Forum:Use of custom skin colours in equipped item images

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Use of custom skin colours in equipped item images
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 15 August 2018 by Liquidhelium.

So, RSW generally has pretty good guidelines on how certain images should be taken. However, I wanted to open up discussion on an issue that was bothering me today: The use of custom skin colours in equipped item images. From our image guide, for this type of image, guidelines state:

Only the subject item(s) should be equipped: remove all other items and cosmetic overrides. Multiple items should only be worn when taking set images of armour (weapons and shields should have separate images).

That said, my understanding was that using a custom skin color would be considered a cosmetic override. Whether or not this is the case, I am proposing that equipped item images should be taken using a character model with a natural skin tone. Certainly any standard colours are all acceptable, as long as it is something that appears naturally on humans. I find that other colors (blues, greens, etc) distract from the subject in just the same way wearing vanity items would (for example, having a party hat equipped while taking an image for a weapon is not permitted per our guidelines). Example:

In this image, the use of blue skin colour may be confusing to someone, especially since it closely matches the subject of the image, the hair style. It is possible a player could assume that unlocking the override which the image is meant to depict would unlock the skin color as well, or that using the override would change skin color as long as it was displayed.

So, there are a couple of options for what could possibly be changed in our image guidelines.

1. Change nothing - Keep everything exactly the same, disallowing cosmetics/other items, but allowing any skin colour at all.
2. Define skin color as NOT a cosmetic - Clarify the guideline stating that any skin color is allowed.
3. Define un-natural skin colors as a cosmetic - Specify that skin tone must be a natural color in the guidelines.
4. Something else - If you have other ideas, please comment!

I personally would support option 3, adding a line such as "Skin tone must be of a natural color when it is not the subject of the image." to our image guidelines.

Thoughts? Comments? Questions? Post!  RS AdvLogMyles Prower  Talk 19:08, August 1, 2018 (UTC)


Support 3 - I personally think skin colours like smurf blue are garish and detract from the overall purpose of an equipped item image. --dDbvitC.pngScuzzy Betahib8CAd.png 19:11, August 1, 2018 (UTC)

Support 3 - For the sake of consistency and avoiding confusion Talk to Kelsey 19:13, August 1, 2018 (UTC)

Support 3 - this has been my stance for a long time, and I much prefer the "natural" skin tones from the MM to the weird cosmetic ones. I include the green and grey skins in the "unnatural" category btw. Small recharge gem.png AnselaJonla Slayer-icon.png 19:15, August 1, 2018 (UTC)

Support 3 - Pernix cowl detail.png MAGE-KIL-R (Talk)Zaros symbol.png 19:17, August 1, 2018 (UTC)

Support 3 - As per Scuzzy iN008talk 19:21, August 1, 2018 (UTC)

Support 3/Comment - For sake of clarity, anything not listed as "Standard" at the makeover mage would be unnatural/disallowed per my intent behind option 3.
Makeover Mage interface.png
 RS AdvLogMyles Prower  Talk 19:22, August 1, 2018 (UTC)

Are you including the onyx skin in this? Talk to Kelsey 19:33, August 1, 2018 (UTC)
Even though "onyx" is in the promotional category, I would say it's not an unnatural colour as I've met black people with skin that shade. A comparison between the darkest "standard" colour (L) and "onyx" (R) is below. But, on the other hand, banning all non-standard colours "except for this" opens us up to "but you made an exception for [this]" when/if more colours are added. Small recharge gem.png AnselaJonla Slayer-icon.png 20:00, August 1, 2018 (UTC)

Support 3 - Although I'm not sure if it would affect the number of people taking/posing for equip pics, given some colors are from a consumable SGS item. --Jlun2 (talk) 19:25, August 1, 2018 (UTC)

Support 3 - Only the basic skin colours from the MM should be allowed. Srylius (talk) 19:30, August 1, 2018 (UTC)

support 3 Mistydarkness (talk) 19:31, August 1, 2018 (UTC)

