Forum:Cleaning up image templates

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Cleaning up image templates
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 5 August 2017 by Liquidhelium.

Images are a core part of what helps build up an article on the wiki, and they should always be at their highest level of quality and standard when we use them. In order to denote those that aren't quite up to this standard, we use a range of different templates. There is the obvious "catch-all" template, {{Retake image}}, which allows editors to specify easily that an image needs to be retaken, along with a reason if they choose to include one.

Besides that, we have a few more templates:

  1. {{t|GEDB Image}}: This is used to indicate that an image was taken from the Grand Exchange Database. Cook has told me that this template, and its associated category, has always been used for detailed inventory images that are taken from the GEDB. This template specifies that the GEDB image should be retaken from an in-game source instead.
  2. {{t|Legacy}}: This is used to indicate that an image was taken using Legacy Mode and should be retaken.
  3. {{t|Ground detail}}: This is used to indicate that an image was taken with ground detail and should be retaken.
  4. {{t|Interfering combat}}: This is used to indicate that an image contains health bars/combat and should be retaken.
  5. {{t|Greater detail}}: This is used to indicate that an image's subject should be more visible, or that the image requires more detail, and should retaken.

If you haven't guessed the common theme by now, which would be very surprising, all of these templates are used for images that should be retaken. We have a mass of templates that are used for this specific purpose. Are they really necessary when a "catch-all" template like {{Retake image}} exists? All of the templates I have listed are just reasons for retaking an image that can be specified as a parameter in the aforementioned template.

Some of the templates I have listed use Category:Images needing to be retaken, which makes their functionality and purpose no different to what {{Retake image}}'s purpose is. And for those that don't, why don't they? Why do we have categories for things like [[:Category:Images with combat interference]]? I firmly believe that there is no reason to have separate categories for the different reasons that could be provided in {{Retake image}} but aren't. Sure, they allow you to see what images need to be replaced because they have, say, combat interference. But, is the reason so important? Does it really matter why exactly an image needs to be replaced? Shouldn't the point be that it needs to be replaced full stop? And even if it does matter, does it matter enough that it deserves a separate template and category?

Are we going to start creating templates and categories for all possible reasons that can be specified in {{Retake image}}? Better yet, are we going to create them for such arbitrary reasons like using the wrong interface, lighting detail, ground detail, stance, ground decoration, or skybox (listing from RS:IMG here). If we keep the templates I've listed, it sets a precedent for creating one for every single reason, including ones that I've listed above. If {{Retake image}} really is meant to be a "catch-all" template, why is it not behaving like one? The templates aren't used too often either, I've seen quite a few times where people just use {{Retake image|health bar}} or something similar instead of the template that exists for it.

We need to do away with such unnecessary templates and make it easier for editors, especially new ones, to be able to help us maintain images. The core principals behind this wiki should be usability and readability. An editor remembering to use one simple appropriately named template is going to be much easier than remembering all of the others. If I'm honest, I wasn't even completely aware that the templates existed.

I don't disagree with having a way to see all of the reasons, perhaps on a page generated by DPL. I have created RuneScape:Maintenance/Files to be retaken, but DPL limits results to 500 per set, so we'd have to work with offsets for that to work properly, which is easy enough but does prevent having multiple DPL queries on one page as far as I can see. I also don't disagree with having predefined reasons in {{Retake image}} as a compromise that will automatically add the correct categories, or having a way to detect specific words in the user-defined reason text and add categories accordingly (maybe this can be done with Lua, I am not sure about the technical side of this). This is definitely something I can get behind if there is no support for outright deleting the templates and categories.

As it stands though, I propose that we delete the templates (and their categories) I've listed above in favour of merging them with {{Retake image}} given the reasons in this thread. If anyone has any suggestions for alternate ways to approach this, feel free to add them below. jayden 05:23, July 26, 2017 (UTC)


Support - jayden 05:23, July 26, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - If I, say, want to see which (or how many etc.) images require retaking because of a specific reason, e.g. combat interface interference or lack of AA, then I'm certainly going to need that specific category. Why would I want something like that, you ask. Well, for instance, if there are only a few images lacking AA, I could try retaking all those to clear that maintenance category for the time being, thus ensuring all images on the wiki have AA. Or perhaps I play in the Legacy interface, so retaking Legacy images is pointless, but I could certainly retake combat encounters without the interfering interfaces - having the two split in separate categories helps a lot.

Moreover, looking at an image's own page, it's immediately clear at a glance from the maintenance template what's wrong with it. The more general Retake image doesn't tell you that, and if no reason has been specified, good luck. Sure, we could delete all the specific templates and modify Retake image such that the supplied reason somehow categorises the images neatly, but that sounds like a lot of work with very little gain. The only significant reason I found was to help new users with the usage of maintenance templates, but it's not a terrible scenario if someone adds Retake when AA would've been more appropriate; a more experienced editor could easily fix that and notify the other bloke.

