Forum:Chathead images

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Chathead images
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 8 September 2012 by Thebrains222.

Just before this gets out of hand: some new customisation button allows for huge chatheads of items. I propose we do not use those and simply stick with the normal chatbox ones for consistency (of item and NPC heads) and normal-sized images. This thread is just to avoid future smaller discussions. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 14:10, July 17, 2012 (UTC)


Support - who seriously wants to go get the hundreds of new chathead images, really? They're fine as they are now. Small recharge gem.png AnselaJonla Slayer-icon.png 14:10, July 17, 2012 (UTC)

Allowing a new type doesn't mean everything all of a sudden needs replacing. --Henneyj 17:49, July 19, 2012 (UTC)

Support - sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 16:44, July 17, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral - The bigger chatheads DO look nice, but yeah, It'd be very inconsitent with huge player chatheads but small NPC chatheads. Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 18:34, July 17, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - They also allow us to get full chathead images, some had previously parts cut off, this also gets us rid off that annoying circle in the chatbox which usually also cuts parts off. If the size really is an issue compared to NPC chatheads we can just resize them on the article, still giving them more detail and having no cut offs and it also makes the translucency to the necks easier and look better.
20:27, July 17, 2012 (UTC)

We can get the full chatheads anyway, and normally sized, i.e. they don't mess up the page. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 05:44, July 18, 2012 (UTC)
@Fswe1: That's done with copy pasting if I'm right? Thus using these new chatheads and resizing them to 80px will allow us to get full, more detailed chatheads easier.
10:17, July 18, 2012 (UTC)
The detail really isn't different if they're the same size on the article. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 18:58, July 18, 2012 (UTC)
Then what's the point in restricting them? It's another way to get a chatead-styly image. --Henneyj 17:49, July 19, 2012 (UTC)
The detail or quality of the image will be slightly better as the neck translucencies can now be done easier and better.
22:25, July 19, 2012 (UTC)
Neck translucencies aren't even necessary. In fact, I think less than 1% of all chatheads has it. If you wish to retake many hundreds of chathead images and translucify them... Also, the expression is always neutral and the angle is not exactly the same as in the chatbox. That means it is not a fully representative image for what players normally see (that is, the image in the chatbox). User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 05:41, July 20, 2012 (UTC)
Neck translucencies are indeed not necessary, but it does look better. I'm also not saying they all should be retaken, but when a new version is uploaded it should be allowed to stay with the bigger 'new' chatheads, just limit it's size on the page to 80px and not be reverted like now. You also say for what people normally see, a lot of chatheads are mirrored to face the article, making the hexcrest on the full slayer helmet on the wrong side for example, with this new feature there's no need to do that anymore and we can get better angles for on the article. Also, people don't normally see a detail image of a phat, so what's the point of having them :p? As for them always being neutral, I think that's a good thing really so they're all the same + most are neutral already, although they're not always neutral, just wait a bit and you'll see ;p.
08:36, July 20, 2012 (UTC)
So, basically, nothing really changes if they are resized (and they should be) since the detail is the same. Also, we have DIIs of partyhats since the beta. =D User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 08:49, July 20, 2012 (UTC)
It's different in the way that we can have them face the article without mirroring them and have better angles. And that of the phats was just because you said people dont usually see the big chat heads, well they also don't usually see detailed images of phats ;p.
09:47, July 20, 2012 (UTC)
Point taken, unleeeess....... mirroring isn't necessary. That can be done to every page and it looks eben better, since you don't have the chathead and DII nedt to each other. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 11:23, July 20, 2012 (UTC)
Imo that looks horrible, sorry.
11:54, July 20, 2012 (UTC)
Probably because the other one is mirrored and not the same size. 200m glasses then? User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 12:20, July 20, 2012 (UTC)
No I just mean I don't like the posotion on the article.
15:13, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - 80px works.
20:34, July 17, 2012 (UTC)

Support - That's the only way users see it, no need to cause confusion on size. Hair 01:06, July 18, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Making this distinction is a completely unnecessary limitation on how images can be uploaded. The show how an item looks as a chathead (which is of limited need in my opinion) just as well as the standard version. If you're worried about the size on the article then make a policy limiting the size on articles - it's much easier to enforce and adhere to. You wouldn't want the full 'large' size anyway. --Henneyj 17:49, July 19, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with having a plocicy on max size, as I said above 80px works fine for both chat heads as well as detail images of headwear.
22:25, July 19, 2012 (UTC)

Question - can anyone provide an example of the different 'style' of chathead? Resizing something doesn't seem like too much of an issue to me. cqm 00:08,21/7/2012 (UTC) (UTC)

Comment - I'm not sure if this is what you mean, but here's the distinction; the left is the one from the customisation interface, and the right one is from regular chat interface.

--Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 00:13, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

Why does the customization interface make a different eye red from the chat interface? One would think that which eye is red should be independent of the interface used to view it. --LiquidTalk 01:59, July 21, 2012 (UTC)
Cuz they mirror it -.- That's one of the reasons why I think the new chatheads should be allowed so there's no need to do that. Take a look at Karil's coif, it has the new chathead but resized to 80px, looks completely fine. Also not saying they should all be replaced asap, just when a new one is uploaded let it stay and don't revert it.. (I'll be leaving for 2 weeks or so, idk how long this will stay up, but please just allow it, I honestly don't see the problem).
08:44, July 21, 2012 (UTC)
Aside from all other arguments, these images aren't actually chatheads. They're just heads. Also, the large eyes really creep me out. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 08:59, July 21, 2012 (UTC)
They use the same model as chatheads, just shown bigger. The eyes are also just more detailed. And I got another argument :d, if you resize them on the page they will indeed look about the same, but say a user wants to have more detailed view of it they can click it and see the full size, which you currently can't as it will just stay the same. Annyway, I'm leaving now, see ya in 2 weeks.
11:21, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

Support Achievements Coelacanth0794 Talk Contribs 20:45, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Support - I prefer the regular chatheads, because if we were to use customisation interface chatheads, it would not look matching with NPC chatheads. Plus translucency wouldn't be neccessary with the regular chat interface since the background is black, while the customisation interface has a background. In a nutshell, keep the traditional chatheads. --Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 20:05, August 12, 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose - I don't see the point of this thread. Sure, I agree that there isn't much of a point in taking new images for every chathead, but I find it ridiculous to stop people from doing so if they wish. Considering that there is absolutely no harm in upgrading the images whereas it does have the slight benefit of increasing the detail, this rule is pointless. Also, don't give me that "it will be the same size on the page anyways, so it doesn't improve in detail" bullshit because that applies to the majority of images as most are resized in order to fit the page. (NPC images, detailed item images, location images, maps etc.). Thus, considering that the proposal has no valid point whatsoever, I oppose. bad_fetustalk 23:51, August 12, 2012 (UTC)

Consistency and you can't get the same angle as in the chatbox anyway, so they aren't chatheads. I'd say name them 'customisation heads'. Seriously though, thr images wouldn't be consistent with other chatheads, not to mention NPC chatheads. Also, like Spine said, necklucency isn't necessary normally, but it is here. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 07:10, August 13, 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how it would not be consistent when you need to look real hard to find the difference apart from detail. The only difference I spotted on the example of slayer helm given above was the mirroring, which is very small difference. That does not make the images 'not chatheads', that makes them 'mirrored chatheads'. Also, neckluency being necessary or not is irrelevant here, again, it is the person uploading the image 'wasting time' on applying the neckluency, thus it is none of this thread's business. bad_fetustalk 20:18, August 13, 2012 (UTC)
Actually the one from the customisation interface isn't mirrored as you can rotate them to face the article, but chatheads however usually are, like the slayer helmet, mirrored. As for the necklucency, chatheads also have them (cuz they're the same model -.-), but it is usually just cut off.
09:58, August 14, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - I agree with chess, we should allow people to upload the bigger chatheads, but I also strongly oppose something like a template and a category for marking non-customisation images for improvement. This change is too small to start updating massively, but it does help, so it's also bad to prevent people from updatiing. Any improvement is good, just don't make it a huge wiki project. There are so much more useful things to do. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 09:49, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Per the image people who know their stuff. 222 talk 10:14, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose for already-presented arguments: let users upload hi-def, resize to a thumbnail. Otherwise it becomes a situation whereby uploading a higher-quality version is punished.

 a proofreader ▸ 

10:19, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Chat head image should be from chat box. Also, size will need to be reduced when posted on an article. Using the customization page for a "chathead" image sort of misleads the file name. User:Exor Solieve 23:48, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

"Chat head image should be from chat box. Using the customization page for a chathead image misleads the file name". Nonsense. The idea is to show how the item in question looks in such interfaces. There is absolutely no reason to not use customisation interface images just because they are not chatheads. They show the same thing, with a difference in detail. "Also, size will need to be reduced when posted on an article." So? That's the case for equipment images, detailed item images, maps, location images etc. too. That doesn't mean we should run around uploading low quality images. Unless you're proposing that we should disallow all those images and upload lower quality ones instead, there is no reason to not have more detailed 'chatheads'. bad_fetustalk 02:27, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
Detailed images already show the detail of the item. There is usually little difference from the chathead and the detailed item image, aside from a face. These customization images might be a good idea for items than can't have a detailed item image, but other than that the detailed item image should be sufficient enough to show detail since that's the purpose of a detailed item image. User:Exor Solieve 23:11, August 21, 2012 (UTC)

Use Common Sense - If the chathead is too massive normally, then use the new customisation feature. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 08:38, August 21, 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? I'm fairly sure all chatheads are the same size, meaning that there is no 'massive' chathead. bad_fetustalk 20:02, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
Chatheads with large head items/parts that cut off. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 23:17, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
Yea, sorry. I meant what Fergie just said ^. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 13:15, August 22, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus to ban larger chathead images from use. 222 talk 07:03, September 8, 2012 (UTC)