Forum:Filenames

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Filenames
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 13 May 2011 by Suppa chuppa.

Recently, there has been some discussion about wether to move files just for their filename being a little inconsistent and uploading detailed files with another name than the consistent name (detailed instead of the usual detail) so I decided to create this thread to get opinions on what should be done: Should files be moved to more consistent names? And should all files have consistent names for each file, or having for this example "detail" and "detailed" both as good names. I have made some starting guidelines I use already, here, but these can of course be changed.

The benefit of having consistency for all filenames would be that finding a file is much easier, not requiring to go to the article of the image before you can find the image you're looking for. If this passes, moving all files could maybe be done with a bot, or manually by custodians/admins. Also TLUL had an IRC bot that made moving filelinks easier, so maybe someone could use his code to make a bot for that too, to make this easier. I think this is maybe a big change, but will make finding files easier in the future. And if we decide not to move all files, I would still like to make some clearer guidelines for file names, so that new files will be consistent anyway.

Discussion

Support having clearer guidelines, pending big move of all files - As nom. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 13:20, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - We've already got guidelines for this. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 14:37, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

We should get them clearer then, as there has been some discussion about this kind of things, and apparently the guidelines are not clear enough. Also, there are the criteria for speedy move, and they don't say anything about if files like for example "RuneScim.PNG" should be moved. Only that "Rune.PNG" should be moved. RuneScim.PNG is descriptive enough, but not a good filename. The guidelines should be clearer in these cases: should all files be consistent, or left as they are? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 17:39, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Fully Support - I was just talking about this the other day! The most unorganized part about this wiki are the file names. I fully support laying down the closest thing to absolute standards for naming files. (If a bot can go through to help move all the files to fit the guidelines that we set, then this project shouldn't be that hard. Manually editing for this consistency would be a nightmare and somewhat unrealistic.) As far as current standards, I have always been referring to RS:IMG#File type and RS:IMG#Image name. Let me know if you need help. ~J22f~TGC 19:45, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Do I really need a reason? Just look at my move log. But seriously - I do change "detailed" to "detail" since the guideline thingy says detailed images should be named "detail". Someone's told me that they're interchangable but I've not seen where it says that, and images named "detail" far outnumber "detailed". Plus it just bugs me personally, some people seem to take offense to my nit-picky file moving but Nyah to them. Regarding chat heads, I usually name them "chat head", since that's the name of the category and "chathead" looks like some type of cheese. Are there currently any guidelines on that? Hmm. Anyway, support, let's get it done. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 21:09, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

24 April 19:00 Central US time in #wikia-runescape on Freenode:
[19:03] <@Ryan_PM> Why did you move those two files?
[19:04] <fergie> because they were named incorrectly
[19:04] <fergie> (:
[19:04] <bull> lols
[19:04] <@Ryan_PM> Detailed and detail are interchangeable
[19:04] <@Ryan_PM> () aren't the best to ever use in a file name
[19:04] <Coolnesse> omg
[19:04] <Coolnesse> thunderstorm
[19:04] <@Ryan_PM> that's why I uploaded as I did
I said they were interchangeable, not because of any policy, but because of a few reasons. Detailed and detail mean exactly the same thing when relating to an image, why don't we change the Detailed image category to Detail image instead as well? I didn't see a reason to use one over the other, thus I uploaded as I did. My latest move of the Guthix platelegs detail image was only to overwrite the server and the upload bug, moving it back to the original name wouldn't change anything. I stand by what I said. Ryan PM 23:31, April 29, 2011 (UTC)
Please add the preferred format for chat head filenames to the list here. Moving filenames to match the acceptable format is not nit-picky. It is dedication, and I fully support making filenames consistent. ~J22f~TGC 19:57, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Filenames should be a jumbled mess of characters hardly relating to what the image contains to slow the editing process as much as possible! Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 21:44, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

