Forum:The Picture Rating System

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > The Picture Rating System
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 12 July 2009 by Soldier 1033.


I think that we should have a system for pictures on this wiki since many people try to upload their pictures on this wiki and use it on their userpage. For example, one might wearing full rune and some accessories

(i.e. amulet of power) and upload it onto the page rune armour and their own userpage. The answer? Have a picture point/value system. If their is already a picture on a certain page, (i.e. someone wearing full rune), then you can only replace that picture if the value of your picture exceeds the existing one.

Also, if an article is to be featured, all its pictures must have the maximum number of points.

For equippable items

[[File:Rune scimi.PNG|thumb|This items has 6/7 points. The player is wearing items not related to the article [[rune scimitar]], such as the strength skillcape.]]

These articles can have up to 7 pictures:

1) a small picture (usually in the item box template)

2) a big picture (usually from the grand exchange database on the Runescape website)

3) a male player wearing/wielding the item

4) a female player wearing/wielding the item

5) the item when it is dropped on the ground/on a table

6) the item's special attack (if any)

7) the item's previous appearance (if any)


3 points: a picture that relates to the article

+1 point: high detail

+1 point: clear picture (i.e. png file)

+1 point: taken with the equipment stats interface so it's big and clear (if worn)

+1 point: the file is an animated gif (if using special attack)

+1 point: isolation (if the picture contains only the required items and nothing else, a picture demanding a rune full helm will not receive this point if someone uploading a picture of full rune)

For other items

[[File:Cr.png|thumb|left|42px|This item has 5/5 points.]]

These articles can have up to 4 pictures:

1) a small picture (usually in the item box template)

2) a big picture (usually from the grand exchange database on the Runescape website)

3) the item when it is dropped on the ground/on a table

4) the item's previous appearance (if any)


3 points: a picture that relates to the article

+1 point: high detail

+1 point: clear picture (i.e. png file)

For Monsters

These articles can have 4 or more pictures:

1) the monster attacking, or just the monster (usually in monster box template)

2) the monster dying

3) the monster's previous appearance (if any)

4+) the monster's various forms (i.e. lesser demon)


3 points: a picture that relates to the article

+1 point: high detail

+1 point: clear picture (i.e. png file)

+1 point: animated gif


Comments

--Disk of returning.png Blackhole252 Disk of returning.png 21:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC), creator of this page

Comment - A picture of the monster dying and the monster's previous appearance just seem unnecessary to me to have on pages. Same goes with animated gif's in alot of cases. Zaros tally.PNGBladeQuick chat button.png# 21:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Lots of monsters dying have different appearances, moss giant shrivels up, lesser demon seems to be sucked into a vortex, dragons seem to flip over and die. Also, it might be nice to have pictures of the monsters old appearance to remind us of the earlier days of Runescape. --Disk of returning.png Blackhole252 Disk of returning.png 22:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I think that animated GIF's should only be used if the weapon has a special attack or a particularly unique attack style. I think all those GIF's of the rotating inventory screen are a wasted GIF. Do we really need to upload an animation for each equipable item to show it rotating the same way that every other item does in that interface. That seems so redundant to me. Also, I don't think we should deduct points when there are some items that obviously come in sets. For example, if you want a pic of a rune helm, it's nice to see the entire armour set. I agree that many pics uploaded have extra items that aren't needed and it's worth it to clear them up, but armour sets should be an exception. Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 22:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that it might be nice to see the item from various angles. Scimitars don't look right when you see it directly facing you, like my angle of my druidic robes (I lost them to a revenant ork the other day so I can't take a better screenshot at the moment). And the rune helm/armour set, well a picture of someone wearing full rune can be posted on the rune armour article. A lot of the items, like the salamanders, aren't very clear because the player is wearing too much other stuff. --Disk of returning.png Blackhole252 Disk of returning.png 22:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I think that this might work, but with adjustments. One thing is that you stated for the points is that a clear image is a point and a GIF gets a point. Well, I see two problems. One is that this might bring in more unneeded GIFs on here, just to get the player's character "signature" on the image. Second is that a GIF still image often contains dithering, which is commonly looked down upon on here, and the best format is PNG. ~MuzTalk 22:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so gifs are only restricted to a weapon's special attack or special effect, such as the dragonfire shield. All spells are treated as special attacks on the picture rating system. Items that are wielded/worn are recommended to be angled properly, such as the rune scimitar. Also, forged gifs, which are just several screenshots put together will not gain points for animated gif. --Disk of returning.png Blackhole252 Disk of returning.png 22:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

[[File:Mage water blast.gif|frame|This is a forged animated gif.]]

Oh yes, there should only be a need for animations of specials. Also the spells, as those might have a different casting, and they all have a different appearance. The equipment images should be angled properly, and if given a different angle, that should be an exception to the point rule. And the forged images should be replaced with a smoother GIF, if a GIF is necessary. ~MuzTalk 23:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - for one, there is the good old "If it ain't broke..." theory. We have enough space. There is 0 need to complicate things that much. Secondly. Animations make me lag so much that my toaster seems to get affected by it. Unless it is absolutely neccessary to have it animated (like the specials), it should remain a plain PNG. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 23:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, so animated gifs are restricted to the weapons's special attack, but what about the monster attacking/dying? --Disk of returning.png Blackhole252 Disk of returning.png 19:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
This system is way to confusing and over the top, we already have an images and media policy awaiting consensus, that would solve most of the problems you address with your system. [1]  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tebuddy (talk).

Oppose/Comment There isn't any reason to show 3-5 pictures of the same thing on an article. In in some cases it will take up more space and cause lag. You only need to see a picture of a rune scimitar/cosmic rune/ white knight only once to see what it looks like. Unless you have a picture of two face, you should only need one picture. Rune crossbow.png Hess36talk Ancient staff.png 06:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose and comment - Far too complicated. Also, I agree with the isolation point, but there should be exceptions - for example, I don't see any problem of an image of a player wearing a rune full helm, a rune platebody and rune platelegs going on all of those pages along with rune equipment (e.g. [[:File:Runite Armour.gif|this image]] even though its a GIF); but if he were wearing an abyssal whip and an amulet of fury, then yes, its a bit much. But still, the consensus-awaiting Media Policy should cover it all, this is overly complicated. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 12:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Weak Support - I agree that there should be some sort of rating system for pictures. However, this one does seem a bit complicated as others have stated. HunterNuclear X2 17:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Huge Oppose - Why do we need this? What is the point of rating images? Joe Click Here for Awesomeness15:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per other opposes. Prayer.png Jedi Talk HS Log Tracker Summoning.png 15:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Joe. I don't see the point either.  Tien  15:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment its a good idea but will everyone stick to the rating system? Timwac 17:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so ... FredeTalk 20:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per all opposes. It's not practical. --— Enigma 22:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per all, it is uneeded. My proudest achievement Juliusc01Talk Click here if you think this wiki is obsessed with bunniesN W A  F T W 02:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - After thinking it over from before, I decided to oppose this. View some of my opinions in the comment that I had earlier. ~MuzTalk 10:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Closing - The consensus is to have no picture rating system. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 20:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)