1 image. I actually think it would be a lot easier, because if an admin tries to move the image to foo1.png and there is already something there, they can delete it. No other work needed to see if there is a 2nd. scoot4.pngscooties 02:41, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
It's a waste of space and time (space-time?) to put these images here and moderate them, when it can easily be done on PB or IS. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 12:17, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
A waste of time is having to go to Fhotobucket or Imageshack, log in/create an account, familiarise yourself with the software, upload the image, wait, get the coding, then and only then paste it on the wiki. Why should we force people to use third-party software if we have the software available here? And moderation should not be a problem, as we already have to deal with deleting personal images; it'd just be the matter of moving them. About bad personal images, I don't think allowing good personal images is going to encourage someone to upload a bad one (sexual content, etc.) Chicken7 >talk 12:25, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
But that takes less time than uploading two images here, then going to one of those websites. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 15:50, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
I've never seen someone (who wasn't a vandal) upload 3+ personal images in a matter of minutes. They will uplaod 1 or 2 then MAYBE somewhere down the road go over to imageshack to put up another one. OR just replace one of their images with the new ones. scoot4.pngscooties 16:12, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
I have. Quite a few times, in fact. I can't get the pics as evidence though, since they normally get deleted once I put the speedy d tag on them. --Nup(T) 15:11, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Aburnett. [1] N7 Elite (Ready to talk now?) 19:08, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I don't have a problem with this as long as people abide by those rules, but I don't think that it is a must Farxodor Magic cape (t).png 04:22, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Incredibly Strong Oppose - I'd rather not use this as an example, but Parson's adopted KvK wiki allowed users to upload images. When the people that decided to help Parson edited, they deleted quite literally hundreds of images, that were unused, or only used on one page. Then, Parson called for a mass rollback. If people could upload personal images, how would we clear useless pictures out? We'd be unable to delete anything that was a useless picture, regardless of where it was used. Although server space is not an issue, we are a wiki group. We keep our wiki clean, like our houses. We don't keep useless stuff we never use and never will, do we? StRaTo x97 16:21, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Aburnett.‎20px‎AtlandyBeer.png 18:11, March 8, 2010 (UTC) Comment - thank you for bringing that up, strato. if what u said is correct, our user page is like our house- a place we can do whatever we want it- such as leaving junk all over the floor, if we want. our workplace is the mainspace, which should be kept clean, and junk free at all times. Third age robe top.png 3rd age farcaster Third age druidic robe top.png 14:22, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Well, think of it as somewhere like a dorm with an obsessively clean room-mate. My point is, keep it for Runescape Wiki stuff only. Not for userpages. StRaTo x97 15:45, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
we already have userpages, most of which are filled with spam and irrevalent posts. dont u think its a bit late to start a campaign against em?Third age robe top.png 3rd age farcaster Third age druidic robe top.png 18:37, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - A wise man once said, "man who upload personal image, make other man upload personal image. Man who upload personal image because other man do it too, not look at rules and upload over the limit. Man who upload over limit make other man upload over limit. Admin who do much deleting/warning/blocking, lose spare time". This roughly translates to: No. Slayer helmet.png 21:38, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

but they already waist time removing themThird age robe top.png 3rd age farcaster Third age druidic robe top.png 03:32, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per all. LordDarkPhantom 17:03, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

How about a Poll?

Comment -- Why don't we put up an extra poll on the main page and let users vote on what they think:

  • Reasons this will be helpful:
  1. Not all users browse Yew Grove
  2. You can only vote once on Polls, but I believe you can change it
  3. May motivate "Viewers Only" to help more, or IP Adresses to make accounts
  4. It does not have to directly influence the decision (RS Wiki is not a democrocy), but may help us see what users think.
  5. You can make it simple or list common reasons.

~~Signed,Bulbear4444Slayer's respite.png~~ 02:31, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - See RS:NOT#DEMOCRACY. Here, the decisions are made by consensus, not by polling. --LiquidTalk 02:36, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Also according to the most recent poll on the front page, over 50% of people that voted had never made an account and never planed on creating an account. They would have equal weight in the poll to someone who has read this thread and actually knows what they are talking about. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 05:54, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
we dont use consensus here. consensus = everybody agreeing on the issue- thus, any discussion that has at least 1 yes and 1 no post can never be consensused, unless 1 or the other changes their opinion. assuming the person who supports no on the issue continues to oppose even though 10, 20, or more of users support, chances are we will implement the new idea- thus ruling in favor of the majority- just as a pole would Third age robe top.png 3rd age farcaster Third age druidic robe top.png 14:17, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
We do use consensus to make decisions (RS:CONSENSUS, RS:NOT#DEMOCRACY). C.ChiamTalk 14:24, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
so why bring up consensus here?Third age robe top.png 3rd age farcaster Third age druidic robe top.png 14:35, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
Using a poll to make decisions is inconsistent with consensus. Consensus is not a majority vote. C.ChiamTalk 14:40, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
80 people support, 2 oppose: we cannot rule, or else we would be ruling in favor of a majority, which is polling. correct? Third age robe top.png 3rd age farcaster Third age druidic robe top.png 14:46, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
Polling and having a debate are two separate things. Every opinion counts. Consensus accounts for dissent and addresses it, although it does not always accommodate it. - RS:CONSENSUS. In your example (80-2), it would seem that there would be overall consent from the community to move forward with a decision. However, it is completely different from polling (which is simply the counting of votes with little or no discussion). C.ChiamTalk 14:52, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
ok. so we rule in favor of a majority, assuming there is a debate first if it is necessary, and assuming 1 side has a fairly large advantage, such as 80-2. correct?Third age robe top.png 3rd age farcaster Third age druidic robe top.png 15:02, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
I hope you're not misinterpreting what I said as "What the majority says, goes." To give a somewhat unlikely example, if 80 users supported for nonsensical reasons, and 2 users opposed for legitimate, argued-out reasons, there wouldn't be a consensus for that decision. C.ChiamTalk 15:05, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
all editors are equal- so who decides whats "nonsensical" and whats "legitimate"?Third age robe top.png 3rd age farcaster Third age druidic robe top.png 15:16, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
The neutral bureaucrat or admin who closes the discussion after carefully reading everything. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 21:33, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
Why is all this a subset of my comment? :O --LiquidTalk 23:06, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
It's easy, really. If something isn't legitimate, you'll know. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!I have 12 friends. 03:21, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - One thing that we can do, is put a sentence on the sitenotice asking for input here. Would do pretty much the same thing. scoot4.pngscooties 23:22, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

