Forum:Standardize chatheads

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Standardize chatheads
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 2 July 2012 by 9the Enigma9.

Having taken a look at Category:Chathead images, theres a lot of chatheads images with certain traits that make them look ridiculous, and here's a small percentage of those type of images:

And here are some excellent ones:

This may be radical, but I propose that we make some sort of policy to standardize chat head images and also replace certain chatheads that have long beards, or hoods, that do not have AA, because earlier there a a revert war that occured: chathead.png the Huntsman chathead.png

Of course if I could, I would replace all of it myself, I just want to know the community's opinion before doing so, and hopefully get some help from other filemakers.

--Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 16:39, June 15, 2012 (UTC)


Comment - We already have standardizations, it's called RS:IMG. We replace old images with new. The ones with long beards or hoods are old. We replace non-AA images with AA. The ones with long beards or hoods do not have AA. Etc. If someone really wanted to see some dude's beard, they could look at the NPC image. Also I'd like to ask, what is the point of all the images at the top? I think you forgot to mention, but I'd support replacing stupid expressions with neutral or happy ones. I'm tired of seeing all these "O:" chatheads. I asked someone the reasoning behind it - they said it was to see more of the item in question (like the back of a hat). I oppose taking images of chatheads with stupid expressions just to see more of the subject. That's what the NPC image is for. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 16:45, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

Question - What exactly are the differences between the "ridiculous ones" and the "excellent ones"? Both of the example sections look like pretty, and complete, chat heads.

 a proofreader ▸ 

20:32, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

The facial expression at the time the prtscrn button was pressed, I believe. Small recharge gem.png AnselaJonla Slayer-icon.png 20:33, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Your idea of "ridiculous" is completely subjective. I cannot see any real problem with the above images, and the majority of them I wouldn't notice a difference compared to your "excellent" ones. Per RS:IMG. 222 talk 02:01, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

If you take a closer look of the first gallery most of their mouths are open which can look pretty "ridiculous" and as much as I agree that a majority wouldn't really notice, any filemaker would notice the awkward frame where it was taken. I would replace these all on my own if necessary, I'm just asking the general opinion before I make a move. --Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 02:07, June 16, 2012 (UTC)
I can see that, it doesn't take a "filemaker" to notice things like that. Like I said, your idea of "ridiculous" is completely subjective. I don't see a problem with the chatheads, and I doubt people would care, like you said. If you really wanted, you could replace those images, and you probably won't need consensus to do so. But I really think it isn't worth the effort. 222 talk 02:17, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Completely subjective! Of the above, I only found the Combat hood 0 chathead ridiculous, but I did that on purpose in order to have the chatbox circle cut of less of the hood. The others in that row seem perfectly fine to me. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 06:13, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Also, the inside of the mouth is quite interesting for non-human beings, having a closed mouth may sometimes make the beard-to-moustache-hair look weird (Artimeus example above) and some items/NPCs simply can't close their mouth (Helm of Neitiznot, Orry), commenting on the mouth comments before. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 06:19, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Just replace them if you think they're stupid. There shouldn't be any edit wars since it's just a chathead and, like I said, if people wanted to see the item-in-question they could look at the NPC image. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 15:52, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I don't get it... I thought the 'ridiculous' ones looked better (mostly anyways) bad_fetustalk 18:00, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Assuming the objective of this thread is to replace hundreds of images with a slight change in facial expression to achieve some sort of neutrality, I think it's an utterly useless waste when there are thousands of other files that require much more urgent maintenance. Ronan Talk 19:17, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - In all honesty, I don't understand why we even have chat head images on every NPC's page. It's redundant and a waste of our servers' capacity, since, if we wanted to see what the NPC looked like, we could simply take a peek at the NPC's full-body shot.David Zember 21:45, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

We will never run out of server space at the rate we're going at, so that isn't a problem. 222 talk 04:30, June 17, 2012 (UTC)
This request for closure is complete A user has requested closure for Standardize chatheads. Request complete. The reason given was: Discussion has died down and no consensus has been established. Unless someone wants to comment, this thread should be closed within a couple of hours.

User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 10:09, July 1, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - No consensus has been achieved, likely due to the lack of a ample proposal. The discussion has run its course. No changes to the image and media policy will be made. — Enigma 17:07, July 2, 2012 (UTC)