Forum:Granularity for Files

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Granularity for Files
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 6 April 2010 by Psycho Robot.

There has been a recent discussion about images for items that have the same graphics. For example, see this discussion. There has also been a lot of confusion around the Wiki concerning this topic. So, I am making this proposal to update RS:G to include a provision that different items should have different image files, even if two or more items share the same graphics.


  • Should the items get a graphical update so that the images are no longer identical, it would be much easier to have separate files and to just update one of them than to create a new file and to try to update all the file links found inside articles.
Example: Ashes and Ground bat bones have identical graphics (as of now). If the picture for ashes suddenly changed, then it would be easier to update File:Ashes (and leave File:Ground bat bones alone). In other words, we would only have to edit one thing. If the two used the same picture, then we would have to create a new File:Ground bat bones, and we would have to go into all the articles that refer to a picture of ground bat bones and switch to the new link. It's a lot more editing to do if both items used the same file.
  • It would be less confusing to users to see a file named after their objects. It is illogical to place a picture of a Guthix book on the Ghrims book article (for example), even if the two have identical graphics.

--LiquidTalk 18:15, March 27, 2010 (UTC)


Support - As nominator. --LiquidTalk 18:15, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support 2, don't understand 1 - I'm not too sure what you mean in your first point, could you clarify this please? Quest point cape.pngTalk Newbie856 edit count Nomad guideMusic icon.png 18:25, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Clarified. --LiquidTalk 18:30, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - Oh, I get it now. =P Quest point cape.pngTalk Newbie856 edit count Nomad guideMusic icon.png 18:32, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose all - Per my discussions here, here and here. --Coolnesse 18:55, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Waste of space. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 19:26, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

We have almost unlimited space. This is actually used to improve the wiki, so I think that we should gladly allocate the memory needed for these files. --LiquidTalk 19:27, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Why do we have to split them now, when they're exactly the same? Sure, they need to be split if the items' graphics change, but until then, why not use one image for both? Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 20:07, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Say you have five mainspace articles that refer to a picture of ground bat bones, but use the file for ashes instead (since they are the same right now). If the picture for ground bat bones changed, then we would have to go into each of those five articles and replace the File:Ashes.png link with one that says File:Ground bat bones.png. Now, that's only five edits. What if 100 articles used that image? Or even 1000? We'd be up for some editing nightmares. If we used different images from the start, then there is no problem. One file re-upload takes care of everything. --LiquidTalk 20:14, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Been there, responded to that. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 22:21, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Look at my didn't quite understand it I think. HaloTalk 22:23, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
I happily respond to you that I do understand it. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 22:25, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - They are different objects, their graphics may become different in the future and it will be far more difficult to create a new image and replace the links than it will be to simply update the image. I believe that Wikia has stated that server space should not need to be a consideration.

Also, I would like to propose that Forum:Remove all Duplicate images be merged with this discussion, as they are essentially the same argument, with the proposals simply from different sides. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 19:34, March 27, 2010 (UTC) 

