Forum:Detailing the DII policy

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Detailing the DII policy
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 28 May 2019 by Gaz Lloyd.

Our image and media policy regarding DIIs (detailed item images) have been fairly hazy and have recently lead to some confusion on Discord.

Some people seem to think that it should reflect the item when either dropped on the ground, or if the item can't be dropped, used on Maemi or the elemental workshop door to ever so slightly enlarge the image. This would be to showcase the other (non-equipped) model of the item.

Others seem to think it should reflect what the item looks like when equipped, as that adds things the dropped/maemi image wouldn't, such as particles. This is achieved through zooming in on the player model while having the item equipped, or taking the picture while the player is using revenant walk and zooming in on the weapon/shield.

A comparison of this would be:

Farming master cape
Dropped + without particles Zooming in + with particles
QCNYzPG.png V13VTMs.png
Augmented noxious longbow
With revenant walk With Maemi
WfZUAfR.png T5UtRwS.png

There's also been other examples of this, such as Noxious scythe (barrows) and Christmas jumper (Chinchompa). In the case of the christmas jumper, there would've been no DII if zooming in and cropping hadn't been done.

Clearly exceptions have and are being made, but this thread is about how far they should go. Should DIIs only consist of dropped and maemi images even if it means there'd be no image, or should exceptions be made to certain situations such as either revenant walk or zooming in on an equipped model?

In regards to the last statement, there's a few options I'd like to suggest:

A No exceptions to be made, dropping and Maemi only
B If no DII can be obtained through dropping or through Maemi, revenant walk or zooming in is allowed (e.g. Christmas jumper)
C Allowing revenant walk or zooming in if the only other available option is Maemi, due to Maemi images looking like a dumpster fire. (e.g. Augmented noxious longbow)
D Allowing revenant walk or zooming in images over dropping or maemi images, perhaps on a case by case basis. (e.g. Farming master cape)
E Shut up Kelsey, I have a better suggestion


Support D - Every image is different so a case by case basis seems more sensible. Some might argue that this might require effort to monitor, but let's be honest, images don't get uploaded a huge amount, so this wouldn't be an issue at all. I much prefer the images with particles over the ones that don't as this shows the item off better. Talk to Kelsey 15:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Support C - As far as I've always tried to to it, a detailed item image should be the image of the item model as often as possible. If it's droppable, I believe that's the image we should use. This would also match the inventory icon, too. Something only via door/maemi but equippable I would support via revenant, but I would disagree with the example of the farming master cape - the item itself doesn't have particles and appears in a very different position (as to move around) when equipped. Achievements Coelacanth0794 Talk Contribs 15:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Support B - Images with particles are usually equippable items, and thus the version of them with particles should be uploaded as equipped item images, not as detailed item images. The DIIs should always be of the item and the item model, not the item when worn etc. jayden 21:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Support B - Per Coel, the DII should be the item model, not the equipped model. The equipped model can change in even minor graphical updates, and can even vary based on whether the character is male or female, but the item model very rarely changes, and is the same for any character (even a goblin). Stuff like particles should definitely *not* be part of the DII, as they can obscure the image of the actual item. TL;DR: The DII should be what you see if it's sitting on the shelf in a shop. -- F-Lambda (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Support B, support A in spirit - Different models, end of story. I think we'll be able to get DIIs through other means soon, so there's going to be additional ways that we should consider as part of this policy. ʞooɔ 23:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Support D - I still think that the first image of the page should be how the item would be seen the most in-game, though I understand everyone else's points. Meeeeerds msg 23:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

B but also the start of E - per jayden, diis should literally be the dropped item as it is on 99% of the wiki, the only exceptions are when dropped diis cant be obtained (rev walk); and thus are exceptions for good reason Star Talk ayy lmao ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 00:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

B/C - Dumpster fires are bad but particles are an effect that emit as a result of equipping the item. So, my stance is DII should under no circumstance have particles, but I would much rather see a better pic than Maemi can provide if that's our absolute only other alternative. Like Star, I also support the start of E: Shut up, Kelsey. Badassiel (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

E - I like its wording. But actually C. I think the dropped images look decent. --LiquidTalk 01:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Support C - Per Coel. The current augmented bow DII is clearly a better image than the shitty door/maemi image, although I would add that I would prefer the current DII if it more if it matched the inventory/door/maemi angle better. It's currently not a policy for a DII angle to match the inventory icon, but there's definitely quite a few editors (including myself) that choose to freecam it that way. I don't agree with D. If an item is droppable, use that unique model. Mining cape (t).png Rune14 (talk) Mining cape (t).png 09:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

C - Let's use some common sense here - the DII of the nox bow is clearly better than the cat pic. Unless you can find a way to get more detailed images of the inventory model, let's not insult our readers with crappy pictures when we can do better. I don't agree with D at all though, it's completely redundant when the equipped image exists (I'm talking mainly about the master capes here...). HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 11:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

C - Per Haidro and Rune14. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 12:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

C - Per above. While I agree that the equip models do look nicer in certain situations, then we should just take better equip pics ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Superiosity the WikianQuick chat button.png : Hey mate 23:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

C - Per above, particularly Rune14. Also, am I right in thinking that Christmas jumper (Chinchompa) is a cosmetic override (rather than an item)? If so, I don't really understand why it's being used as an example/reference for this. - Rawny (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Support B ITEM images btw dDbvitC.pngScuzzy Betahib8CAd.png 04:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes exactly, detailed item image, not detailed INVENTORY image Talk to Kelsey 13:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

