Forum:Image of the Month
I've brought this up a few times in the IRC, ad it hasn't really gotten anywhere. So, the idea is simple: Like articles, images would be voted on monthly to be featured on the Main Page to show the best of the best images on the wiki.
This has been, you could say 'tested', on RuneScape Fan Fiction. It goes just fine when people act like it's a voting for a featured article, but an image instead. On RuneScape fan Fiction, we give credit to the photographer, and require permission by them to feature. This doesn't have to happen here though. If Tarikochi went inactive, that would decrease the possible featured images by a few hundred, and may pose an annoying problem.
Now, it would be very lopsided for stills when running against animations. A good still would probably be beat out by an animation. For this reason, I've thought up that there would be a IotM (Image of the Month) and AnotM (Animation of the Month) sections in the same page. This way, still photographers (most of us) would have our 'time to shine', and not always be beaten by animation makers (a few of us).
Support-Lol 'pl0x', Yes I think it's a great idea. Cheers, [[Image:Kandarincrest.gif|25px]]Chicken7 >talk>sign 09:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose-I'm not sure I like the idea of voting on the creativity of images on the wiki. In my opinion, photos should be functional (they should only be there to add understanding to an article), not an expression of artistic skill. Implying anything else will bring competition and bloatedness to article images, when in reality, an image for an article should either be suitable or not. This idea makes sense in the context of Fan Fiction, however I don't believe it makes sense in the context of a functional wiki. I definitely oppose the best animation idea, for another reason (which will be discussed further in another section): we should keep the front page as minimalistic (from a bandwidth perspective) as possible. Remember, this is the first thing that people see when visiting our site for the first time. If the very first thing they see takes 20 seconds to load, they'll probably just leave and find another site. Endasil (Talk) @ 21:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Considering that many of our images are there as vanity pieces, this will only make "getting your image on the wiki" even more tacky Atlandy 22:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose- I read this proposal last night and had no opinion, until I came back today and read why people are opposing. They make an awful lot of sense.--Degenret01 23:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)