I support what this guy said What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 22:14, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Support - I like the idea of making file names consistent, and support putting in/strengthening guidelines for how they should be titled, however I don't want to make the process of uploading files overly complicated. I'm fie with telling uploaders "c'mon man, don't call it untitled.png", but I think giving them a big ol list of ways they have to title it could appear offputting. I'm fine with custodians being familiarized with the guidelines, but its not something we should be bothering new uploaders with. As for mass moving every file... meh. I could take it or leave it. Its something that people could do when they had time to kill, but not something we should be treating with any high priority. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 22:05, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Sappurt - The amount of times people have uploaded "Screenshot at 114103 27042011" or names to that effect is annoying. Also, there are some file names that are acceptable that don't really say much, such as one I saw the other day, B jav.PNG. Just cause it can only fit into Bronze javelin, doesn't mean it should stay that name. What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 22:14, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - There are things that need to be scrutinized, but not if someone uses detailed over detail. Something like File:Dragon pickaxe.gif or File:Shock.gif is better than you putting File:Runescape weapons specialattacks dragonpickaxe-shock.gif as the file name. However, there is a limit to what you should do in governing the naming of imagery. We have nearly 40,000 images, of which more are called by detail than detailed, but looking back they were used interchangeably for years now. I will not accept using one over the other when I have uploaded the image, added it to the appropriate articles and then get a nice red link because someone thinks otherwise. I will not move someone else's file to something I prefer unless the server won't update the image (as seen with my file move of the Guthix platelegs ground image). Ryan PM 23:31, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a personal problem. I could take your situation: "File:Dragon pickaxe.gif or File:Shock.gif is better than putting File:Runescape weapons specialattacks dragonpickaxe-shock.gif" and use it to support the argument for filename standards because with standards, this problem wouldn't happen. Opposing change -because that's how we did it in the past- is a ridiculous idea. We would still be saying that taking baths is an unclean practice. ~J22f~TGC 19:57, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
*Sigh* Seriously? I only moved it because that's what we call images. Detail, not detailed, says RS:IMG. It wouldn't have been a problem if you had called it exactly what we're supposed to - are you really opposing because of this? sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 20:44, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
I oppose because I am against more governing over how we do things on this wiki. I will never abide to the image naming portion of the Image Policy as the edit that added them wasn't summarized and there was no consensus on the addition. It is null and void to say that we have to abide to this section at all. I am opposing anything that requires more governance outside of abusefilter. We don't want to adopt the same policies as Bulbapedia, let's not start here. Now am I opposing based on the moves? Yes and no, it's also various IRC conversations and discussion here. I would be more inclined to keep suggested names, but not the enforcement of a singular naming convention. Initially I was neutral, but I see no reason to keep away from opposing it in part or entirely. Ryan PM 21:12, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
Generally filenames should be both descriptive and short. Given the above example, File:Dragon pick special.gif works for me. Although more standardization than what exists now in practice would be good (i.e., anywhere up from nearly zero), I have a tough time getting bent out of shape over detail vs. detailed. (Detail has 2 less letters, though....) --Saftzie (talk) 15:42, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Consistency is always better, but please do not start move wars over "detail" and "detailed". 222 talk 00:28, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - This is unnecessary red tape. We should not be micromanaging everything like this. So what if some images say "detail" and others say "detailed"? As long as the person who uploads the image links to it properly, I don't see what the issue is. We don't need this kind of instruction creep at this precise level of detail. Let whoever uploads the image decide. --LiquidTalk 23:32, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Number one: to anyone arguing over Detail and Detailed: caek. Number two, who cares? Apply some brainpower and you can probably think of a good filename, without needing guidelines and huge signs telling you what to do. 77.44.46.45 06:54, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, stupid iPod. Real Crazy 06:54, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

