The above is the current images and media policy, and after reading it through I see no mention of bestiary images. Despite this, there are apparently rules in effect that prohibit the use of these images. As the open HTML5 forum does not address bestiary images, I thought it best to create something new.
As far as I can tell the arguments are as follows:
- Greater flexibility in angle.
- Updated graphics.
- Not in live game, so it's misrepresentation.
- No lighting detail.
I'm bored of seeing reverts based on a non-existent set of rules or an editors preference on angle. You will notice a change in colours with HTML5 images; as seen in the a recent BTS video this is a feature of HTML5.
Allow - Come on, if it was a totally different model I'd understand reverting to the Java images, but if this is over lighting and slight colour differences I'm amazed - unless someone cites users terrified of the QBD, screaming "OH MY GOD IT'S NOT QUITE THE SAME COLOUR I THOUGHT!" then it's quite obviously not making a difference. Yes, lighting looks awesome, but the bestiary images tend to be way more interesting in terms of angles and postures. If we didn't care about that we wouldn't be taking orb images and would go back to screenshots from overhead. Real Nub 12:51, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
- After thinking about it again I think I agree with Mol, if the image is better quality in the bestiary then use it until we get an image of better quality taken. Perhaps use Template:Retake image to mark bestiary images and amend the image policy to say that. Real Nub 19:17, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
Disallow UNLESS nothing of similar quality can be captured in game, like for example. I see no reason to replace images that have a decent size, lack lighting detail, and were actually captured in the game instead of from the website. HTML5 doesn't change NPC models whatsoever, except maybe making the textures a bit different. 13:56, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
Disallow - Only allow if the subject cannot be oculised in-game due to prohibition of the orb, or because it appears in a cutscene only. Like the QBD, Marlin, Tutorial Island NPCs... Otherwise disallow because the lighting detail is very annoying and not representative.15:49, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree that the standard should be use of oculus. If an image of decent quality can be obtained, it doesn't matter if it can't be oculised/oculused/oculied/oculated. --Henneyj 17:24, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
- We have a reasonably fine image of Bilrach and perhaps that's one of few cases where it would be better than a bestiary image (which doesn't exist for Bilrach). But as a rule of thumb, it would be good to use "bestiary only if otherwise impossible/tiny" - like Elijah. If he were in the bestiary... 19:46, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
Disallow - unless there is no alternative. The lighting detail doesn't really bother me, what bothers me is the quality of the Bestiary graphics. There are white lines everywhere and things just look weird. They aren't smooth like the in-game graphics. Just looks weird man. 16:13, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
Only allow if it looks the same - I believe that our images should be representative of what a player would expect to see in-game. Cases such as the QBD should not be allowed because they significantly differ. --Henneyj 17:24, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
Allow - Only bad thing is the lighting detail, and it isn't even that annoying. All the NPCs will be eventually updated to look like they do in bestiary.
- That's not an argument. After HTML5 gets released, we will continue to turn off LD for NPC images, so they will be no different from how they are now. Problem one can't turn off LD in the bestiary. 19:46, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
Limited - Okay... use them to replace really crappy pictures that don't look like they'll get updated, but don't use them as the final image. We've lived off of our own image takers getting images and we have plenty of people to take them. It's pathetic and hypocritical for us to use the images which we have not taken. We haven't been recently crippled... Why can we not just take these pictures for ourselves in-game? MolMan 18:47, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - Do not allow for bestiary images to replace those that are of the current Java client. It should be reminded that both the Bestiary and RS3 are in a beta state. As well, there will always be the Java version as well as the HTML5 counterpart. There should be no reason to replace existing images with a bestiary or HTML5 client images when the only difference is the color of the image. Ryan PM 01:04, April 20, 2013 (UTC)
- Whilst HTML5 and the bestiary are still in beta, there will come a time when they are fully released to all. As HTML5 is considered an upgrade to the game, to keep the old java images post release seems a little pointless to me. We changed images when AA, HD, etc was released, why not these? cqm 19:03, 20 Apr 2013 (UTC) (UTC)
- Because HTML5 doesn't change the models or textures significantly (if it all). It really only effects lighting and such. 08:43, April 21, 2013 (UTC)
Disallow - Unless if it is impossible to legally get a good version of the NPC (eg discontinued, cannot be orbed) then we should rely on our own images and our own image makers02:16, April 20, 2013 (UTC)
Disallow - HTML5 is still in a beta stage, and images in HTML5 are subject to change, unless there is no way it can be orbed, or extremely difficult to do so. That exception is also subject to change depending on how HTML5 affects images. -- SpineTalk 14:51, April 21, 2013 (UTC)
Allow, If - the quality of the image is equal to or greater than one in the game. Hair 14:55, April 21, 2013 (UTC)
Comment - If this passes, and given that all the images and models displayed are downloaded onto your computer, can a user extract them from the cache and upload it here?--Jlun2 (talk) 17:02, April 27, 2013 (UTC)
- No, per [[RuneScape:Jagex_cache]]. 17:56, April 27, 2013 (UTC)
wow we have an article on that?Is the Jagex bestiary in a way, a model viewer? It doesn't allow us to interact with the monsters in anyway except look at them. Unless the bestiary has been drastically updated since I last checked which in that case ignore what I wrote.--Jlun2 (talk) 18:06, April 27, 2013 (UTC)
- The difference is that the Bestiary is made public. MolMan 18:07, April 27, 2013 (UTC)