Forum:The Wiki Out of Time (WOoT)

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > The Wiki Out of Time (WOoT)

This discussion is about Hunter Creatures, Pets, Skill Guides and Image Naming Conventions; it's lengthy so prepare yourself.

Preface[edit source]

Hunter-related Articles have been left to the wayside as of late, with time their quality has--in comparison to the rest of the Wiki--depreciated; they are wildly inconsistent with what is and isn't relevant information, necessary images are named incorrectly for a number of pages which is partly due to the final point: there exist weird groups where monsters, npcs, items, etc. overlap, particularly in Hunter. Current naming policies and infoboxes aren't setup to handle these edge cases which causes inconsistency throughout the majority of articles related to Hunter. My hopes are that this Discussion helps change/alter/add guidelines and clarity for these kinds of scenarios in future (upcoming LOoT creatures and the constant influx of Pets) as well as lead to the clean up of current Hunter Articles in anticipation for the upcoming Hunter revitalisation. There will be a section at the end of this discussion with some options to the numerous questions I present throughout the thread, though if you think of something that does not fit neatly into these suggestions you are free to not only say so in the comments but also add distinct options to each section if you see fit.

Naming Conventions[edit source]

Pets[edit source]

Would you be surprised if I told you that more than 1/3 of all Pets have incorrect file names based on current conventions? I sure was. Three kinds of images are relevant for this discussion: Chatheads, Icons and "Subject Images" (the equipped/DII equivalent for NPCs/Mobs/Creatures; they don't seem to have a specific name so I made one up 🙂).

Our current naming policy as per RS:IMG#NAME is boiled down in the following table:

Note: Pets/Hunter Creatures are very much hit and miss when it comes to following these naming conventions.
NPC Monsters/Creatures Pets Pets Based on Existing NPCs/Articles
Chatheads <article>_chathead.png N/A <article>_chathead.png <article>_(pet)_chathead.png
Subject Images <article>.png <article>.png <article>_pet.png <article>_(pet).png
Icons N/A <article>_icon.png <article>.png <article>_(pet)_icon.png

♪ One of these things is not like the others, one of these things doesn't belong ♫ Can you tell which one it is? It's Pets. Pets follow the naming style of Items where the inventory image/icon is deemed the "default" image and other related images have stuff appended to them. This is the reason for inconsistencies in Pet image naming: they fit much nicer into the NPC/Creature/Mob style over Items which is where I assume uploaders thought the same. This problem is then exacerbated when it's a pet that is based on an existing creature/NPC as now policy dictates that the form flip-flops to be the same as the other two styles (NPC and Monster/Creature) but appends "(pet)" to the end so as to not clash with the "original" article; it's come full circle.

Things get even more complicated with visual variants as different styles/colours are added as "(black)" or "(vampyre outfit)" but if this is for a pet with an existing NPC/Article does this get placed before or after the "(pet)"? Policy doesn't say though historically the norm is before. What about growth variants? This is handled completely differently and added as a "Baby" prefix or a "puppy" suffix or a "Hatchling" prefix or a "chick" suffix, even a "spawn" suffix. It's honestly no wonder there's roughly 350 to 500 incorrectly named Pet images.

Hunter Creatures[edit source]

Now what if I told you that over 2/3 of Hunter Creatures have incorrect or missing files? Even if you argue that the Icon in the Hunter Skill Guide for Implings isn't representative of them and shouldn't be used for their Icon file, there's still well over 50% of Hunter Creatures with issues. Now the problem with Hunter Creatures isn't the same as Pets but the issue still lies with Naming Policy in the way of not being specific and barely outlined as discussed in the section below but is also complicated by the fact that Hunter Creatures pretty frequently overlap into multiple kinds of Articles (also talked about a little more later on).

