Forum:Remove all Duplicate images

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Remove all Duplicate images
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 4 April 2010 by Psycho Robot.

First off, please check RuneScape:Requests for deletion/File:Ghrims book.PNG and RuneScape:Requests for deletion/File:Clean rogue's purse.png.

All duplicate images should be removed from the wiki. Doesn't Ground bat bones use the Ashes picture?


  • Proposal: Remove all Duplicate images - As nom. --Coolnesse 18:50, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - For the reasons I have stated here. And if they do use the same image, then that's probably because people were too lazy to upload separate images. I'll go do thaft now. --LiquidTalk 18:51, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I nominated the previous Ground bat bones GIF image for deletion, and it was a success. --Coolnesse 19:02, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Most likely because it was a GIF. I'll go look at the RfD if I can find it. --LiquidTalk 00:01, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - That would be a nightmare for anyone trying to edit the Herblore page get an idea of what herb is what. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 18:52, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - Per Steler FredeTalk 18:59, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - They really are not duplicate images, it's either that Jagex is to lazy to change the colour of some sprites or the uploader(s) neglected to use different files. Either way, they are not duplicates, so stop tagging sprites for speedy or vfd's. Ryan PM 19:03, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per Steler 19:04, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - If they are different items, they should have different pictures. Even if it's a difference in the name only. How confusing is it for people to see an item with a different item's name? It may seem unnecessary, but it will make things easier if images change (as they are prone to do), and less confusing for people who aren't accustomed to this idea. HaloTalk 19:14, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - 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:Granularity for Files 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) 

Oppose Merge - Per below. --Coolnesse 19:35, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Oppose merge - I proposed that to edit RS:G, while this proposal is to delete duplicate images. They're different. The outcomes are related, but the proposals are different. --LiquidTalk 19:40, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Nightmare. Per all. --Aburnett(Talk) 19:36, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
It would be very confusing for a user to follow a link from one article to an image that is named after another article (just like your example). This would also be very tough for our administrators to stay on top of as new images are uploaded all the time, and slight differences between 2 images might be overlooked as the same image. --Aburnett(Talk) 20:04, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've tried to do many, many things in previous times, they were all rejected. Can you please be nice this one time? Cry --Coolnesse 19:39, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
I am being nice. I care most about the wiki. If I don't believe something will benefit the wiki, then I will oppose it. Are you suggesting that since you have suggested many things and people haven't supported them, that one of your suggestions should be done, no matter how bad it might be? HaloTalk 19:41, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. However, they never were that bad... --Coolnesse 19:43, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Coolnesse, remember that we are opposing because we don't think it will be the best thing for the wiki. Don't take it personally just because the idea was yours, I'm sure everyone here has proposed a idea that has been mercilessly gunned down by the community Smile. Just because one proposal you made gets rejected doesn't mean we are discrediting you as an editor. Take it in stride and remember its no big deal. --Aburnett(Talk) 19:46, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Well I can't say I've seen all of your suggestions, but it looks to me like you are asking for a pity vote. Which is a pretty half-ass way to do things. (Excuse my French, if you think a better phrase to state the same message, feel free to replace it.) HaloTalk 19:47, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Forum:Allow use of Forum Avatars and RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Troll Cook --Coolnesse 19:49, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Hoolah, please try to be understanding. It can be tough when it seems that everyone regards your idea as stupid and unneeded. Just remember that he had to think it was a good idea to propose it, so try not to be so harsh. --Aburnett(Talk) 19:52, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
I am understanding. He is suggesting that we all hand him a pity vote. I am not being harsh. If you think this is harsh, you have a world to see. I do NOT do things that are not beneficial out of pity. HaloTalk 19:56, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not saying that we should support this out of pity, I'm saying that we should give him constructive criticism so he knows why this is being opposed (I've elaborated on my reasoning, see above), as well as not jumping all over him just because he is frustrated by his ideas being repeatedly rejected. --Aburnett(Talk) 20:04, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Plenty of people have given him reasons, which he has appeared to ignore. Until I see proof otherwise, or how this will benefit the wiki, my vote stays opposed. HaloTalk 20:28, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Those images are completely the same. Just change the name to "Ashes-Groundbatbones.PNG" or something. If the graphics of those items are changed, we'll split it then. No need to do it right now. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 20:04, 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. " - Quote from Helium...which gives you your answer. That way, everybody wins. Why take the hard road when you can take the easy road. The space is no issue. I don't see what we gain from doing it in the way Coolnesse has suggested. Could you please explain that to me, then I might be able to support this. HaloTalk 20:26, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Jagex will never releasy 1,000 items that all look exactly the same. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 22:04, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
You should try reading again. Not 1,000 items, 1,000 pages linking to these item(s). That would be a nightmare. HaloTalk 22:10, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Still never gonna happen. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 22:13, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Lots of pages link to does it hurt to leave them as separate files, explain to me that. HaloTalk 22:24, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
How does it hurt to leave them as one image, explain to me that. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 22:26, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
It requires a lot more work in the long run, and you still didn't answer my question. HaloTalk 22:28, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
How does it hurt? It doesn't. But it also doesn't hurt to not do it. There's no point in doing this right now, if we could also do it later, when (if!) that problem ever comes up. It doesn't require a lot more work in the long run - maybe a teeny tiny little bit, but not a lot. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 22:37, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
You clearly need to read what helium said more carefully, he has explained exactly why this will bite us in the rear-end. If it doesn't hurt, then there's no reason to just leave it alone. HaloTalk 22:40, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Stop telling me to read it again. I have already read it multiple times. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 22:44, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Then I am wondering how you still fail to see how it could potentially be an editing nightmare if we change it now. HaloTalk 22:48, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for tempalting reasons. For example {{Exchange varieties}} could be modified to use images, but this would fail if there were an item called Hat (blue) that used the file "Wizards hat.png" Unless we can use redirects which I have not experimented with in File:space. Incidentally redirects are really cheap and its a shame to see pages moved/deleted without creating them - really cheap in this context means a few hundred thousand per wiki are neither here nor there, means it costs more (even not counting human resource which is 99.9% of the cost at least) to discuss deleting one that to keep it. Rich Farmbrough, 21:26 27 March 2010 (GMT).

