Forum:Obsolete featured images

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Obsolete featured images
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 8 July 2011 by Liquidhelium.

Recently, there have been a couple of featured image delists and replacements that involved an obsolete image. Thy created a bit of confusion, because there are no rules about what to do when a featured image becomes outdated. On the Dragith Nurn delist, I closed it as successful even though there was no consensus. My reasoning was that, because the model had been updated and having an updated picture should take priority over the featured image procedures, the image should be replaced and thus delisted.

On the Falador Park replacement, some people supported replacement because the previous version was obsolete (Hazelmere's statue was updated). Another said that the opposes were pointless because the old version was outdated. By this logic, a high-quality image with outdated graphics could be replaced by a lower-quality image with updated graphics based mostly on the fact that the previous version was obsolete.

With that in mind, I would like to propose an amendment to the featured image policy, regarding outdated images. I really do not care if my policy is enacted so long as we have something to go by.

As RuneScape's graphics get updated, featured images can become obsolete. When this occurs, a section on this page should be made, stating that the image is obsolete and requesting that someone nominate a suitable replacement. If there is no nomination for replacement within two weeks, the image will be delisted. If the replacement fails, the image will be delisted. The only exception to this is if the image is of such historical significance that it adds to the relevant mainspace page, in which case the image may remain featured. Arguments for this should be held in the aforementioned section on this page.

Per my closing statement on the Dragith Nurn delist, obsoleteness (sp?) is reason enough to delist an image. This policy only expedites that and makes it clearer. All parts of this proposal (especially the time limit) are open to adjustment. ʞooɔ 08:57, June 22, 2011 (UTC)


Support - I agree wholeheartedly. Obsolete images do not make us a complete wiki, especially with all this red tape on when to update an image when it is featured. This should also apply to new updates and not allowing nomination within a certain time-frame of their release as to not cause what Joey and I did with File:Brackish blade detail.png. Ryan PM 13:12, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Per nom. bad_fetustalk 15:37, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Support - The priority for this wiki is to be an up-to-date source of information, which it isn't if we favour the look of an image over its reliability. Real Mad 15:51, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Support - That would clear up all this confusion. The 2-week time frame sounds suitable as well. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 18:07, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Support - It's sometimes way too hard to get an obsolete FIMG replaced/removed. This would be great to keep the main page as actual as possible. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 21:13, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Couldn't have said it better myself. Matt (t) 21:25, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Support, agreed with above. ajr 03:21, June 23, 2011 (UTC)

Support - And since pretty much everything has been said, I can't come up with any good, new points here. I'm sad now =( -Hourglass (2011 Hallowe'en event) detail.png I Am Fendse Talk III The Spark.png- 23:06, June 23, 2011 (UTC)

Partial support - Just not delist when the nomination for replacement fails. Another one can try, which might succeed, resulting in a maximum of two attempted nominations in those two weeks. Seems fair. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 15:00, June 24, 2011 (UTC)

I guess that could work if someone makes it clear that they intend to nominate another image if the first fails. ʞooɔ 20:33, June 24, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Could we add a parameter to {{obsolete}} that allows it to say the image is a FIMG and should be delisted after replacement? Real Mad 15:25, June 24, 2011 (UTC)

Might be best to just have its own template. ʞooɔ 20:33, June 24, 2011 (UTC)

Support - per all. Dragon 2h sword old.pngCallofduty4 Talk 02:28, June 25, 2011 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this over the past few days. I was looking through the FIMG gallery and it struck me. Obsolete-ness isn't the only problem here. There are small things eg., ground dec, aa, to big things like angles etc..

So I propose we expand on this proposal and have a nomination for improvement kinda thing. Users can nominate images that they think can be improved, and people can improve them. Quite simple really.

I don't think these nominations should have a time limit before they are closed. People can put forward images that they think can replace it. These nominations should only be closed when there is consensus to implement a new version, etc.. The obsolete images, however, can still be delisted in accordance to your guidelines, but I don't think the discussion should actually be closed until there is consensus, etc..

I have a couple of problems with closing these nominations with "no consensus" or "discussion has died". These nominations should be more of a call for help, and shouldn't be closed until there is consensus to implement a new version.

You're guidelines for obsolete images would still be included, but it just wouldn't be focusing on obsolete images. It would be focusing on generally improving our featured images - obsolete images being a big part of that.

Matt (t) 06:04, June 28, 2011 (UTC)

Also, could you please explain what those nominations would differ from the current nominations for replacement? Improvements to images are already made, and suggested to be used via replacement nominations (for example improving this to this). So, I don't see what those new kinds of nominations would differ at all. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 10:18, June 29, 2011 (UTC)
Nominations for replacement are when someone has a replacement, they just need consensus to implement it. What I am planning is a notice to drive attention to crappy FIMGs so that they can be improved. There are some quite obvious things that could be improved in FIMGs that haven't been for year(s), and I believe this would help improve them. Matt (t) 21:58, June 29, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - The proposed section will be added to the featured images policy. --LiquidTalk 22:30, July 8, 2011 (UTC)