Forum:Changing the Rules on Transparent Particles

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Changing the Rules on Transparent Particles
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 24 March 2012 by Urbancowgurl777.

Hello, today i come with you with a big topic, it about changing how images work on Runescape Wiki, there all good, but there 1 thing that starting to ruin the wiki, and that is "Particles", the transparency on them is as you know really art, but we can't use other particles to make it work, here a example:

This is a Image without Transparency

And this is the Image i done yesterday, using particles from another image

i wish to change the rules, and i wouldn't say this is fan art, it a way to improve the images on the wiki, as what happens if we have a full particle Monster? then it gonna be horrible, the main plot for adding images on the wiki, is adding them so people know what they are, so changing particles into that won't make much of a change, it just make them look so much nicer, and recently as you know, TzHaar got updated, and as you can see all them images are ruined as we can't fix the transparency, i have been looking at how particle work, and i learn, a particle is 1 image repeated, nothing more, if you look closely at them, you'll see what i mean, like the fire in The Firemaker's Curse it all just 1 image, so what should we do? shall we leave the wiki to have more images like these:


Or shall we Have images with Particles to be like this:

Aura equipped.png

as it may be a rule, but it now becoming out dated, as it not really fan art, it users trying to help improve the wiki.

Summery: So in Summery, should we change the rules on "Fan Art" in this case? or shall we leave it, and have more image trans like this?

Thanks for your time --

11:27, February 19, 2012 (UTC)

Major Fact

When a image is taken, particles are so transparent it becomes impossible to see, so we have to fake them as it just so damaged, it won't work!

Examples of Good Faked Transparent Particles

TzHaar-Mej With Fake Transparency

I wanted to show you how TzHaar-Mej with fake Transparency, this shows what it looks like compared to the normal one, without transparency --

15:21, February 20, 2012 (UTC)


Strong oppose - You just don't get it do you? The problem with your particle transparencies is that you create the particles yourself, instead of adding transparency to the particles. There is no rule disallowing particle transparency, but there is a rule disallowing creating particles yourself, which is what you did on the File:Mercenary ranger.png image. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:39, February 19, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - I've yet to figure out how to trans particle effects like this, this or this, but leaving the areas un-tranlucified makes the image look beyond terrible. When I was talking to Fergs about how you do this sort of thing, she said it was done with photoshop editing the picture in layers until the particles look right. I'm guessing that would be rule breaking too, but when you can't tell the difference does it really matter?

Per below, I do support adding to this policy that recreating particles identical to the original is allowed. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:55, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

I've also yet to find a guide on how to do it properly, so if anyone has one let me know Smile cqm talk 12:06, February 19, 2012 (UTC)

The guide how to do it right can be found here, but after making that guide Parsons changed his methods to a method that is not allowed by the policy. The problem with parsons's particle transparencies now is that he makes it look the way he ants to, adding particles to the places he likes instead of the places the original particles were. That is the problem. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 12:47, February 19, 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that guide just confused me. It would have been better if it showed the image being worked on from scratch, transing out the background, editing around the particles, etc. It did make the assumption that you knew what you were doing with GIMP too. Unfortunately, I have no real sense of how GIMP works so making it more step-by-step would be far easier to learn from. Little steps at that. cqm talk 01:04, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

Conditional support - Firstly, that guide Joey linked wouldn't work for most images (or at least I think so, I barely understand it). Particles are still somewhat new-ish, and I don't think we have any well known guides for adding transparency to them, though I was under the assumption to simply use common sense. If adding a partially transparent gradient in the same colours looks nearly exactly the same to your eye, let's use it. I'm sure File:Fungal rodent.png's particles are likely fake, as they don't quite match 100% to the image (when comparing with a black background). However, they're so good that on a light background, I don't even notice at all. I don't think fake particles transparency is bad, as long as they look near-identical to the original.

In the case of your attempt to File:Mercenary ranger.png, the particles are entirely different. There's no red particles in the original image, for example. However, on the other hand, I strongly think that the "snipping" around the particles without translucency looks HORRID (as in, this). In fact, it looks so utterly horrid with particles like that that I'd rather see the image with either the particles cut out or no trans on the image at all (seriously, we can always add the particles back in, if someone is willing to take the huge effort, with the former).

I know we have a rule against "fan art", which basically is any non-transparency manipulation to images (of course, we aren't taking this to a T, since one could say adding arrows to highlight a part of an image or carefully smudging out the name of the player is fan art), and I do support that. However, look at some of our images.

The proposal here is rather obscure. It asks for a change to the fan art section of the image policy, but does not state what kind of change. If I am correct in assuming File:Fungal rodent.png's particles are faked, they are a violation of the image policy and a no-no. Really? I gotta give Fergie kudos for that image, it looks fantastic. Use common sense, once known as "ignore all rules" is a pretty loose policy, but using this beloved common sense, we aren't going to revert those "fake particles" even though it violates the image policy, are we? So, yes, I support a change to the fan art section stating something along the lines of: "Modifications to emulate the original images particles are allowed as long as they bear a reasonable resemblance to the original image". How much is reasonable? Use common sense (really, measuring "reasonability" is impossible).