What about the [[MediaWiki:Anonnotice|Anonnotice]]? Hello71 03:08, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
That is the sitenotice for anons. I don't think they care. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!I have 12 friends. 03:21, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

if 80-2 support it and yet its not legit, it must not obviously be not legit. anyways, this isnt the place for this, i was mainly seeing if anybody would give me a rock solid arguement that even i could agree with. evidently not. Third age robe top.png 3rd age farcaster Third age druidic robe top.png 03:30, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Where did you get the impression that eighty wikians supported this idea and only two opposed it? I haven't really kept track of who said what, but from looking through the discussion, I believe your estimate is seriously off. Besides, as Evil Yanks already stated, RS:CONSENSUS and RS:NOT#DEMOCRACY are what we go by in discussions, so it wouldn't matter if the majority supported or opposed, as we have to reach consensus. [2] N7 Elite (Ready to talk now?) 17:38, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
thats an example- not necessarily reflecting this specific thread. as i said earlier, consensus will never be reached on this or any large, and hotly debated issueThird age robe top.png 3rd age farcaster Third age druidic robe top.png 19:44, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
I see quite a lot more opposes than supports. Both sides have completely valid arguments, but it seems that the opposing side is much larger than the supporting side. --LiquidTalk 19:49, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
exactly- which, is why this disagreement will NEVER reach consensus, thus never end unless we rule with the (nonsensical?) majority.Third age robe top.png 3rd age farcaster Third age druidic robe top.png 20:14, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
One word: compromise. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 21:24, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
No. I will not compromise. Since on the wiki, no consensus is the equivalent of maintaining the status quo, I'm happy, since the oppose position is just doing nothing. The supporters have to find a clear consensus to get this passed, while the opposition only needs to ensure that there is no consensus, or the consensus is oppose. That's why it's so hard to get things done. --LiquidTalk 21:28, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
That is why this system is flawed, but can never be fixed. Opposers just have to oppose once and never look back at possible mind-changing things, and their opinion will stand. scoot4.pngscooties 21:39, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
Lol that's the consensus system for you Lol. But I always go back and recheck the discussions I post in, regardless of what my vote is. You'll never find me changing my opinion, though. --LiquidTalk 21:42, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
thank god! finally people noticing that consensus sucks, rather then posting links to the consensus article as though i dont know what it is. Third age robe top.png 3rd age farcaster Third age druidic robe top.png 00:16, March 11, 2010 (UTC)
Yep... that's just how it works. It's pretty similar to a jury deciding on a criminal case. If just one juror disagrees with the rest, you get a hung jury which may result in a retrial.  Tien  00:25, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Request for closure - This has been open for quite some time. Any neutral admin or crat want to find the consensus for this? --LiquidTalk 02:16, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - In the discussion, both sides have raised good points as to why personal images should be allowed/disallowed. Concerns have been raised about memory bandwidth on the Wiki, but Wikia Staff has said that server space is a non-issue.

On one side of the spectrum, despite the limit of 2 personal images, there will be difficulty ensuring this would be the case for all users, and would require a lot of administrative work; difficult to maintain. It is argued that it will be difficult to draw the line as well, as while it may start at 2, there is nothing stopping it from going up to 5, and so on. There should not be any change, using the mindset of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". On the other hand, allowing personal images might encourage users to contribute, seeing as many new users upload personal images, and if the images were to be deleted, they might be discouraged and lose interest in the Wiki. Some might create accounts to upload personal images for use on their userpage as well.

It is also argued that we are not a social networking/image-hosting site. Images uploaded to the Wiki should be used for the project, not to promote individuals. Allowing personal images to be uploaded also promotes an egocentric mentality as well. Sites such as Photobucket and Imageshack are available for uploading of personal images. Users have also raised concerns about server bandwidth issues. And again, on the other hand, it is argued that seeing as the limit is only 2 images per user, the Wiki cannot be called an image-hosting site.

The discussion seems to have fully run its course, and after reviewing everything, there seems to be a rough consensus to continue to disallow personal images. C.ChiamTalk 15:44, March 11, 2010 (UTC)