Support - So that more active editors may move and organize files without question. I do not want to see uploaders bombarded with rules because having images named correctly is far less important than having images to begin with. Just leave it off the upload page and let people upload in peace so someone can move it later if necessary. We have people willing to provide the standardization, even if it takes a bit of time. Riblet15 17:53, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I thought this was about standards for custodians who have the time to make filenames consistent. It seems like the people above think this is about standards that we bombard new users and uploaders with. I don't want to bombard new users or uploaders with anything like this either. While RS:PIE is a good point, it is awful to see people try to hinder the forward progress of making this wiki better by saying stuff like "who cares" or consistency is "unnecessary." ~J22f~TGC 21:57, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

If you actually read what I wrote, I was pointing RS:PIE out to the Detail vs Detailed argument. Secondly, I don't see a problem with tiny inconsistencies in names. Is it a horrible crime in your country to have an extra word or two on a filename? This is a wiki, not an army camp, it doesn't have to be perfectly ordered and completely uniform. Real Crazy 06:54, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
Errr... if you read what I wrote, I said that RS:PIE for the detail vs detailed argument IS a good point. Secondly, I agree that this is not a boot camp. But why would you oppose that some people want to take the time to make things consistent? If everyone had just said support, and let the people who care do all the work, then most of the files could have been moved already. ~J22f~TGC 17:47, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

Strong support - I can really relate to this. Matt (t) 07:45, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

I strong oppose this crap about detail and detailed Matt (t) 21:32, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Per Ryan. Detailed and detail clearly mean the same thing, there is no need to change those, nor in any other similar situation. As long as images are linked to properly, there is absolutely no problem. bad_fetustalk 09:41, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion - I think we should alter RS:IMG to say that either detail or detailed is okay for detailed images. Matt (t) 07:44, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

I oppose that. That is common sense. More importantly, I think files should be named according to common sense. bad_fetustalk 18:33, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
It's obviously not common sense since so many people are getting angry over it. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 18:36, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the only person that thinks that it's so important to move detailed to detail is you, not many people. bad_fetustalk 18:46, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I know it is common sense, but hey, common sense isn't that common. Adding that to RS:IMG will save a lot of unnecessary arguments and edits. Matt (t) 21:01, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
I don't care if it's detail or detailed, just as long as we have consistency. (: sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 21:02, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with urbancowgurl. I think we should pick one as correct (detail would be easiest since most files are already like this) and then if anyone wants to take time to make things consistent, fine. If no one does, then things just stay as they are now. Btw, as of this post, 9 users support, 4 oppose, and 2 are unclear... so there are definitely more people who agree with consistency. And if I had custodian tools, urbancowgurl would not be the only one fixing the inconsistencies. ~J22f~TGC 21:53, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
I honestly don't see what harm having two as correct can do. Matt (t) 22:10, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
I don't want this to sound mocking, but I honestly don't see what harm having one as correct can do. =\ Working towards consistency is a good cause. It's forward progress. If movers clean up after themselves, file moves for consistency are unarguably good for the wiki. ~J22f~TGC 22:30, May 5, 2011 (UTC)
Here's the harm it does. It wastes time, and it's completely unnecessary. Now, "Btw, as of this post, 9 users support, 4 oppose, and 2 are unclear... so there are definitely more people who agree with consistency." - I was talking about Detail vs. Detailed. bad_fetustalk 13:10, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

@Chess - Gee, I was wondering when you'd drop this one. As you can see from my contribs, I am completely capable of not only moving file names, but also reverting vandalism, uploading images, tagging, categorizing, editing. It does not waste my time - everyone balances their "time" into different areas. What you consider wasteful I consider useful. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 19:23, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

Whether you consider something useful or not is completely irrelevant if it's not improving the wiki in any way. " am completely capable of not only moving file names, but also reverting vandalism, uploading images, tagging, categorizing, editing. It does not waste my time" - You'd clearly have more time on other areas that actually are important if you didn't waste time moving images. You being able to do other things along unnecessarily moving images does not mean that you are not wasting time. bad_fetustalk 12:58, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
Alright, I've been informed that this would be extremely easy to do with a bot, therefore not taking away anyone's time. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 02:08, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. However, I still oppose warning/blocking people for uploading images under wrong names. (people that use detail instead of detailed etc.) bad_fetustalk 16:46, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