There's Chinchompas the Hunter creature and their Item equivalent. Monkeys the Hunter creature, Monkeys the Pet and Monkeys the Monster and NPC. Even Imps which are a Hunter creature, an NPC and a Mob/Monster, all on the one article! It seems the only thing Hunter doesn't have multiple category versions of is bloody locations (hyperbole). Either way Hunter Creatures themselves and their related articles are confusing at best, a hodgepodge mess at worse with one line as your only mention of Hunter in Image Naming Policy:

Images of skill-specific icons should be called <Object name> icon.png, e.g. "Yew tree (Construction) icon.png". This includes Construction icons and Hunter icons.

RuneScape:Images and media policy#Image name

Skill Guide Images[edit source]

That quote is not only the one, singular mention of Hunter on the whole page, it's also the only section that references Skill Guide Images, though again it is not at all specific or thorough in this regard. There is no mention of how Subject images should be named; Should (Hunter) be appended to all Hunter images to match that one line? Is (Skill) even necessary to append to the icon name unless it's specifically an icon for something with an existing article name? The policy's one example of "Yew tree (Construction) icon.png" is one of these rare, specific cases and doesn't at all mention the more common alternate scenario where it's not an article of the same name. Should it be capitalised? Gender, Colour Variants, Type Variants, Pets, etc. are all lowercase so why not Skill? What about Slayer Codex icons, are they "skill-specific" enough?

Infoboxes[edit source]

There is also a distinct issue with the way our NPC, Hunter and Monster Infoboxes are set up, they don't at all have the ability to deal with edge cases; for example, things like the aformentioned Imp where as a Monster it has a Subject image, as an NPC it has a Chathead and a Subject Image, and as a Hunter Creature it has a Subject Image and a Hunter Skill Guide Image, though the latter is not present anywhere on the article (also incorrectly named 🙂) nor on any article on the Wiki; its only use is for a Navbox Template to represent the Karamja Volcano resource dungeon. For most Slayer and Hunter Creatures, the Skill Guide icon occupies the position top left indented into the opening paragraph of the article, this same position is used instead for the Chathead image on NPC articles and for the most part this works but as mentioned edge-cases exist where all three are present. Which image should take priority as the top-left, indented, first-paragraph image: Icon or Chathead? Precendent exists...

We thankfully have an infobox that handles scenarios like this where there is all three kinds of images, the Pet Infobox (Chathead takes precedence btw). "Why not copy that functionality then?" you say? Unfortunately bouncing the idea off the Discord was met with lukewarm response to the position and whether or not it was really necessary as well as which Infoboxes should be affected by the addition of Icons. I feel as if not including this information on the relevant article would be a missed opportunity and be a weakness in the encyclopaedic nature of the Wiki. So which infoboxes should be affected then?

Hunter Skill Guide icons are added to the Hunter Infobox for cases where a Chathead exists, Slayer Icons to the Monster Infobox where again a Chathead exists, Thieving Icons to the NPC infobox for the few NPC's that have them as they all have Chatheads, Infoboxes sorted. If they all have the added ability to display icons should the icons be displayed on all infoboxes? i.e. Should the Imp icon be on both the Hunter Infobox and the Monster/NPC infoboxes? Now that there's a dedicated position for Icons in infoboxes, should that be their default position? i.e. For Monsters/Creatures that do not have a Chathead and the Icon sits top-left, indented, should that now be moved to the relevant Infobox or even be in both spots? Where exactly should the Icon sit and if different from the Pet Infobox, should the Pet Infobox be changed also?

Proposals & Discussion[edit source]

Image Naming Policy Proposal[edit source]

With the aim of making Pets be more in line with other NPC Image types and clarifying the multiple different scenarios that someone might encounter, amend the current Image Naming Policy for Pets to:

