Forum:One item - one image?

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > One item - one image?
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 4 June 2011 by ZamorakO_o.


(I didn't know exactly what to search and I don't recall there was a decision on this subject)

DISCLAIMER: This isn't such a big of a deal, I just wanted to be 100% sure on the subject.

So, this regards images taken as sets, for example File:Bryll robes set equipped.png. Right, so the question is: should the separate parts (legs, top, etc.) be uploaded as separate images, while keeping the whole set image on its page (this page Bryll_robes in this case), or should the set image be used on every occasion that refers to the separate parts (means ditch the separate parts images)?  Nom Triangle sandwich detail.png 16:33, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

(whoops, title is a bit misleading :X)

Discussion

Comment - As far as I am aware, if we have an image of somebody wearing a full set, that is used to avoid duplicate images being visible on the wiki. Also, if you say what title you would rather have it can be changed What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 16:39, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - As far as I know, the status quo is to have the full set appear on all part articles. However, I would rather have separate images of each part, since it would make it easier to see how exactly that part looks. For example, on :File:Bryll robes set equipped.png|this image, I have no idea if that belt part belongs to the robe top or the bottom. On the other hand, that is a minor issue, so I would be surprised if most people did not consider uploading parts separately a waste of time. bad_fetustalk 16:47, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I've seen it and done it both ways, normally depending on if there is an existing image(s) or not. I don't think there's an actual right way - It's not like someone is going to delete 6 separate images to replace them with one of full armor set image. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 16:50, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I've seen Psycho delete images of parts because an image for the set existed. His reasoning was that it was unnecessary to have separate images when you could just have the set image. However, I do not know if he is the only one that does that, or whether or not we have a policy on it. bad_fetustalk 17:14, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I think I'll just opt for the first choice, upload separate parts and keep the set image on the complete set page. Though, some sort of guideline should be agreed on and written in the image policy or something :s.  Nom Triangle sandwich detail.png 17:10, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

tnemmoC - When I deleted individual item images, it was usually because it was a very simple set, like dragonhide, where there was no clear benefit from having individual images, or because there was one good set image and a bunch of crummy individual images (sd, jpg, terrible angle, etc.). I don't feel like I've been indiscriminately replacing all individual images with set images. That said, I don't necessarily agree that individual images are ever really needed. Ok, so you don't know whether the belt is on the top piece or the bottom piece, but does that really matter? Will that ever influence your decision to use a piece of equipment? kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 19:45, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - While I see your point, I still think that, say, the "X Platebody" should have an image of that specific item, and not a whole set, which to me feels a bit... I dunno, cheap? Think of it as uh, image granularity? Heh.  Nom Triangle sandwich detail.png 20:16, May 13, 2011 (UTC)
I see other parts of the same set in an image as costumeish, sometimes they cover up certain parts of the piece you're trying to convey in the image. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 22:02, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - A small agreement with Nom for me. I know the example of not knowing where the belt belongs is trivial, but don't we add lots of trivial info at the bottom of some pages? It's the small, trivial, "ah-ha" moment stuff that makes this site better then other RS help sites. However, what I really don't want to see is a platebody article (example) having a full set picture while the matching plateleg article only has a picture of the platelegs. Really, I'm for the side with the bulk of the crowd, because I want a consensus rather than inconsistency. Fletching-icon.png Iceslide123 Fletching cape.pngFree UGCs

Comment - Didn't we already have this discussion in regards to this controversial criterion which was later voted against and removed from the Images and Media Policy? I'm just a bit curious here... [1] N7 Elite (Ready to talk now?) 19:18, May 14, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I myself as active image maker do not really want to do triple (or even more) work just to get images for one set. A trans for one full equipment body shot takes 5-10 minutes usually, and I don't want one set with helm, ammy, body, gloves, legs and boots to take 6 times longer than needed. I don't think people will care enough about it to be worth the extra time. I'd rather spend that time making another image, which would help a lot more. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 02:11, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

Agree, we spend a lot of hours making a thing that users like well hm adam yea imma say adam not savage, doesn't even pay attention to like what? -- CakeMixwhut? 04:07, May 15, 2011 (UTC)
Uh... whut? kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 04:26, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
My Phat senses says that parsonsda isn't blocked anymore :< -- CakeMixwhut? 01:50, May 18, 2011 (UTC)
Lol'd. (davelopo) 14:16, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
Fine by me, but may I suggest that if we are not planning to add anymore separate armor pictures to the wiki, we should have the full armor set on all the separate armor pages, for consistency. Example: The image on Dragon chain armour set (lg) be put on Dragon med helm etc. Fletching-icon.png Iceslide123 Fletching cape.pngFree UGCs
Joey:Nobody is forcing you to take part in it? bad_fetustalk 11:06, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