As for Parsonsda's particles on File:Mercenary ranger.png, I admit, I don't think they really resemble the original particles properly. However, the "snipping", again, is far worse than no transparency, in my opinion, and Pars's particles appear to be from another aura, which is what the mercenary ranger's particles are. No, they don't match perfectly, but unless anyone else wants to bother making the particles fit perfectly, I think Pars's "slightly different aura particles" are a hell of a lot better than nothing. Of course, if someone wants to do a better job with the particles on that image, then it could simply be replaced.

TL;DR version: I support a change to the image policy that would allow "fake" particles provided they reasonably resemble the particles seen in the original. Hofmic Talk 00:46, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

File:Fungal rodent.png's particles are faked. cqm talk 01:00, February 20, 2012 (UTC)
Comment: ^^^^ Excellent Statement Hofmic :) -- 13:11, February 20, 2012 (UTC)
Yes, maybe parsons's particle transparency looks better than not adding transparency to the particles at all, but if we would keep such violations of the image policy, how would we be able to enforce it? If we'd allow particle transparencies like that, people who want to change the particles could do whatever they want and upload such violations of the policy anyway. I think it is indeed ugly to have such images with the particles left untransed, but then I'd rather have the particles cut out and have a trans on the particles that they actually look like in-game, than that we'd keep transparencies such as those fake ones. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 13:42, February 20, 2012 (UTC)
Comment There be a rule against that, for e.g if a image had yellow particles, and someone added blue ones, then we would revert it. -- 14:31, February 20, 2012 (UTC)
Except from my post: "How much is reasonable? Use common sense (really, measuring "reasonability" is impossible)." There's really no way to measure how "accurate" particles are, but if they look reasonably similar, well, it's better than snipping around the particles. If you hate it so bad, do the particles yourself. And I must say, that TzHaar example with the fake particles above is a huge improvement over the old. Hofmic Talk 18:58, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - If you're that eager to show the particles, just don't trans it. Otherwise, remove the particles when transing. Problem solved. bad_fetustalk 16:59, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Allow me to add my trivial two cents to this discussion. If we want our images to have transparency, and Jagex is now released monsters with these lovely particles, allow those of us who are taking the time not only to add transparency (Yes, the category has over 600 images needing transparency) but to also attempt to make the particles look decent to create realistic looking particles, or don't tag them. Honestly, while yes, the particles may be considered "fan art," it's the best we can do. This really shouldn't be that hard to resolve. If the transparency with user-created particles looks good, then let us go about our transparency and modify these images to look better. If we add pink swirls on top of God Swords for shits and giggles, then obviously revert it. We are trying to make the community a better place by doing our best, bend the rule to allow for good, user created particle transparency that closely matches that of the original particle effects. If it would make someone happy, we can easily create a template that tells people that the particles were created by us, and that if they want to tackle particle transparency from the original, they are more than welcome to. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 00:38, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

I gotta admit, this guy's words speak volumes. I don't really think we need a template though, except possibly for cases where the particles may be noticeably different from the original, such as in the original mercenary ranger example, though {{Cleanup image}} could suffice for that. Hofmic Talk 06:13, February 21, 2012 (UTC)
There is currently as far as I know nobody who would revert an image that has "fake" particles, as long as they look identical to the original image. As soon as it starts getting fake particles added such as with File:Chaos Elemental.png, it should get reverted. I agree that indeed it would be good to make it official that recreating particles identical to the original particles for transparency would be good. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:55, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

Support "artificial" particles - I think the most important thing here is for our images to look as realistic and authentic as possible, rather than worry over a policy clause that I feel, reduces the quality of the Wiki's images. However, it is important for the "artificial particles" to be as close to the "real thing" as possible. A viewer should not be able to notice a difference at a glance. 222 talk 06:52, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

Strong (conditional) Support - Definitely, it's always bugged me how images get reverted for not being real, whereas you cannot tell the difference just by looking at it. Are people seriously studying images with a magnifying glass to find out whether the particles are real or artificial? That Tz-Kih and Tzhaar-Mej, for example, look perfect. I didn't even know the particles were edited and not trans'd. It's fine to use "fake" particles, if that's easier, as long as one does not see the difference. That is important, to make them look as much the same as the real ones as possible. If that's the case, then fake = real. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 14:28, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

Comment: i think the exact same thing all the same, we're not gonna look at every pixel, we wanna see the image, to give up a image in our heads of what it looks like, but without particle trans, it kinda messes up the idea in ur head, making it look weird. -- 15:02, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Umm... Isn't it against Jagex's policies for us to like change their looks... yea sorry it's so vague. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 09:44, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not sure that Jagex's policies would apply here. We aren't modifying game files. -- Lexmechanic 16:27, February 25, 2012 (UTC)
From what I remember, transparency is the only thing we are technically allowed to do to images, otherwise they start becoming modified. At what point Jagex class modification I'm unaware of, but if the particles aren't obviously different I seriously doubt whether someone at Jagex is going to trawl through every file on this wiki looking for modified pics. cqm talk 00:13, February 26, 2012 (UTC)

Support - I signed off on Parsonsda's edit of 20 February 2012 to File:TokHaar-Hok.png because it had some recreated particles that were true to the original ones. My understanding is that translucency is difficult to make from an image; it is more difficult than transparency and antialiased transparency. To me, the edits would be OK as long as they are as true to the original as possible but end up being translucent. "Fan art" should still be an absolute no.

 a proofreader ▸ 

22:14, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - A section allowing and explaining particle transparency will be added to RuneScape:Images and media policy#Format. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 16:28, March 24, 2012 (UTC)