  • Pets
    • Images of pet icons should be called <Pet name> icon.png, e.g "[[:File:Baby Troll icon.png|Baby Troll icon.png]]".
    • Images of the pet subject itself should be called <Pet name>.png, e.g "Eek.png".
    • Images of pet chatheads should be called <Pet name> chathead.png, e.g. "Mackers chathead.png".
      • In cases where the pet's in-game item name differs from the pet's name, the item name takes precedence. This includes pets with multiple growth stages, e.g. "Baby chameleon.png".
    • For pet versions of existing monsters or NPCs, or other pages that share the same name, (pet) should be appended to the pet's name for icon, subject and chathead, e.g. "Molly (pet) icon.png", "Molly (pet).png" and "Molly (pet) chathead.png".
    • Images of pets with multiple colours or variants, (<variant>) should be appended to the pet's name for icon, subject and chathead, e.g. "[[:File:Pet cat (black) icon.png|Pet cat (black) icon.png]]", "Pet cat (black).png" and "Pet cat (black) chathead.png". This should use the same terminology used on the pet's article itself or in-game if specified.
      • For pets which are both versions of existing monsters or NPCs and have multiple colours or variants, (pet) should appear before (<variant>) when appended to the pet's name, e.g "[[:File:Pig (pet) (combat).png|Pig (pet) (combat).png]]".
Current Pet Policy for Comparison
  • Pets
    • Images of pet icons should be called <Pet name>.png, e.g "Baby Troll.png".
      • For pet versions of existing monsters or NPCs, or other pages that share the name, this should be called <Pet name> (pet) icon.png, e.g "Jadinko (pet) icon.png".
      • In cases where the pet's icon in-game name differs from the pet's name, the icon name takes precedent.
    • Images of the pet itself should be called <Pet name> pet.png, e.g "Eek pet.png".
      • For pet versions of existing monsters or NPCs, or other pages that share the name, this should be called <Pet name> (pet).png, e.g "Pig (pet).png".
    • Images of pet chatheads should be called <Pet name> chathead.png, e.g. "Mackers chathead.png".
    • Images of pets with multiple colours should be called <Pet name> (<colour>).png, e.g. "Pet cat (black).png".
    • Images of pets with multiple growth stages should be named in relation to the breed and current stage, e.g. "Baby chameleon.png".


In order to account for Hunter creatures and clarify the scenario for Slayer Monsters the first line of Characters/Players should be updated to:

  • Images of all NPCs, Monsters (Attackable or otherwise), Summoning familiars or Hunter creatures should be called <Monster/Familiar/NPC name>.png, e.g. "Banker.png".

With a subsequent line added to turn the precedent of icon naming into policy:

  • If the subject has an associated 32x32 icon found in a Skill Guide or other interface, this should be called <Monster/Familiar/NPC name> icon.png, e.g. "Master Farmer icon.png".

As well as the line in Interfaces/Icons updated to:


Comments/Position/Choice[edit source]