The only reason I want two is because firstly, detail is currently used and people aren't going too change that. And secondly, detailed is okay by common sense, but people are disputing it. I would honestly prefer one myself, too. Matt (t) 06:15, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

Support - I have an idea for a template that will allow the item icon and the item name (with a redirect to the item page) to be formed, but for that to work then the filenames must be uniformated. Like all of them .png, not some .PNG and some .PnG and stuff. Also the icon names must be equal to the Item article page. To use the template write: {{ii|itempagename}}, it currently only works if the filename is exactly the same as the pagename with .png, (underscores are equal to spaces). Sam 3010 (talk, contribs) 17:08, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose detail/detailed - Don't move all detailed to detail, they mean exactly the same thing. Consistency is one thing, but this is just going over the top. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 13:14, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Can we please just outline all the preferred file name formats to use from here on out? The original proposal by Joeytje50 seems fine to me. ~J22f~TGC 19:19, May 6, 2011 (UTC) Can we please outline all the preferred file name formats and then agree to follow them from here on out? The original proposal by Joeytje50 seems fine to me. ~J22f~TGC 02:41, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

Notice of intent - If there is no further productive discussion, I will close this thread in 3 days. Suppa chuppa Talk 02:11, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

Addition to RS:IMG

This proposal is actively being modified. For the most up-to-date version, see here. Matt (t) 06:00, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we add this to RS:IMG#Image name.


  • Images of detailed items should be called Item name detail.png or Item name detailed.png
  • Images of item taken in the inventory should be called Item name.png
  • Images of scenery should be called Name of scenery.png
  • Images of monsters or NPCs should be called Monster name.png
  • Images of a player wielding an item should be called Item name equipped.png
  • Images of a player wielding a complete set of armour should be called Type of armour set equipped.png. Additionally, if the image is of a player wielding a specific set of armour, such as Bronze armour set (lg), the (lg) or (sk) should also be included in the file name.
  • Images showing the location of something on the world map should be called Thing map location.png
  • Other images showing the location of something should be called Thing location.png
  • Inventory images showing more than one of an item should be called Number of item name.png
  • Images of built Construction objects should be called Object name built.png
  • Images of Stealing creation items should be called Item name (class number).png
  • Images showing the location of a compass Treasure Trail should be called Location compass treasure trail.png
  • Images showing the location of a coordinate Treasure trail should be called Location coordinate treasure trail.png
  • Images showing the location of a cryptic Treasure Trail should be called Location cryptic treasure trail.png
  • Images showing the location of an emote Treasure Trail should be called Location emote treasure trail.png
  • Images showing the location of a map Treasure Trail should be called Location map treasure trail.png
  • Images showing the location of a scan Treasure Trail should be called Location scan treasure trail.png
  • Images showing the location of a simple Treasure Trail should be called Location simple treasure trail.png

If the image is of an item, monster, or npc, please try to keep the name consistent with the name of the article for that thing. For example, Bob (smith).png instead of Bob.png. Also keep things such as capitalization and punctuation consistent not only with the article name, but with the guidelines above.


