Forum:Do you prefer male or females?
I know we've had this discussion before, however there seems to be an issue with only using the female version that has arose. Before people start claiming USC means we should use a male image of armours that are more commonly used by males I'd like to point out that is very sexist if a female image has already been uploaded and has transparency. There wasn't anything in the previous post if one gender is prefer over the other so there needs to be a policy set in case more issues arise in the future.
So here is my suggestion to everyone:
- Support first come first serve - Whichever gender is uploaded first of fine quality (meaning with AA & transparency) there is NO reason to upload a new version solely on the basis of a different gender being displayed.
- Support both - Any image for use of item(s) on either the torso, legs, or both should have a male and female image, even if the difference isn't drastic or obvious.
Support both - More work but no conflict. User:Exor Solieve 18:33, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
Support both - Again, my same reply to the original thread on this issue, I support having both male and female images, even when the change is just anatomical, because there's still a noted difference. And even with our current "there must be an actual difference" policy, I think even the slightest change, such as the chestplate in the male and female versions of Dragon chainbody is worthy of its own image. Also, [[:File:Dragon_chain_set_leg_equipped.png|kill Fswe1]]. Hofmic Talk 18:38, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
- *commits soo-ih-side* 17:05, March 12, 2012 (UTC)
Support first uploaded with exceptions - If the armor is popular or special in some regard, then it may be prudent to have both. Otherwise, I don't quite think it's worth the effort to bother with taking two gender images. Obviously, use common sense for things like platelegs (male) and plateskirts (female), but for others this isn't that big of a deal.
Furthermore, I am not opposed to replacing a female image with a male image. We are a wiki, and the vast majority of our clientele is male. If we could only have one image, then I would rather it be a male image for the reason that male characters hold a large majority in RuneScape. I don't consider this sexist; it is simply about catering the wiki to the larger audience. If it bothers people that much then we can have both female and male. --LiquidTalk 18:41, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
- To disregard the female clientele to better appease the male clientele is sexist. We shouldn't just try to please one group of people but try make as best we can to please everyone and make compromises when need be. User:Exor Solieve 18:57, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't know this wiki only appeased to the majorities. 19:13, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
- I know I got turned down for being OoO'd in void for being female (or at least that was the way it seemed to me). cqm talk 00:04, March 12, 2012 (UTC)
- To clarify, I wouldn't care if people uploaded a version of the opposite gender. However, I maintain that if we are limited to only one image per armor set or whatever then it would be more prudent to have the male image. (Obviously, we don't have that restriction.) Besides, that is the de facto situation anyways as most of our image-models are done on male characters. --LiquidTalk 18:23, March 12, 2012 (UTC)
Support both - with the latest armour update, it seems that Jagex are moving towards making the genders look different in armour anyway (at least as far as d'hide is concerned), so having both makes sense.
One argument seems to be that male players will want to see what the armour will look like on them. I agree that this is the case, however the flipside to this is that female players (like myself) may also want to see how the armour looks for female avatars. Having both gender represented will satisfy both sides.18:42, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
Support both - Just because there is a female image it does not make it any less significant than a male image. There are certain cases, such as the legs/skirt that Liquid mentioned above, where it would be better to have either male or female for the set. But that does not mean that when it comes to other armours that do not follow this need be male. If there is a significant difference have both, but if there isn't then just have whichever one is higher quality19:06, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
- That was the last consensus and it obviously didn't work. "Significant difference" is an objective term. 19:13, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
Support both - I don't think it should be necessary to upload both genders for armor, but if someone wants to have the other version for whatever reason, they should be allowed to upload it in a new file instead of having a sexist/armor differences war. 19:13, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
Support both - I recently came across on a post in the RSOF complaing about us not having images for both genders of the armour update, "as usual". If it is what people want, how can we refuse?19:49, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
support both- i see it more fair for both sets to exist no matter what klaus
I would like to have both - However, we shouldn't allow lower quality images just because someone doesn't want to take an image of a different gender when the difference is so little. Also this 20:23, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
Support both - With the new armour update, most if not all (updated) male and female armours are different in some way. And that number will increase with time. So we will need both, and it looks better on an article if both are there, in my opinion. Plus less silly arguing... -- Cycloneblaze (user - talk - contribs) 21:15, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
Support allowing both - No need to have both on every single page, but allowing both would be really good to prevent conflicts and to help readers get info. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 21:29, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
Support first come first served, both is okay too - It's unreasonable to ask for both images, although if someone wants to do that then it's fine. Smuff [cite your sources or die] 21:45, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
Support both - "Significant difference" is such an ambiguous term it might as well be factored into UCS. However, as there seems to be more of a difference arising between armour worn on separate genders I see no reason not to have them both. cqm talk 00:04, March 12, 2012 (UTC)
Support both sometimes - Pretty much what Ty said, don't have both for the sake of having both, if one image isn't great quality.00:17, March 12, 2012 (UTC)
Comment - The only examples I've seen would be split per the previous thread. --Henneyj 07:06, March 12, 2012 (UTC)
Support - ...both if there is a significant difference (decide yourself), otherwise preferably male over female as male is more iconic. But don't go uploading male over existing female if it is worse quality, not transed, etc.17:05, March 12, 2012 (UTC)
If you snooze, you lose - Having male and female versions of an image when there are no significant differences between the images is a waste of time as well as space in my opinion. Imagine how much more bloated our weapon pages will be if we have to have 2 character images in addition to the special attack animation within the infobox. Keep it simple. --Aburnett (Talk) 17:43, March 12, 2012 (UTC)
- This discussion is about armour and other forms of clothing. Weapons shouldn't need an image of both genders as there isn't any difference in the way either gender wields them. 17:39, March 12, 2012 (UTC)
Support Both - If an editor doesn't want to have to change his or her gender to the opposite gender just to take an image, then that's completely all right in my opinion since another user can simply add the image for the opposite gender later. However, as a Wiki, we strive to provide the most accurate, up-to-date information possible, and limiting images of armour and clothing to a specific gender or on a "first come, first serve" basis goes against our purpose as a Wiki and thus may hurt us in the long run as people looking to see how a set of armour looks for a specific gender are forced to look somewhere else due to the Wiki not having an image for that gender (I know that sound ridiculous, but people in general tend to make foolish decisions over the least little thing, and I don't want anything to hurt the Wiki's popularity, no matter how ridiculous it might seem at the time). Thus I support images of both genders wherever appropriate, and if a particular user doesn't want to take images for both genders, then I propose that they be allowed to upload an image for their chosen gender and allow another user to add the other gender image later, as that's what most people are concerned about. Thank you, and have a nice day.  21:20, March 12, 2012 (UTC)
Conditional Support to Both - One is enough, unless absolutely need due to the appearance on males and females (like if the design differs not if there is a minor bump, the lip colors change a shade, etc...). Hair 21:30, March 12, 2012 (UTC)
Closed - Both female and male images will be allowed, but not absolutely required. However, users should UCS to determine when it is appropriate to upload or delete an image of the opposite gender, depending on necessity (armor variations) and quality (small, blurry jpeg). If there is any confusion on whether the armor variations are relevant enough to upload a second image, keep the first uploaded image or allow both, as long as they are of decent quality. Replacing an image solely due to gender differences, with no armor or quality variations, will not be practiced. Use |image2 = Blah.png and caption2 = A male/female player wearing blah to add the second gender image in the bonuses infobox. I will add this to RuneScape:Images and media policy#Content. 02:58, March 24, 2012 (UTC)