INCREDIBLY weak oppose - I like the idea and I do prefer watching images with only one item. I really do and I find it better for almost everything. However, I oppose because of all the extra work it would take when taking screenshots, applying transparency and then doing it over again when a set of armour (or all runescape characters) gets updated. I'm just not sure it's worth it. -Hourglass (2011 Hallowe'en event) detail.png I Am Fendse Talk III The Spark.png- 20:59, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - I guess it would be nice to have a separate image for each item, but it's not very realistic. Maintenance would be much harder to do (imagine if avatars got updated again, we still haven't replaced everything from the FF update) and it would be a long time until we got good images put up. ɳex undique 21:02, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Especially for things like boots and gloves which often get covered up by other equipment. Sure, it would require a lot of maintenance, but we wouldn't have to have a huge search for all WNTW images, just encourage uploading better ones. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 01:37, May 19, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - So if this gets passed, does that no one would be allowed to put on costumes anymore? For example, showing off boots means no hat, etc? kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 02:56, May 20, 2011 (UTC)

IMO, this should mean that you could upload an image with other equips etc., but when there's a better image with only the said item, it should replace the previous one.  Nom Triangle sandwich detail.png 06:59, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
Tbh, you could use common sense about that. I mean, if you wear a hat when taking the image of your boots, it's clearly not going to affect anything. On the other hand, if you wear platelegs when taking the image of boots, it would make it hard to tell the edges of the boot, so in this case, a seperate image would be preferred. bad_fetustalk 18:29, May 20, 2011 (UTC)
Clearly we wouldn't yell at someone, or delete an image, just because it was taken with extra stuff on. That said, common sense isn't that common, so wouldn't be easiest to say we prefer images with no other equipment on? kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 08:40, May 21, 2011 (UTC)
The main reason I don't want to add that as a rule is that it doesn't cover the clothing a player has, which could also interfere with the image, especially because of the 25 August 2010 update. bad_fetustalk 11:32, May 21, 2011 (UTC)
That's actually a good point, some default clothes really look like equipment and therefor distracting. To be completely honest, I really don't know what can be done on the subject, because asking to change the default clothes for a picture is too much =\  Nom Triangle sandwich detail.png 19:28, May 21, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - There's just no reason to trouble ourselves with that many more images when there's not really much benefit. --LiquidTalk 02:59, May 20, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - A detailed image of the item can be found on almost all individual item pages. Personally, I think that image is good enough; having both an equipped item image and the detailed image is redundant. Although an image of an equipped item may showcase the item better since it's actually being worn by a player, the detailed image still does its job - it depicts the item without distracting elements. We also don't need to worry about replacing the detailed images due to avatar updates (unless the actual item is updated).  Tien  19:59, May 21, 2011 (UTC)

Just have one image - Per all. Having more than one is unnecessary. Matt (t) 07:01, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

The idea is to have separate images, not to have more than one image for a single item. bad_fetustalk 15:59, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
I know. Matt (t) 06:12, May 24, 2011 (UTC)

Question - If this proposal does not pass, do we delete the images of any item worn separately because they are considered duplicates, or do we still prefer them over using images of a complete set on a single item's article? I, personally would prefer if they were kept, although one might want to delete them for the sake of consistency. bad_fetustalk 16:03, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

Not A does not necessarily imply B --Henneyj 02:52, May 25, 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. bad_fetustalk 16:52, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral - I don't think it really matters. There can be cases made for both sides - on the one hand a set images reduces the number of images and time taken, on the other individual images allows an item to be seen as an individual item more easily (in fact in some cases a set image would be practically useless) and one item being more 'accessible'. Realistically the weighing of either scenario varies by case. What I do think is notable is that there are no significant disadvantages to either. It is likely, however, that enforcing either stance would impact negatively, particularly if changing all existing images in accordance. Therefore i think it's best just to allow both possibilities and just allow people to judge based on the needs of the items involved. --Henneyj 02:52, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

Allowing people to judge according to the items is not a good idea, it will simply lead into edit wars. bad_fetustalk 16:52, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus to implement any changes. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 02:09, June 4, 2011 (UTC)