Forum:Should OSR/RSC sprites be uploaded here?

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Should OSR/RSC sprites be uploaded here?
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 1 December 2014 by Liquidhelium.

Currently, a certain user is uploading images from OSR/RSC wikia and placing them on either templates or Graphical updates. Other than the fact he's also not following any name policy at all, it brings the question: Should all items and monsters from older versions of RS be uploaded here? There are 1289 items in RSC, and despite some like the Sleeping bag are removed, still a majority remain ingame. Should every single image of them that still exist in this game be uploaded? Same with monsters and OSR items.

--Jlun2 (talk) 11:10, November 21, 2014 (UTC)

Edit: Oh, and also, what to do with oldscape NPCs that have multiple models? Or ones that share the same/similar models? --Jlun2 (talk) 11:23, November 21, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Strong oppose - {{RSC page}} User talk:ThePsionic.png: RS3 Inventory image of User talk:ThePsionic ThePsionic Special:Contributions/ThePsionic.png: RS3 Inventory image of Special:Contributions/ThePsionic 11:11, November 21, 2014 (UTC)

Support - Yes, I think it should be uploaded.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cerdant (talk) on 11:18, 21 November 2014‎ (UTC).

Oppose - Setting aside the issue of conventions, this wiki documents the current game. RS Classic has its own wiki. "Old School" RS is a fork, also with its own wiki. --Saftzie (talk) 11:28, November 21, 2014 (UTC)

Depends - RS Classic has its own wiki so outside of the dozen or so images used for reference on a few RSC-related articles here, new ones shouldn't be uploaded, unless... yeah, a complete graphical updates page should ideally contain RSC versions of objects that carried across to Rs2. But I'm not firmly set on this; like I said, there's a separate wiki for it. And here's where we arrive at the second thing. It seems to me OSRS is a good chance to upload missing images of old sprites for the purpose of aforementioned graphical updates pages. Of course all modern non-canon additions or reworks have no place here, but I'm sure there are some images missing. The name policy could be established too. 5-x Talk 12:44, November 21, 2014 (UTC)

Comment - What extent should monsters/items be listed on Graphical updates? While its rather unfeasible to do all of them, it's also rather odd only some npcs/items get listed rather than as much as possible. Is there even a criteria for what deserves to have a GU section? --Jlun2 (talk) 22:27, November 21, 2014 (UTC)
Generally, only items that achieve some criterion for significance would be included in any wiki. Obviously this wiki includes a lot of detail about RuneScape and Jagex that would be relevant only to people who actively play the game. That said, I really consider those pages devoted to graphical updates to be almost entirely, if not completely, useless. Graphical updates happen all the time. So what? There can be some historical significance to the very first graphical design of something, especially to appreciate how far the game has come over the years. However, in many cases, people can simply look at the RS Classic wiki to see how stuff used to look. I'm unconvinced we really need images of every intervening graphical update just because it's an update. --Saftzie (talk) 23:17, November 21, 2014 (UTC)
Seconded. MolMan 23:19, November 21, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - The value of inventory sprites for this stuff is extremely minimal. MolMan 15:49, November 21, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - They have their own wikis to put those images in. -- Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 15:52, November 21, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose This is the modern day RuneScape wiki, not OS or Classic. I think their relevant images should go on their own wikis instead. Ozank Cx 15:57, November 21, 2014 (UTC)

Can we just get rid of GU since we have these new wikis now ._. - sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 22:12, November 24, 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. MolMan 22:15, November 24, 2014 (UTC)
But what of the dozens of NPCs that aren't even in OSRS and RSC? And the various monsters that have been updated multiple times since then. Honestly, I'd rather we didn't remove hundreds of images of historically significant things off the internet entirely ;/.Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 19:12, November 26, 2014 (UTC)
I think maybe 12 people max think they're significant. Make [[w:c:RuneScapeGU]]. MolMan 19:13, November 26, 2014 (UTC)
The Graphical Updates pages are some of the least visited pages on the wiki (someone with access to the analytics can back me up on this). They are difficult to maintain, have ambiguous organization, and practically necessitate large archives of low quality images. It seems that this discussion is deviating from the original topic. Would there be interest in a proposal to remove, or vastly scale down GU? Riblet15 08:55, November 27, 2014 (UTC)
I always preferred the idea of the historical image(s) being on the subject page rather than sequestered away on some laggy page with tons of other images, diminishing their individual worth by having so much in one spot. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 15:20, November 27, 2014 (UTC)
If we could keep it in control. I don't like the idea of these useless "historical images" being plastered on every page. Keeps the GU updaters out of the way pls MolMan 15:24, November 27, 2014 (UTC)
We have subpages for dialogue, maybe a subpage for graphical updates? Although that would involve creating thousands of pages that have just 1 or 2 images on them Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 15:25, November 27, 2014 (UTC)
It's less about where they are, more about how useless they are. We have file histories, I think anyone that cares about graphical updates should just look there. MolMan 15:27, November 27, 2014 (UTC)
We have plenty of pages that I'd say are less interesting than old graphics. The whole point of this discussion is to determine whether they are useful, you can't say "they're useless because they are useless" Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 15:46, November 27, 2014 (UTC)
You linked Weird gloop. It's obvious at this point that you're being a troll. Please stop. You are giving me PTSD. Triggers are against UTP. MolMan 15:48, November 27, 2014 (UTC)
I think you meant File:God War Dungeon Noob.png rather than N.O.O.B.. It's an exception rather than a rule, and would probably qualify as an original graphic, anyway. --Saftzie (talk) 22:20, November 27, 2014 (UTC)
Riblet, from the above discussion, I believe there is interest in looking over the future of GU. However this discussion should take place on another thread. (: sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 01:22, November 28, 2014 (UTC)
I did not Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 11:30, November 28, 2014 (UTC)
The "historically significant" ones would be, at best, the very original graphic. If there were 100 graphic updates since then, 99 of them can go. --Saftzie (talk) 23:35, November 26, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't think this is a valuable thing to do when many pages have links to the appropriate Other Wiki. From my point of view (one of the two active editors on the RSC wiki), there's also the question of how well-maintained RSC stuff would be on here. Equipment bonuses are all completely different on RSC, if old images are added, why not old bonuses, too? A lot of the equipment bonuses on the RSC wiki were transcribed incorrectly by people mostly familiar with RS2 and still need to be fixed. The idea of maintaining two sets of inaccurate content doesn't appeal to me. Stormy (talk) 19:01, November 26, 2014 (UTC)

Closed - This wiki is for the current version of RuneScape (at the moment, that's RuneScape 3). RuneScape Classic and Old School RuneScape images do not belong here and should instead be uploaded to their respective wikis. This is not meant to be a complete ban on all classic/old school images, as there are pages that benefit from having their original looks in the article. However, these cases are uncommon at best. --LiquidTalk 08:18, December 1, 2014 (UTC)