First part of E and then C - Srylius (talk) 07:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Support B - DII should be the image of the dropped item's model when possible. They often have different proportions to their equipped appearance, and for example dropped capes do not have particles. The dialogue box images do sometimes look really bad, so in exceptional situations go for revenant walk. 5-x Talk 11:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

B - I feel like if we can get it we should have an image of the plain item model. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean we can't also have a "detailed image" separate from the "model image" for the cases where that'd show off the item better. But that does feel kind of pointless to me, so I'm sticking with option B for now. -Hourglass (2011 Hallowe'en event) detail.png I Am Probably Someone Talk III The Spark.png- 12:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Support B (But also maybe C... So E?) - In essence, always use dropped whenever possible. Only if dropping is not possible should a secondary method such as Maemi or Rev Walk may be used. In the latter case, I don't think that prioritising Maemi over Rev Walk (or vice versa) is necessary as they are both valid workarounds - if Maemi looks awful, use the rev walk. However, in the case of the farming cape or items with particles, I feel that particles must NOT be included DII, even if that means excluding rev walk on that item. Per examples, the nox bow would be best suited to rev walk (perferred over maemi) but the farming cape (which can be dropped) must use the dropped image.  RS AdvLogMyles Prower  Talk 02:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Support D, use common sense; hope E is in good humour - We have a choice between two images: An image with less detail, and an image with more detail. Unless there's a reason the less detailed image should represent any pertinent information that the more detailed image doesn't, such as Red spider's eggs and its corresponding egg model on Spirit spider (Player-owned farm), then it makes more sense to use the more detailed image in the template intended for the detailed image. Consistency is only a priority when it doesn't interfere with the purpose of the Wiki, which is to communicate relevant information to the reader. As Merds pointed out, there's no reason for the player ever to see the dropped cape model, so why should it take the place of one of the more important images on the page? - Sahima (Talk) 12:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Mostly support D - Per Sahima and Merds, word by word. Because D likely won't be the outcome, C is also fine. My main concern with B is that Maemi pics are lower quality smaller than rev walk pics. Because of that, I only consider Maemi to be a viable option for items that cannot be equipped or dropped. It would be quite weird to see the nox bow's page DII, then go to the augmented variant's page and see a teeny tiny version of that same bow. We'd just be inconsistencyscaping ourselves then. Some pages show the Maemi variant as DII right now*, and it's just uninformative (borderline useless), not showing any detail on the item and -again- inconsistent with the main page. Attamaris (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

*= Okay so apparently, that's not even Maemi yet, but only dropped and it's already that bad. Strong oppose for using Maemi over rev walk. We're supposed to be informative/encyclopedic. Maemi for equipable items would the furthest we could go away from that goal, after using inventory icons as DII. Attamaris (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Support B - If cook is indeed referring to what I believe he is. iN008talk 06:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Support C - Per Haidro. If the quality of an image is below wiki standards, there is no reason not to use a better one. Luck of the Dwarves.png XoRMiAS Completionist cape detail.png 10:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Closed - The crux of the issue here revolves around a few factors:

  • Exactly what a DII should be - is it any 'detailed image' of the item, or is it specifically a (detailed) image of the item's inventory/dropped-to-the-floor model, which can be different from the equipped model
  • Is it better for the user if we strictly stick to documenting each model, or providing the best images for pages; which approach is more wiki-like
  • Is it OK to ignore the previous points if the (current) only ways to obtain an image of an undroppable item is barely better than the inventory icon

To address each point, the arguments are strongest that DII should be the inventory/dropped model wherever possible; however, if the item cannot be placed on the floor, the only way to get the inventory models are small and generally do not look as good as we could get by using the equipped model with Revenant Walk. Consensus is that it is OK to use the equipped model if the only methods available to get the inventory model is from a dialogue box or similar, like Maemi or the elemental workshop door.

Thus I shall add this new section to RS:IMG, since we didn't have a section for DIIs already:

===Detailed item images===
Detailed item images (DIIs) are images of the inventory model of an item, usually as it appears when dropped to the floor. This is typically achieved using [[freecam]] in areas of low ground detail, with transparency applied. The general settings specified above for anti-aliasing and so on still apply. There is no specification on the angle of a DII. DIIs should use [[Template:Detailed item license]].

Items that can be dropped should always use the dropped model for the DII.

If an item cannot be dropped normally (has a 'destroy' or similar option), it may be possible to drop it with another method:
* Putting the item in a [[beast of burden]] and dismissing it
* Dying in an area that prevents gravestones (such as the [[Wilderness]] or the red [[Clan Wars]] portal)
* Putting the item in the [[Falador Party Room]] chest and activating a balloon drop, then finding the item in the balloons

If the item cannot be dropped by any of these methods, a small DII can be obtained by using the item on [[Maemi]], the cat in [[Draynor Manor]].

;Undroppable equipment
If Maemi is the only option for an item, and the item is equippable - particularly in the main- or off-hand slot - a cropped version of an equipped image can be used. The [[Revenant Walk]] animation allows a view of an entire main- or off-hand item without the player model's hands obsuring any parts.

The more different the equipped model is from the dropped model, the stronger the reason to not use the equipped model for the DII, even if the only alternative is Maemi. Particles and animations that appear when equipped but not in inventory, shape changes, stretching, and so on all contribute to this case-by-case decision.

:''See [[Forum:Detailing the DII policy]] for the discussion adding this section''

This resolution is not permanent - if/when a generalised, automatable, game-accurate model viewer becomes available, we can revisit this discussion. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 17:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)