Forum:One image or multiple?

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

RS:GRAN says that identical items, etc. should have identical images, but uploaded to respective file names. The example it gives is actually invalid because they aren't identical, but the reasoning the policy provides is "Keeping separate images for separate items (or NPCs), even when they look identical, is less confusing, promotes organization, and reduces the work required if the images diverge.".

Yesterday, I was uploading already-existing images to different file names per this part of RS:GRAN. Not just because I was blindly following the policy, but because I agree that we should have multiple images myself. However, it came to my attention that a lot of people might not agree with that part of the policy. So here are my proposals:

1 - We continue to have multiple images for identical items, etc.. No existing occurences of this are deleted, merged, or the like and no changes are made to the policy. Nothing really changes.

2 - We have one image for identical items. Repeated occurences of item, etc. images are deleted, merged, or the like. Articles are updated to point to one single images as a result. The policy is changed to comply with this decision.



Support 1 - As nom. While I can see the benefits of having one image, I think they are outweighed by the benefits of having multiple. I think that having multiple images is less confusing than having one image. Instead of having 3 different item pages use one item's image which may be obscure, they can all link back to their own image where they can have templates or categories that may be relevant to one item but not the others. The only burden I can think of this causing is when an image is updated, all the others would have to be manually updated, which may not be on the agenda of the uploader, also because the image page simply doesn't link to them. However, if this is noticed, then the updated can be simply be saved and re-uploaded. There might be some lag in this process, but it doesn't outweigh the benefits of having multiple images I listed above in my opinion. Matt (t) 21:55, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - For reference, the original thread is Forum:Granularity for Files. My opinion hasn't changed in the year and a half since I wrote that thread, so I'll spare the long-winded rhetoric for now.

However, I'm wondering if anyone has actually explicitly taken a stand against the policy as it currently stands, or if this is just a thought that you had. --LiquidTalk 22:15, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

No one has taken an explicit stand against the policy, but a few users shared their dismay at what I was doing, and I thought other people could think the same way. Of course, people's opinions change over the course of a year and a half. People who supported that then might oppose that now. I really just wanted to get something definite that the community agrees on in the current point in time to work off. Matt (t) 22:24, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

Support 1 - It's impossible to name the image correctly per our new image naming guidelines if we use one image for multiple items. I noticed during Thanksgiving that we had one image for the two turkey protestors. I was like mkay, whatever, but the file was named accurately for only one of the protestors and it had both NPC licenses on it. That's just ridiculous. In the future, one item could be changed to differentiate between it and the other item with the same image, splitting the two early on would help fix that. Having to manually update each image if both are updated the same is miniscule compared to the problems with having one image for multiple things. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 22:16, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

Support 1 - It'll be easier to edit if one of the images changes, for example if Guthix's Book of Balance changes, then we won't have to go through the fuss of getting a seperate image for Ghrim's book. What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 22:20, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense with what #1 is proposing.. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 22:21, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
Yes it does. That was the whole point of my original thread. --LiquidTalk 22:22, December 2, 2011 (UTC)
Oh nevermind, I understand ^-^ sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 22:31, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

Support 2 - It just seems simpler. If you have exactly the same image there is no reason it can't be used on both items. So what if the image name is not correct for both items, it's not a massive deal and doesn't affect anything. So what if there are 2 licenses on a file page, there is no problem with that. If one image updates it is more likely that both will update at the same time and having them as one single image is simpler to update than 2 separate images. The only time having 2 images would be alright is if one of the items is a historical item, like Thingy, as that can never be updated. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 02:17, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support 2 - Per sentra. we dont need multiple images showing the exact same thing. having only 1 image makes everything easierto my talk page! King TALKWer den König nicht ehrt, ist nicht Lebenswert. 02:28, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

Mild support 1, verging on neutral - Keep as is and be flexible about it. I don't think we should adhere to this strictly. There are different situations where either may be useful. I can say for sure that I have uploaded separately in some cases and together in others.

For example, many jewellery items share an image with their enchanted versions. In fact, when their images were updated they were updated together to the same thing. This is somewhat logical - they are closely related items so it makes that they have identical images, and are easy to check if updated. It's much more convenient and practical to have them share an image.

However, there are cases where items with identical images are completely unrelated to eachother. This is often true with low use items such as quest items. In most cases there is no reason to assume that an update to one will mean the other will be updated, and it may be somewhat more difficult to check. Therefore it is more practical to keep them separated, and prevents inaccurate representations of images. It would seem that the now outdated example on the granularity page is a good example of the advantages of separate images. Furthermore, in most cases where only a few identical images are likely to be updated, the hassle of uploading to separate pages is pretty insignificant (as opposed to a large batch of images such as the jewellery). In summary, the current guiding is good for the general case, but needn't be enforced all the time. --Henneyj 03:29, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 14:09, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

Support 1 - A short answer here. Multiple images of practically the same thing can be used for some variety in the images. E.g.: we take an image of a gold ring of ninety degrees (facing down) by dropping it on the Poison Waste ramp, and do a partial side view for the ring of visibility. They are the same so, why have twice the same image if we can make them differ from each other? User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 09:19, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that we'd have to differentiate the images in order to have two of them? Matt (t) 21:57, December 3, 2011 (UTC)
Not that we must, but it'd be a pity not to make use of the opportunity. Twice the same image is fine, but making one different from the other adds some variety. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 18:04, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose 2 - It's not like uploading an image multiple times will make us run out of space. There is absolutely no point of using the same image for different items just because they look identical. bad_fetustalk 20:48, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

Support 1 image. I don't see the need to have two identical images, one works just fine. ajr 18:09, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that proposal 2? ɳex undique 18:11, December 4, 2011 (UTC)
I'm assuming you mean "support 1 image", but with most people using that wording to mean "support proposal number 1", you should probably clarify that. Suppa chuppa Talk 18:12, December 4, 2011 (UTC)
Hehe, sorry about that :3 ajr 18:13, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

Support 1 - It will save time in the long run and make things easier for us later. ɳex undique 18:12, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

Support 1, but do keep using your brain - with some common sense like not uploading 8 images of a games necklace or 3 images of a ddp, ddp+ and ddp++, I think it would be very useful. An example would be the identical Pretzel Bert and Freaky Forester, for which it would be better to have 2 images. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 18:21, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

Also, I think having multiple images for auras that have no other effects (so all the basic auras, not the winged ones) is also a waste of time. Having one image for them all is good enough. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 19:59, December 7, 2011 (UTC)
Agreed on auras. Also, Bert and the Forester are not identical. Their tops are different. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 16:06, December 8, 2011 (UTC)

Support 1 - Per Gaz. Ronan Talk 20:00, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

Support 1 - Simply because it'll be slightly less work when something gets updated, while neither option is actually better in any other way as far as I can see. I'm lazy, so what? Lol -Hourglass (2011 Hallowe'en event) detail.png I Am Me Talk III The Spark.png- 16:03, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - Items which have identical inventory or equipment icons/images will continue to be kept in separate files distinguished by the file name. No real change will occur. Suppa chuppa Talk 20:33, December 13, 2011 (UTC)