Support - As poster for reasons outlined previously. Choose OptionTalk-to MitcheII Slayer of Imps (skill: 1,410). . . . . . . . . . real life easter egg, :wowee: don't tell anyone though! Talk-to MitcheII Slayer of Imps (skill: 1,410) 14:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Support - A whole lot of work that makes a whole lot of sense. User talk:ThePsionic.png: RS3 Inventory image of User talk:ThePsionic ThePsionic Special:Contributions/ThePsionic.png: RS3 Inventory image of Special:Contributions/ThePsionic 14:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Strong oppose changing pet icon to pet - The naming is (or at least was, I don't currently follow how many pets are now interface compared to inventory item) because of pets primarily being items. Pets have icons (whether it be in menagerie, or inventory etc.), unlike NPCs and monsters/creatures. They follow the image naming convention of items - e.g. cake icon is cake.png, and cake image is cake detail.png. Additionally, pet icon images are generally used (much?) more across the wiki (i.e. in templates) than the pet images (typically only used on the pets' page), and thus it makes more sense to make the more used images have simpler/easier naming conventions to refer to. Star Talk ayy lmao ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 19:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment - While I agree that historically Pets were definitely Items and fit that way, with the current proportion of Pets today only 15.3% of Pets have a genuine Item form and if you exclude the 22 that came on and before Summoning release itself (by far the largest single release of Pets and before the Pet Interface or the Menagerie even existed) this drops down to 8.3%, with the last Item pet being Released in 2015 in the way of the Hermit Crab pet with Priffdinas Waterfall Fishing (also the four component Pet of Season Items though they only existed as Items so that they could be used on one another to create the Final Combination Pet Token which, you guessed it, was in the Interface). I feel this is a relatively minor group in the grand scheme of things and as current data shows, Jagex have moved almost completely away from Item based Pets, even going so far as to convert the more popular ones to Interface Pets, unlikely to release any non-Interface in future.
The only reason every Pet even has an Icon is due to the way the Menagerie works as it needs something to display and potentially for bugs where Players are able to pick up their Pet when they aren't supposed to (though this is just speculation on my part). Personally I feel as if Item based Pets should be split up into the actual Item itself and use the Item Infobox and then a separate Article for the Pet (and this should extend to Pet unlock items also, i.e. Skilling Pets) but this is a little out of scope of the Discussion but would be neat to at least set up rough guidelines for now while it's under the spotlight (Likely going to have a follow up thread on other Hunter-related issues once this thread is done). All in all, Pets have completely moved away from being Item based and conventions should be updated to follow this.
As for being the more used image, the only place the icons are used outside of their own Article is that one Template to sit at the bottom of the page of every Pet (which is why it seems like they are used so much). This would require a one-time change to which image the Template pointed to so is really quite small of a problem in my opinion. Choose OptionTalk-to MitcheII Slayer of Imps (skill: 1,410). . . . . . . . . . real life easter egg, :wowee: don't tell anyone though! Talk-to MitcheII Slayer of Imps (skill: 1,410) 07:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Item vs Interface Pets by Year
Year Item Interface
2003-2007 3 0
2008 23 0
2009 6 2
2010 3 0
2011 0 3
2012 5 6
2013 2 22
2014 1 31
2015 5 57
2016 0 49
2017 0 51
2018 0 33
2019 0 11
Total 48 265


Additional comment - When Gaz's bot uploads all of the new icons/pages, they're uploaded under the name of the icon, as they are inventory icons (per Haidro's comment). Changing the naming convention may also cause more hassle in regards to this as it may overwrite any existing pet images. Seems to just make more sense to keep the naming the same as what's in the cache/gedb etc. Star Talk ayy lmao ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 19:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Sub Comment - Gazbot doesn't upload all new icons/pages, there is some level of control Gaz has over Gazbot that allows him to specify which images do and don't get uploaded otherwise slight icon variants as mentioned in the comment under Haidro would exist on the Wiki, which they don't. Not to mention there is no issue with overwriting as I imagine there is not only the ability to set an ID-to and an ID-from in Gazbot for obvious reasons and there being no precedent of images being overwritten by Gazbot unless specified, otherwise any NXT inventory icon someone uploads would be overwritten by Gazbot for example. This being an issue for Gaz/Gazbot is a moot point.Choose OptionTalk-to MitcheII Slayer of Imps (skill: 1,410). . . . . . . . . . real life easter egg, :wowee: don't tell anyone though! Talk-to MitcheII Slayer of Imps (skill: 1,410) 15:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Support - I also agree with Mitchell's suggestion to split the items out into separate item pages for legitimate item-based, non-interface pets. (Unlock items should definitely be separate pages, if they aren't already.) Having separate item pages should probably mean that the item images take precedence, so the inventory icon (which is also the pet icon) would be <item name>.png and, for those pets, the subject image would end up as <item name> (pet).png - Rawny (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds contradicting to the proposal (despite supporting)? You're saying that the pet image names should be (pet), when the proposal states they should be the name of the pet itself (taking precedence over the icon name)? I'd rather keep it all consistent among all pets, rather than non-item pets having different image naming conventions to item/item unlock pets. Star Talk ayy lmao ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 18:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Heh, I guess it comes across like that. I should perhaps have highlighted that the proposal also says: For pet versions of existing monsters or NPCs, or other pages that share the same name, (pet) should be appended to the pet's name for icon, subject and chathead, e.g. "Molly (pet) icon.png", "Molly (pet).png" and "Molly (pet) chathead.png". So my thinking was that if the item pages are created, they would take precedence and be the "other pages that share the same name". In other words, the proposed convention effectively allows for this. Hopefully that makes a bit more sense ^^ I can see the argument for having it all consistent, though - if that's done inline with your earlier comment - presumably all the "subject" images would need to be "<pet name> (pet).png" with all the icons being "<pet name>.png". I'm not convinced about the icons being like that, particularly as the item-based pets are in the minority (as per Mitchell) - Rawny (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


