Forum:Chathead transls: Do we REALLY need them?

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Chathead transls: Do we REALLY need them?
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 1 December 2013 by Urbancowgurl777.

So recently I've taken a look at Category:Images needing translucency and noticed a ton of chatheads that supposedly, needs translucency applied to them. Now in my opinion chatheads don't really need any transl at all (except those like this and this). Most are tagged for transl just for the neck.

I propose we remove those chatheads that are tagged for transl on the neck. They are unnecessary and simply adds clutter to the category.

-- Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 21:53, November 25, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment - Having not really ever done trans to any great degree, is there any particular cases where neck trans is a noticeable improvement on the original untransed neck version? From the few I've noticed with neck trans they look a bit more professional, but maybe that's just me. cqm 00:16, 26 Nov 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

That's the thing, it's not much of an improvement and is done by those who prefer it (I've personally done it several times and eventually thought it was too much of a hassle). I don't really mind if you apply transl to the chathead's neck; if you want to do so, be my guest. I'm just asking we remove the relevant images from the category. -- Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 01:13, November 26, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - Wouldn't this be like proposing we keep backgrounds because no one is doing transparency? This is the wrong solution to this "problem" (this isn't a real problem). It takes less than 10 steps to apply this translucency; there is absolutely no reason not to do it. If you'd like a list of images that need translucency but are not chatheads, that's a 2 query DPL. MolMan 01:14, November 26, 2013 (UTC)

It is nothing like it. I'm proposing their removal because it's unnecessary to perform translucency on necks (even if its less than ten steps), not because no one is doing any of it. -- Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 02:09, November 26, 2013 (UTC)
It's not unnecessary; there's no reason not to do it. There's a background behind the neck and it should be removed. MolMan 02:11, November 26, 2013 (UTC)
If that is the reason for keeping those images in the category, why is it that a large majority of the chatheads we have on this wiki not tagged for translucency? -- Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 02:19, November 26, 2013 (UTC)
Because no one cares lol. MolMan 05:51, November 26, 2013 (UTC)
Meh, no one is ever going to them. Might as well just support. MolMan 05:54, November 26, 2013 (UTC)

Support not wasting time transl'ing chatheads - Applying translucency is hard. It can take hours for one image. Chatheads take an annoyingly long amount of time for translucency. "HURR it's just 10 steps!" 10 steps for A CHATHEAD. No thanks. I never apply translucency to chatheads when I upload them, and I never tag them either. It's a waste of everyone's time and it doesn't add much to the image. You expect to see a dark bar at the bottom of the chathead when you see one, that's how they have always looked on all fansites and the forums for years. It's a chathead, not an image that is going to become featured one day and needs to look flawless. The actual content part of a chathead image is not obstructed by the bottom translucent part. Therefore, there is no need to say that these images are unfinished and need to have translucency added. Someone (Mol) can do that on their own time if they so choose to. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 04:40, November 26, 2013 (UTC)

How am I meant to do them if I can't find them? MolMan 05:51, November 26, 2013 (UTC)
Category:Chathead images. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 05:53, November 26, 2013 (UTC)
I've seen literally every image in that category one too many times ;-;. MolMan 05:56, November 26, 2013 (UTC)
We need a "add translucency if you want but if you don't, that's totally fine" template. :3 Matt (t) 06:10, November 26, 2013 (UTC)

Support - People can add translucency if they want to, but it's nothing we need to tag over or make a huge fuss about whether we should do it or not. It's just a chat head. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 06:35, November 26, 2013 (UTC)

Supportish - I often apply transl to chatheads (it's easy and takes maybe two minutes at most), as it does look better. However, it's far from required. Putting {{transl}} up for a chathead just because its neck is visible through the background is really unnecessary and shouldn't be done.

That said, if you don't transl a chathead when you upload it (and this is completely fine), make sure to remove the third neck. Without transl, this is just a blob of black and is really, really ugly. Take a look at this as opposed to this for instance. The latter looks much better. Obviously, it'd be even better with translucency (casu quo the third neck can be kept, like here), but it certainly shouldn't be necessary to do so. But, yeah, either transl it or don't but remove the third neck. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 07:36, November 26, 2013 (UTC)

Support I agree that these should be removed from that transl category. Adding translucency to chatheads' necks is more a matter of opinion rather than policy. It doesn't seem enough of a priority to warrant filling up the transl category. Only images like the examples Spine gave should be tagged, not images where only the neck does not have transl. Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 22:14, November 26, 2013 (UTC)

Support - I'd much rather have translucency applied to images that actually NEED it. Blaze_fire.png12.png 18:40, November 27, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - Chathead images that are tagged for neck translucency shall be removed from the category. Chathead images that require translucency in places other than the neck will remain in the category. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 18:50, December 1, 2013 (UTC)