Also, you call the specifics arbitrary, but I disagree, as they're based on graphics or interface settings in-game and highlight common flaws in image (evidently - otherwise those templates would not have been created in the first place).

Summing up, I don't really care, but there seems very little to be gained here, and, in general, having a "catch-all" tool for all purposes is less preferable than having several more specific tools in addition. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 08:08, July 26, 2017 (UTC)

Like I said there can be still be ways to allow people to easily see the reasons they want, whether it be from a well-made DPL powered page or by creating, like I said in the last few paragraphs of the post above, a method of auto-assigning certain categories to images based on the reason given in {{Retake image}}. I don't think there is little to be gained, I think it is a contribution towards cleaning up the wiki and ensuring we do not have multiple templates for the same purpose. Would you say that you would rather have templates for every common reason used in {{Retake image}}, thus rendering that template defunct? And with regards to a reason not being specified in the retake template, we should be challenging editors and asking what the issue is if it isn't immediately obvious. I don't think merging these templates is as big an issue as you make it out to be - there are multiple ways we can approach this to ensure that the reasons remain easy to see, if that is a concern. jayden 13:33, July 26, 2017 (UTC)
I would support a new template for images to be retaken due to a bad angle, or glitchy bloom, or players wearing non-basic clothes/equipment. The more situation-specific templates, the better, I'd say. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 08:39, July 27, 2017 (UTC)

Comment - first off I'd like to point out that there has already been a significant change to the retake template. It has been divided into {{Retake image}}, {{Retake anim}}, and {{Retake audio}}. From now on simply adding {{retake}} on a file will not place a template: you will have to use one of the three new tags. This is a really cool change as it separates out files that require different techniques to capture; making it easier for editors to find the type of file that they know how to work with/are interested in updating.

I can certainly see the logic in combining many of our existing templates to {{retake image}}. They all serve the same purpose of indicating that an image needs to be taken again in game (for various reasons). Many images are tagged with multiple templates citing problems that need to addressed with retaking, but this is really redundant and unnecessary. Realistically I don't see much reason why we would need to identify for what reason an image needs to be retaken. There is some merit to what Fswe says about the combat related templates. It could also be argued that some things should have more "priority" in being retaken, e.g. retaking things with pre-eoc models might be less urgent than terrible quality gedb images or images that are fully obsolete. On the other hand all images that are using these kinds of maintenance templates do still need to be retaken, regardless of priority, and no one seems to be making use of the various categories in such a way anyway.

Personally I would find a large category/template listing all images that need to be retaken easier to use, rather than messing about with lots of different categories. In an ideal world I think most things would use {{retake image}} with reasons such as greater detail, gedb image being specified. I don't think this is too unrealistic to expect: most things on RuneScape:Maintenance/Files to be retaken do have a reason given already. I can see a lot more templates that could potentially be merged with {{retake image}}: AA, Equipscreen, Eoc hand, Java, jpg, obfile, and sd are all templates that indicate a retake is needed. However, I would suggest not merging those at present due to the large amount of images contained within the categories; the resulting category of images needing to be retaken would be very difficult to navigate. This is perhaps an idea that could be revisited if/when the number of images needing to be retaken is reduced.

For now I support Jayden's proposal of merging the GEDB, ground detail, and greater detail templates and with {{Retake image}} and Category:Images needing to be retaken. The 2 combat related templates could remain for the reasons Fswe stated. Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 10:20, July 26, 2017 (UTC)

There are actually reasons I didn't specify certain other templates like {{t|Java image}}. I feel like those templates are actually meaningful and are an extremely common case. It is fairly uncommon that you see an editor using {{t|Ground detail}}, but the Java template, anti-aliasing template, among many others, are used very often. And as of late, I haven't really classed {{t|AA}} as being a "retake" template as much, because it is used sometimes in place of {{Cleanup image}} when the image transparency has dodgy AA or something that isn't going to be sorted by retaking the image. So for now, I've left those out of the thread and this thread only focuses on the few templates that I have noted that can easily be replaced and are barely used. jayden 13:33, July 26, 2017 (UTC)

Comment - So there's a lot of discussion here, but having read it over a few times it really doesn't seem like a clear consensus can develop due to lack of interest in this topic, probably due to the very small number of people it would affect. With that in mind, I'm inclined to close it as "the people who are using these templates can deal with it as they come across them." Does anyone have anything else to contribute to this discussion? --LiquidTalk 01:12, August 3, 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "the people who are using these templates can deal with it as they come across them" is a good determination for this. I think anyone that really deals with images (myself, Isobel, Tony, Fswe to name a few) use the templates and would come to their own conclusions and opinions on this, which may just lead to further dispute jayden 22:57, August 5, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus to make any changes. --LiquidTalk 23:35, August 5, 2017 (UTC)