The way I ended up thinking this might work is by having a separate page for each of the Item-Based pets which is for all intents and purposes, just like a normal Item, Item Infobox, main image is the invent icon, examine, DII (only through Maemi bc Pet so probably not tbh), etc. but none of the NPC-aspect of the Pet (Chathead, Subject Image), it's purely an item as expected. Then because say the Minitrice article already exists, Minitrice (Pet) is made and acts as normal following the updated guidelines I set out and becomes a Pet Based on an Existing NPC/Article. This would just require an additional line to my proposal noting that Item-Based pets (and what they are) should continue to have an Item page as expected before whatever Pet page is made. So it ends up exactly like Rawny mentioned with the Item page having Minitrice.png with the icon and Minitrice detail.png as a maemi/dropped DII, then the pet page having Minitrice (pet) chathead.png for the Pet's Chathead, Minitrice> (pet).png for the Subject Image and either a re-use of the item's icon or a separate but duplicate file called Minitrice (pet) icon.png as they technically exist as different things. Choose OptionTalk-to MitcheII Slayer of Imps (skill: 1,410). . . . . . . . . . real life easter egg, :wowee: don't tell anyone though! Talk-to MitcheII Slayer of Imps (skill: 1,410) 00:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Support - Per MitcheII. — NPittinger (t | c) 12:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Treat like an item, Don't split item/pet up - We should be treating inventory images the same for all pets regardless of whether it's a "legitimate" icon or not. I think the issue here is that we're calling these "icons" when first and foremost they're inventory images. Naturally a switchbox would be nice here to swap between Pet/Item, but then the only difference is just the item + details no one cares about (unless there are bigger differences I'm unaware about). So we may as well put the inventory image on the pet infobox and keep the naming consistent with all other item names. H rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).pngChompy_bird_hat_ogre_marksman.pngCrystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 02:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment - I disagree, there is a reason that all Pets exist twice in cache, they are distinct and different from one another, one being the Item Image itself and the other being the Menagerie Icon. This has become more and more evident as of late as Jagex have (mistaken or otherwise) had differing Icons for each in addition to being two different item ID's. For example the most recently released Pet, Mordaunt jr.: 47905.png 47904.png Now both of these images exist in cache (you can check yourself or look at the link), have unique Item IDs but similar names, examines, etc. Let's go a little further back then, Skeletal bear: 47574.png 47573.png Again two different Item IDs with unique icons, they are distinct and different from one another but only one exists on the Wiki. Calling them both Inventory images is misleading when one exists only in an interface which means it falls under the same umbrella as Skillguides, Slayer Codex, etc. One of these is an Icon, one is an Inventory Image; one should be on an Pet page, one should be on a Item page but again only for Pets that actually have an obtainable Item in the first place which as mentioned before is few and far between. Choose OptionTalk-to MitcheII Slayer of Imps (skill: 1,410). . . . . . . . . . real life easter egg, :wowee: don't tell anyone though! Talk-to MitcheII Slayer of Imps (skill: 1,410) 15:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