I just checked on another Wikia wiki, and it looks like file redirects work fine. --Quarenon  Talk 22:42, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Per Steler.  Ranged-icon.png Zap0i TalkRune scimitar.png  22:22, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Weak oppose - Please explain to me how this is hurting the wiki. Ajraddatz Talk 00:03, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

It's adding that few extra KB onto the wiki, even though the wiki space is almost infinite. --Coolnesse 00:21, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
So you are disproving yourself? I'm confused. But good job I guess? HaloTalk 00:23, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - For the reasons I said on the RFD. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 00:35, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per all. If it isn't really broken why fix it? Just adds more work in general. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 04:12, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Nobody has identified merits of this approach other than server space, which really isn't an issue at the scale we're talking. There are significant reasons not to do it, as already discussed. At a quick glance, I didn't see a third drawback from this approach which is, if the images DO diverge at some point, we won't have a history of how that item looked since we won't have a file history for it. I strongly support the idea that not only should we not delete the "duplicates", but if there are any items that are piggybacking on an item image that happens to look the same, then it should get its own image.

What you are suggesting is almost like saying that Mary-Kate Olsen and Ashley Olsen should link to the same baby picture of Ashley, since they looked the same anyway. Endasil (Talk) @  06:47, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - What of equipment images such as the elemental staves? Fire staff, Fire battlestaff and Mystic fire staff all look exactly the same, but the images were different, so I replaced all the pages with the best image (in terms of size, file size and quality) which was :File:Fire Battlestaff.png, as one was far too small and had no transparency, while the other was roughly the same size but with a larger file size. In this case, using duplicate images has a significant benefit, we do not have to wait for someone to add transparency to or retake the small image, we can just use one from another article. C.ChiamTalk 07:24, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying that you should retake all of those images. If they are all identical, then maybe just make one perfect and upload under all three different names. Endasil (Talk) @  07:36, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
"upload under all three different names". I don't know about you, but that sounds very redundant in my ears. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 08:40, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Sometimes, an item has the exact same look, ie: Enchanted egg and egg. Though the article use the same picture, while looking around the wiki, I saw a file for the enchanted egg, and I saw that less than 5 minutes ago!!! We do not need copies. sig1.png Spam me w/ lolcatsPottery statuette detail.png Is <insert name here> awesome? I don't know, let me check... 18:26, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Closed There is strong and consistent opposition on this thread, and there is a more recent, or rather more comprehensive discussion on this thread. The result of this thread is not that all images (such as the various elemental staves and rings) must be immediately separated, but rather that current duplicated images for different items are not to be combined into one image. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 22:16, April 4, 2010 (UTC)