Feel free to suggest modifications. That is all I can think of right now, so please suggest more, too. I really don't want to see this thread closed without some improvement made to the wiki's file name consistency.
Matt (t) 06:39, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

Pick detail or detailed, otherwise we will have equip and equipped etc. About the TT names - Andorin and I spent a day moving the scan clues and coordinate clues to already-consistent-names. If we do move them again, I think having scan/simple/map etc should be at the front of the name. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 06:42, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
Because so many people have opposed having one, if we're gonna have one, we're going to need consensus. Also, I didn't notice that those names were already consistent, so what do you think of this?
    • Coordinate treasure trail coordinates general location, more specific location
    • Scan treasure trail general location, more specific location
    • Compass treasure trail general location, more specific location
    • Cryptic treasure trail general location, more specific location
    • Emote treasure trail general location, more specific location
    • Map treasure trail general location, more specific location
    • Simple treasure trail general location, more specific location
Matt (t) 06:57, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand why they oppose when a bot can easily fix it, take it however you want. <.< Umm, maybe, those all seem kind of long but that was generally how we did them. Maybe reduce "treasure trail" to TT? sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 07:00, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
I honestly don't think having a long file name is a bad thing. Also,
When uploading an image to the Wiki, the name should be as descriptive as possible.
RS:IMG

And sorry for the slightly late response, my internet died when I tried to submit it. Matt (t) 07:21, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

S'ok, I went to bed (; I don't have a problem with long file names, but apparently other people do *points up*. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 14:59, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

What about a chat head image? Like if it's named Bob.png when it's really bob's chat head, it should be moved to Bob's chat head.png. ɳex undique 15:02, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

Or should it be moved to Bob's chathead.png? Or just Bob chathead or Bob chat head? :P sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 15:08, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
I like Bob chathead personally. Matt (t) 21:01, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
oppose long filenames because consistency is useful to make finding the files easier. If we would make the filenames incredibly long anyway, it would still be too hard to find them anyway. I suggest we have something like "TT coord <numbers>.png" or "TT compass <location>.png", because I don't see the point of having incredibly long filenames, just to be more descriptive (everyone understands when you say "I got a TT coord clue" anyway). JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 16:22, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I guess TT is okay. Smile Matt (t) 21:01, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
I support adding a line for chat heads. I say pick one "chathead" or "chat head" to try and follow from here on out. Choose which ever one is more common at the present. ~J22f~TGC 19:57, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
"chathead" is best in my opinion. It is currently the most common, and also it just looks better than "chat head" imo. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 21:26, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
Eh, I like chat head more, but it doesn't matter that much, I've seen Jagex use both. ɳex undique 00:00, May 9, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Rsa - I like "chat head" better, as chathead looks like some weird player-made word like tradeable/tradable. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 00:47, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Remember the KISS principle. We don't need to micromanage everything. --LiquidTalk 15:52, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

Support the addition to RS:IMG - I like what I see. I want to emphasize that this is being added so we have a place to refer to as to what filenames should be when in doubt. As the above discussion proved, there are always going to be exceptions (being descriptive vs being concise) and slight differences (detail/detailed). I urge people to support this addition because it will give guidelines for us to refer to when in doubt. Support this even though after the addition many inconsistencies will still exist. ~J22f~TGC 19:52, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Please pick just one format for detail/detailed (preferably detail because it is most common) that we will agree to use from here on out. If new uploads are the format we don't choose, then that's life. We can leave them as is while users who want to spend the time can move them. ~J22f~TGC 19:52, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

We can't do that without consensus. Matt (t) 21:01, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
But we can choose chathead over chat head? sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 22:21, May 8, 2011 (UTC)
Of course. Matt (t) 22:26, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

Minor modification - Please also try to use spaces logically, and refrain from calling files names such as Bronzesword.png or Bronze-sword.png. Matt (t) 21:01, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I've copied Matthew's suggestion to my sandbox with a few modifications, and I give permission to edit it, to make it easier to see an overview of the suggestions. This makes it easier to keep it up-to-date for the current suggestions here. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 00:03, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

The content in your sandbox looks great. The formatting is great; easy to read and understand. Perhaps one minor change you could do is sort the bullet points by the prevalence of each type of image on the wiki. It is close, but I think item and monster images should come before scenery and detail. ~J22f~TGC 04:03, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I was thinking of adding a thing about uploading files with a png extension instead of PNG, but I thought people might have concerns about that. Matt (t) 06:26, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

