Forum:Duplicated Image Files
This discussion has been going on for a long time, and no one has actually reached consensus.
Because of this I have decided to put it all on this one thread, list everything, and I am determined to reach consensus soon.
Here is the list of things to read if you haven't already:
PLEASE read all those before posting here. Also, do not just post that they look the same and therefore they should be deleted. It has been said many times and serves no real purpose.
In my personal opinion, this is what makes the most sense to me: Deleting them would be very confusing. A page for Ghrims book that says "Guthix Book" in the image name would be very confusing to most people. If Jagex ever changes the images (which they have been doing more and more recently), it would require many hours to go through, checking all the pages, and changing each one, which is unnecessary work. There is no real limit on space (for useful stuff, obviously), so all put together, I see no reason to delete these images.
As this discussion has been going on for quite a while, it would be nice to reach consensus and wrap this up quickly. It has always been we will see what everyone else says and apply that decision universally, but no one ever reached a decision. It's time to end this, on this thread. HaloTalk 18:30, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
Strong Support - Per nominator.18:55, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
Strong Support - As someone that edits these images regularly, it is not always apparent if the items truly look the same or if it was a mistake by the editor (they look similar, they're probably the same). This will get rid of all of that confusion. Riblet15 19:26, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - I think it would be a waste of space to put all of those duplicates here. Yes, I know that we have enough space for that, but still. If things look exactly the same, why make duplicate images? Just move the file to, for example, "Guthix_book-ghrims_book.png" and there will no longer be any confusion. And if the graphics for either are changed, just split and move the image. I see no problem! Oil4 Talk 20:48, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
- I think we made clear the benefits of having duplicate images. Once the graphics split, not only must you then upload a second image and change the link direction on the pages that refer to the wrong image, but we're left with an image titled "Guthix_book-ghrims_book.png" that is only the correct image for a Guthix book. It is then even more work to upload *another* image to have one with the correct name, but it must then be documented elsewhere that the image used to look like something else, if that is to be included at all. Riblet15 00:32, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is all the work that must be done if the images are ever changed. This has been mentioned several times, and you just ignore it. I specifically said to NOT post that, as it had already been stated MANY times on the other threads. And renaming them with both names for the same image would still cause confusion to people who hadn't read this, AND it would require checking even more pages in the event an image was changed. You agree that space is not an issue, and I have yet to see any reason that it would benefit us to delete these duplicate images. HaloTalk 00:54, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
- I still can't imagine that it would be so much work. Jagex rarely updates the graphics of such items, and the chance of them mass-updating all of those inventory images is second to none! I think that the amount of work you guys say this would give us is exaggerated. Oil4 Talk 21:03, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
Support - If it will trim the workload for those who actually do the work then why not? We do have nearly unlimited space and its not like tiny cropped images of ingame items will take up more than a couple megabytes in total when this is all said and done. TEbuddy 21:53, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
Strong support - Per the reasons I listed in the Granularity for Files thread. By the way, this thread doesn't seem to have too much of a point... it's just a repeat of the votes for the threads you listed above. --LiquidTalk 21:43, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
- The point is to compile it all on one thread, but also because the other threads were dead, and we needed to get some consensus. HaloTalk 21:47, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - (edit conflict; this is similar to what Liquid is getting at) the original proposal to delete duplicates had resounding opposition (I counted ~15 opposed and ~3 supports) and so obviously won't go through. I understand the position you're putting forward to basically be "don't delete duplicate images" which is identical to simply opposing that proposal. If I've got that right, wouldn't opening a new discussion about this just delay closure even more? Since now we have to go through yet another round of talking about something that's already reached consensus. I suggest we close this discussion and deal with the discussions already open. Endasil (Talk) @ 21:51, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Practically, it's best to have only one discussion open at one time. So, it's probably better to have the one that links to the rest (this one). If we're going to close anything, I'd say close the others and discuss here. --LiquidTalk 21:55, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
- That was kinda what I was aiming at, but I can't close threads HaloTalk 22:03, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
- Request for Closure I once again propose that this discussion be closed. The proposal to delete duplicated images has been closed due to overwhelming opposition, and this discussion proposes nothing new. It is, at it's heart, a duplicate discussion that lacks the focus of the other proposals and will only serve to start these discussions from scratch, losing the progress we've made so far.
- The only remaining issue is whether we introduce a policy (into RS:G) to say that items should have their own file, and if so, work as a community toward that end. That is precisely what Forum:Granularity for Files discusses, and since it has that focus, I propose we move discussion there. This thread should be closed since it's just delaying the closure of this issue. Endasil (Talk) @ 18:36, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
Closed - Duplicated images files are not to be combined and are encouraged to be separated. Our RS:G granularity policy has been updated accordingly 23:27, April 6, 2010 (UTC)