Comment - Fair enough, not having entirely separate item pages for the item-based pets and having one page for both the item and pet seems ok (on the basis there wouldn't be much differing information). I'm still very much with Mitchell on the image naming though. Item-based pets were the original approach, but they're in the minority now (and the trend is likely to continue). I don't think it makes sense to approach the non-item pets as items when they are closer to NPCs. That said, if we get to the point of facing a "No consensus" closure, I'll go with the item-based naming (for the icons versus subject images) if that would mean gaining some consensus. I don't really think that would be the right approach but I would rather we move forward with something than nothing, the images do need sorting out ^^ - Rawny (talk) 23:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Support / Agree with Haidro - I agree that the image convention should match the rest of the wiki, especially if the old reason was that most pets were also items, which is now more of an edge case as MitcheII pointed out. I agree with Haidro though that it'd be better to use a switchbox, I can't think of much information that would differ other than the infobox. Seers headband 2 chathead.png Elessar2 (talk) 10:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

There are still inconsistencies - If we're dealing with the pet icon/invent icon as two separate things, with the first being in a pet infobox, the second being in the item infobox, there could be many name clashes. For example, "Molly (pet).png" would be the inventory icon, and "Molly (pet) icon.png" would be the pet icon, but how do we name the subject? "Molly (pet) (pet).png"? I think we should scrap either the interface icon or the inventory icon. I'm in favour of keeping the inventory icon so that we're consistent with pets that don't have an interface icon. H rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).pngChompy_bird_hat_ogre_marksman.pngCrystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 06:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a non-issue, the item infobox would only be used when the pet can be obtained as an item, which as mentioned, is about 48 pets out of the 314 we have now. Molly is a bad example as you cannot obtain the Molly pet as an item so it would not use the item infobox. I'm also sure we can come up with something a little more creative than (pet) (pet) for an issue that doesn't currently exist and is unlikely to ever exist with Jagex moving away from item-based pets.
Let me clarify, there exists no pet that simultaneously is an item, whilst also being based on a pre-existing NPC/Item/etc. that does not have a unique identifier, that scenario does not exist and I think it's frankly silly to drop this aspect of the proposal based on the potential that some point in the future we may not have covered that very specific, unlikely outcome. You could implement this policy change today and every pet would fall neatly into its designated box. I would like to reiterate, current policy is less organised than my proposal no matter which way you look at it and is just as (actually far more) ill equipped to handle obscure, outlying scenarios like the one you mentioned; like I said, 1/3 of all Pets don't meet current policy because it is ill equipped. Choose OptionTalk-to MitcheII Slayer of Imps (skill: 1,410). . . . . . . . . . real life easter egg, :wowee: don't tell anyone though! Talk-to MitcheII Slayer of Imps (skill: 1,410) 06:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Idk - Honestly, this entire thread is a mess, and I'm not sure what to put as I'm not sure what I'm opposing or supporting. As for my opinion, I want all pet icons to remain as the pagename. E.g Squidge having its icon be "Squidge.png". I'd want this for the sake of plinks being simple and sweet. I don't want the icon filenames to be "Squidge icon.png". Talk-to Kelsey 00:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

We could move the pet icon images to "<PAGENAME> icon.png" and move the pet NPC images to "<PAGENAME>.png" and then instead of using {{plink}} for pets, we could use {{iconlink}}. This would be just for pets including pets that are items. Obviously pet unlock items are items not pets, and as such are excluded from this. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 11:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Infobox Change Proposal[edit source]

Now there's a few options for how we should handle icons in the previously mentioned Hunter, Monster and NPC Infoboxes:

A - Do nothing: Specified Infoboxes should not be changed and do not require the ability to house Icons, Icons shouldn't be present anywhere on the Article as is current.
B - Do nothing: Specified Infoboxes should not be changed and do not require the ability to house Icons, Icons should instead be elsewhere in the Article.
C - Alter Infoboxes: Add the support for Icons inside Infoboxes. If multiple infoboxes exist in a Switch Infobox, Icons are only present on the relevant Infobox.
D - Alter Infoboxes: Add the support for Icons inside Infoboxes. If multiple infoboxes exist in a Switch Infobox, Icons are present on all Infoboxes on the Article.