Nope, PNG is exactly the same as png for computers, but it just looks better lowercase (like how uppercase HTML tags may be allowed, but lowercase tags just look better). I added something about it to my sandbox. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 06:51, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

Question - What would we do with files like :File:Zimberfizz after n'sr.png? Something like "Zimberfizz 2.png"? I don't think "after n'sr" is really good to have in the title... JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 15:02, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

Zimberfizz after or Zimberfizz 2 seems good to me. ɳex undique 23:59, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

Change - Showing the location of something on the world map should be called Thing map location.png. I think it would be better as Bob's location.png. "Map location" sounds weird. ɳex undique 19:44, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

Changed it. If anyone objects we could still change it back. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 23:11, May 9, 2011 (UTC)
You guys just uploaded a million images named like Bob location.png. Now you want Bob's? >.< Not that I disagree, just .. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 23:18, May 9, 2011 (UTC)
All the NPC maps I've uploaded have been Bob's location Lol but it's so insignificant, I don't think it matters too much. ɳex undique 23:58, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Enough of beating around the bush - Detail vs detailed and Chathead vs chat head. Pick one please so we may move forward. There is no harm in picking one over the other as a bot will fix them all up. People upload images named incorrectly all the time and they get moved to the correct name - this is no different. If you don't want a red link when you upload an image because it got moved, name it correctly the first time. Problem solved. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 23:18, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

Support "detail" and "chathead" - they're the most commonly used names for now, and I think it looks better to have "detail" because it's something like short for "Bucket image with high detail". Detailed just doesn't look very good imo. And I don't prefer "chathead" a lot above "chat head", it's just that if I have to choose I prefer "chathead". JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 23:51, May 9, 2011 (UTC)
Fergie, I told you, we can't pick one without consensus. We can't just say that opposition to having one doesn't matter, and we'll have one whether they like it or not. We just can't do that. I prefer chathead over chat head, too. Matt (t) 06:00, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
That's why she posted this: to get consensus. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 10:36, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
Oic Matt (t) 10:50, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
Support "detail" and "chathead" - Most commonly used currently. ~J22f~TGC 16:15, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
Anything for me as long as it is consistent. Personally I like detail and chat head, but I won't be bothered either way. (: sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 16:49, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - So, where's this bot, who's developing it and who's running it? 222 talk 06:45, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the thread should pass or fail first. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 16:49, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
Joey has asked me to make it, and I've already have one that does move everything from a cat to a spef' name. here -- CakeMixwhut? 19:00, May 10, 2011 (UTC)
Oh there's already one in the making? Sweet. (: sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 19:02, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - The following will be added to the image name section of RS:IMG

  • Images of detailed items should be called Item name detail.png
  • Images of item taken in the inventory should be called Item name.png
  • Images of scenery should be called Name of scenery.png
  • Images of monsters or NPCs should be called Monster/NPC name.png
  • Chatheads should be called NPC name chathead.png
  • Images of a player wielding an item should be called Item name equipped.png
  • Images of a player wielding a complete set of armour should be called Type of armour set equipped.png. Additionally, if the image is of a player wielding a specific set of armour, such as Bronze armour set (lg), the (lg) or (sk) should also be included in the file name.
  • Images showing the location of something on the world map should be called Object map location.png
  • Other images showing the location of something should be called Object location.png
  • Inventory images showing more than one of an item should be called Number of item name.png
  • Images of built Construction objects should be called Object name built.png
  • Images of Stealing creation items should be called Item name (class number).png
  • Images showing the location of a simple Treasure Trail should be called Location TT type treasure trail.png

If the image is of an item, monster, or npc, please try to keep the name consistent with the name of the article for that thing. For example, Bob (smith).png instead of Bob.png. Also keep things such as capitalization and punctuation consistent not only with the article name, but with the guidelines above. Suppa chuppa Talk 21:18, May 13, 2011 (UTC)