Strong Support - I don't see how you can understand and oppose this. In the end, it will save a lot of work and pain, and it doesn't require much now. Overall, I think this would be an excellent addition to RS:G. HaloTalk 19:39, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support (to mirror opposition of the related thread) as long as someone is willing to take the time to do it. Third benefit is that if we do it now before two identical-looking items diverge we have the added bonus of having a correct history of what that item looked like over time (through the file history for that item's image). If we don't do that, we lose the opportunity to record that history. Endasil (Talk) @  07:21, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Put "it used to look like the <other item>" on the article and put the old image and the new one on Graphical improvements, and you're done. Hardly any work. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 08:45, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not exaggerating when I say that it's more work than anyone here would want to bother with. Jagex has updated the item image of every potion, every snelm, every herb and every rune - more than once. These minute modifications would be insane to attempt to document on one page, not to mention completely unnecessary when, as Endasil says, the records are saved on the file history of the image. Riblet15 05:51, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
But this is not about discussion whether that page should exist. I said that we could just put the old and new images on that page. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 14:14, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
You did also say that it would be hardly any work. Not only would it immediately create more work than uploading new files for each as they are right now, but it would continue to load on more work as time progresses and more updates are made. Riblet15 22:03, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Why not? bad_fetustalk 17:23, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support - Might seem pointless at first, however a few minutes now will save the wiki some chaos should any of those items be updated for graphics. Korasi's sword.png Archmage Elune  TalkHS Void knight deflector.png fetus is my son and I love him. 05:23, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Epical supportitude - My comments on the Ghrim's book RFD will serve to reiterate my reasons for this supportitude of an epical nature. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 22:09, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Reticent Support - If the they are different items, they should therefore have different pics. However, if the image is exactly the same, I don't see what's the point... Yes it should be kept should one of the items get a graphical update. Also, having an item linking to another item's image may be confusing... Balance iz powa!4ndrepd TalkContribsStupid monkeys actually have a use...Jump to the God Wars II! 15:12, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comment Consensus seems to be towards support. These are the two points of opposition and their rebuttals presented so far:

  • It would waste server space. We are granted, for our purposes, almost unbounded server space and the extra space taken up by implementing this policy change would be completely negligible compared to the total space taken by the wiki.
  • It would take too much work. This is a fair point against proactively splitting up images, but NOT for changing RS:G such that future items have dedicated image files. Plus, this is never an argument against a policy as long as somebody is willing to do it.

If no more reasons for opposition are given or counter-arguments against the rebuttals are made, this thread will be closed with a decision of support.. Endasil (Talk) @  18:45, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the second point you mentioned above isn't exactly great. Most of the images have already been separated, so no work has to be done. The other thread was to delete all those duplicate images manually, and update the links. The Forum:Remove all Duplicate images thread would have meant a lot of work. This thread basically maintains the status quo with a small addition to RS:G. --LiquidTalk 18:51, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Organization = good. Ajraddatz Talk 18:56, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support: Seems to me if we did not have granualarity for files people would have to police all the uploads. Seems tedious, and for the sake of organization it's much more convenient to have images with the same name as the article, even if it is the exact same item art as something else. Just my two cents. --Whiplash 18:58, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - It has been decided that these images will be kept. The only thing left to do here is propose modifications to RS:G HaloTalk 21:12, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Modifications to RS:G

I am proposing that we modify RS:G to state that different items should have different files. If two or more images currently share an image, then it's not a big deal, and unless someone is bothered enough to change it, I think we can leave it like that for the time being. --LiquidTalk 21:14, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support HaloTalk 21:17, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support per all discussion insaneular The original Hazelnut spread 21:26, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support but how does this differ from the original proposal of this thread? Is it the part about "it not being a big deal"? If so, I would say that details or guidelines about enforcing or implementing the policy should be left out of the policy itself, lest the policy appear watered down or unclear. You wouldn't expect the law to say "It's illegal to exceed the speed limit, but it's not a big deal if people do by a few mph", even if that's the general understanding.

If there is no difference, I suggest we do not start up a new vote and delay this from closing yet again. Clearly we are close to consensus on the original proposal; there is no need to reset the discussion. Endasil (Talk) @  21:35, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Very true. The page should be changed then. HaloTalk 21:46, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
I have modified RS:G, please feel free to change it if you can make it better. I just thought it should reflect consensus. HaloTalk 22:04, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
I moved it to its own section since it seemed murky to try to fit images into the same template of justification we were using for other cases. Again, feel free to change further if this does not seem to reflect our position. Endasil (Talk) @  23:06, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
It looks way better, I just figured it couldn't hurt to have something up there. HaloTalk 23:07, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Request for Closure - This issue has been settled. HaloTalk 22:04, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Okay - Identical looking images for different items are not to be combined and are encouraged to be separated. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 23:22, April 6, 2010 (UTC)