Forum:Disallow idle animations

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Disallow idle animations
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 31 May 2016 by Liquidhelium.

Just in general, idle animations aren't very useful. When considering things in a practical sense, they serve no real purpose. So many things have idle animations, and it's fairly obvious we can't bother to have them all. Which begs the question: why is it that we have decided to include some. In general, the idle animations we have included don't serve a real purpose. While it can argued that the animation for some entities is particularly unique, the same argument can be made for countless other animations. Above all, the animations generally tend to be insignificant and unnoteworthy beyond that. In other words, the only thing that's notable about these animations is that they are unique. When we have an existing still image of a model, that suffices to display the subject in any way meaningful. If an additional animation is to be included, it should demonstrate something that's valuable to understand.

Just to give examples, here are some idle animations that do improve their articles:

  • File:Chimney.gif - As far as furnace goes, this image is pretty useless; however, it's a very good and simple demonstration of particles in the Graphics settings article.
  • File:Lucky coin.gif - This item is one of a dozen-or-so items that has the unique trait of overriding the default animation. As that is the main purpose of the item, the idle animation is actually important, and it should be shown in the article. There should obviously be an exception for override animations.
  • File:Scenery shadows dynamic.gif - This image demonstrates something a still image never could: shadows changing as the object that casts them changes.

As a general concern, I think our indifference towards idle animation files set a bad precedent for allowing useless information. I think it's especially evident considering the large list of files proposed below. Creating better guidelines for what we upload is especially important considering the concurrent thread on improving the quality and efficiency of our animations. And regardless of whether or not we get our new extension, this rule is going to improve the quality and standards of uploads.

Files I want gone

Discussion

Support - rip zogre; we all have to make sacrifices MolMan 15:11, May 22, 2016 (UTC)

Mostly Support - I think we should keep the ones from holiday events, especially the older ones, since we don't have much images of them in general. Although, it would be nice if they weren't that person with the firecape and claw... --dDbvitC.pngScuzzy Betahib8CAd.png 15:43, May 22, 2016 (UTC)

Support some - They should be disallowed in general, but some on that list are fine if you ask me. E.g. Dom Tower marker on fire shows the graphical effect obtained by killing sunfreet, which a still image wouldn't do as well (and, in fact, doesn't). Then, for instance, Bloodwood tree and, indeed, zogre drummer just show an interesting animation that isn't necessarily very relevant to any conrete information on any article, but does provide some interesting material to look at for readers. Cases like the Trollweiß fish and Thammaron's portal are neither interesting nor relevant, however, and should probably go. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 17:40, May 22, 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Keep the pig please, it's relevant since they retconned it and made it into poultry. --Jlun2 (talk) 17:48, May 23, 2016 (UTC)

That's not a good reason to keep it. The image still shows nothing useful. MolMan 17:56, May 23, 2016 (UTC)
Out of all the ones you want to keep.... --dDbvitC.pngScuzzy Betahib8CAd.png 02:04, May 24, 2016 (UTC)


Oppose So these Idle animations main purpose is, as I understand it, to make an article more interesting, no? Am I misunderstanding? If that's the case then I think we should keep them. People like moving things, so moving things make articles more interesting for our readers, imo. My reading of your post suggest you want to remove idle animations from articles because you don't think they serve a purpose, but your reason as to why they don't serve a purpose comes across as arbitrary and subjective. I mean unless it costs us anything to have them on the wiki, why would we not use them to liven up articles a bit?  Golden warpriest of Zamorak helm.png Wingcap Firemaking master cape.png 14:33, May 25, 2016 (UTC)

Also rip file:fire.gif  Golden warpriest of Zamorak helm.png Wingcap Firemaking master cape.png 14:34, May 25, 2016 (UTC)
They cost bandwidth (gif is slow loading for some). They're also a massive hassle to update for relatively little purpose. The reason they don't serve a purpose is because they tend to not show anything more than the model just sitting around. We already have still images to show how models look, and the knowledge of how something looks is well... redundant and not worth the extra maintenance of an additional file.
Animations don't necessarily make articles more interesting. It's easier to argue that they're actually more distracting, especially if they auto-play. But regardless, files shouldn't exist to entertain. Which is where your opposition sort of loses strength. Many precedents have been set for not using files unless there's no other way to describe important information. Idle animations are trivial at best. MolMan 14:42, May 25, 2016 (UTC)
Support You present practical arguements. I guess I have to support - updating gifs is a pain. But I still think we need file:Fire.gif and I oppose removing it.  Golden warpriest of Zamorak helm.png Wingcap Firemaking master cape.png 14:51, May 25, 2016 (UTC)
In the end I plan to tag everything I listed that's not been contested. So, I guess that'll stay. MolMan 14:53, May 25, 2016 (UTC)
To be fair, we have File:Cooking fire.gif which shows the fire's animation and the other subject of a player cooking on said fire, so the basic fire gif is redundant. pjJ4pBM.png Abyssal vine whip.png 18:01, May 25, 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - If an image adds nothing to an article, remove it and delete it. As evidenced by the OP, a blanket ban is not suitable as there are instances where they're suitable so I don't understand why it's being proposed here. If it's contentious, start an RfD. The current policies already cover what we have here, I see no reason to make it so explicit. cqm 18:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC) (UTC)

That's the issue. We've basically set a precedent that idle animations are a perfectly acceptable type of image. MolMan 19:08, May 25, 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - Bandwidth isn't a good argument. I see no reason whatsoever why we should ban idle animations in general. Complete overreach. ʞooɔ 05:29, May 27, 2016 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus for a complete ban on idle animations. Specific ones can always be deleted with consensus with a RfD (or a group RfD to save space). --LiquidTalk 03:01, May 31, 2016 (UTC)