Comments/Position/Choice[edit source]

Support C - Not having the information is detrimental to the encyclopaedic nature of the Wiki however it's probably not necessary to have the icon on every infobox. Choose OptionTalk-to MitcheII Slayer of Imps (skill: 1,410). . . . . . . . . . real life easter egg, :wowee: don't tell anyone though! Talk-to MitcheII Slayer of Imps (skill: 1,410) 14:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Support C - Per OP. User talk:ThePsionic.png: RS3 Inventory image of User talk:ThePsionic ThePsionic Special:Contributions/ThePsionic.png: RS3 Inventory image of Special:Contributions/ThePsionic 14:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Support C - Per Mitchell - Rawny (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Support C - Per MitcheII. — NPittinger (t | c) 12:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

C/A - Idk, because they are slayer icons I feel that all these icons should go on their own page somewhere... Probably unpopular opinion. H rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).pngChompy_bird_hat_ogre_marksman.pngCrystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 02:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment - They aren't all Slayer Icons, as mentioned Skillguide Icons exist also, e.g. Thievable NPC's have Icons and doing nothing means that certain Icons continue to have no place on the articles they're relevant to or the Wiki in general. Choose OptionTalk-to MitcheII Slayer of Imps (skill: 1,410). . . . . . . . . . real life easter egg, :wowee: don't tell anyone though! Talk-to MitcheII Slayer of Imps (skill: 1,410) 16:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Support C - Per MitcheII Seers headband 2 chathead.png Elessar2 (talk) 10:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


Icon Position Proposal[edit source]

If B, C, or D from above passes, there are a few options to where said Icon will be placed. I currently have an implementation of Icons being in the Monster Infobox, copying the Pet Infobox's Position (option A in this section) of being under the NPC/Monster/Creature's Name Here if you wanted to see a real world example, however because there's only one Monster Sandbox for testing (and I don't want to duplicate it a bunch of times) images for other suggested locations are posted below but feel free to add/vote for something else not included here; UI/Visual Design is very subjective so go ham.


Comments/Position/Choice[edit source]

B - I think it looks neat, if not B then A to match Pet Infobox. Choose OptionTalk-to MitcheII Slayer of Imps (skill: 1,410). . . . . . . . . . real life easter egg, :wowee: don't tell anyone though! Talk-to MitcheII Slayer of Imps (skill: 1,410) 14:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Support A, strong oppose D - We must part from our previous ways. I'm not a fan of having icons next to text in the title of the infobox, so putting the icon under it is fine. User talk:ThePsionic.png: RS3 Inventory image of User talk:ThePsionic ThePsionic Special:Contributions/ThePsionic.png: RS3 Inventory image of Special:Contributions/ThePsionic 14:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

A, strong oppose all others - consistency. jayden 14:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

A, strong oppose B & D - yes Star Talk ayy lmao ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 19:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

B/A, oppose D - I like B, and think A is the next best (regardless of consistency) - Rawny (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Support A, oppose B & C, strong oppose D - Per ThePsionic and JaydenKieran. — NPittinger (t | c) 12:29, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

A - H rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).pngChompy_bird_hat_ogre_marksman.pngCrystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 02:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Support A, oppose D - Not a fan of all the empty space but it's the best option here. Maybe to the left of the examine text, and then for pets with multiples put them above/below examine text? Seers headband 2 chathead.png Elessar2 (talk) 10:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


Comments, Questions and Other[edit source]

Feel free to post any other concerns/questions here:

I don't actually know how best to deal with the whole one image occupying the image name slot of another image and what that means for each of their histories so if anyone has any ideas/clarity regarding this, please let me know. Choose OptionTalk-to MitcheII Slayer of Imps (skill: 1,410). . . . . . . . . . real life easter egg, :wowee: don't tell anyone though! Talk-to MitcheII Slayer of Imps (skill: 1,410) 14:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)