Support 1/3 - For ones that we cannot update or are just a complete fucking nuisance to get, We stay with 1. But ones that we can easily update, 3. Twig Talk 772kZGs.png 23:29, August 1, 2018 (UTC)

1 - Although I agree with looking "default" as possible for pictures, only allowing standard skin colours would prevent some editors from contributing pictures. If they have a chameleon extract skin they would have to pay each time to change their skin back - Cuxrie (talk) 23:33, August 1, 2018 (UTC)

I think 3 could put into practice with the stipulation that in worst case scenario, we can use smurfs. --dDbvitC.pngScuzzy Betahib8CAd.png 00:46, August 2, 2018 (UTC)

Previous thread - There's actually been a discussion about this here: Forum:Ban promo skins. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 01:05, August 2, 2018 (UTC)

Comment I believe the justification in reopening this as a topic is that that forum thread was made when there were only green and grey, and they've added custom colours since then. --dDbvitC.pngScuzzy Betahib8CAd.png 01:28, August 2, 2018 (UTC)

1, but obviously prefer a natural skin tone and UCS - I don't think it's fair that we force users to change their skin tone for an equipment image, especially if they use a chameleon extract. Overrides are easy to remove/re-enable, but skin tone is a next level of hassle. If the skin colour blatantly interferes with the item, then use common sense and prefer a different skin tone.

If we're aiming for consistency we may as well get every image on the exact same skin tone. If people want to retake images with a default skin tone, go ahead. Don't remove images because they're using an unnatural skin tone, and don't make it a huge deal that they aren't using a natural skin tone. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 01:05, August 2, 2018 (UTC)

Support 1/2 - I will not change my skin color to take images, nor will I pay to change my skin colour back afterwards. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 01:30, August 2, 2018 (UTC)

Proposal Create a gofundme to support TyA changing his race every time we need an EII. --dDbvitC.pngScuzzy Betahib8CAd.png 01:36, August 2, 2018 (UTC)
Side-note Just for the record, this is nothing personal against TyA. Also, per my comments/amendments section below, I really don't think you should be obligated to change just for the picture; rather, my intent was to have a policy saying TyA anyone can't get mad if their image is replaced based on a highly-distracting unnatural skin-tone.  RS AdvLogMyles Prower  Talk 03:24, August 2, 2018 (UTC)

Support 3 - But as per Haidro do not delete the images that are cuurently using custom skin colour, just tag them for retake. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 03:07, August 2, 2018 (UTC)

Comment(s) / Amendments Based on the above discussion, I would like to change my stance on this issue slightly. I still think the alternate colours can be distracting, but we shouldn't outright disallow them or ever remove an image totally because of them. However, it should be policy that a natural skin-tone is preferred over other tones. Thus, if a certain EII is difficult to take for whatever reason, and because there is difficulty in changing chameleon colors, the user should feel free to contribute their image. However, if at a later time another user is able to retake with a natural skin-tone, this would be the preferred option. In essence, by adjusting our policy to prefer natural tones, rather than ban unnatural ones, we (1) don't discourage users from contributing by allowing any skin-tone (2) have policy in place to help avert any potential edit/revert wars should an unnatural tone be replaced at a later time by a natural one, (3) don't really need to decide per this proposal if onyx is definitively acceptable or not per Ansela, above, (4) loop in those who previously mentioned support for 1 with UCS/prefer natural stipulation and (5) still move in the direction which is the essence of option 3 from original proposal, which seems to be a majority opinion at this moment. I, personally, don't want to speak for all those who already voiced option 3, but I wouldn't foresee changing language to "prefer natural" vs "ban unnatural" being disagreeable (though please speak up if I am wrong, any option-three-ers).  RS AdvLogMyles Prower  Talk 03:15, August 2, 2018 (UTC)

Support ammendment - This is kind of what I was expecting anyway. --dDbvitC.pngScuzzy Betahib8CAd.png 03:20, August 2, 2018 (UTC)
Rescinded back to a broad support of 3 for lack of confusion. --dDbvitC.pngScuzzy Betahib8CAd.png 03:58, August 10, 2018 (UTC)
Support ammendment - Per Myles. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 08:49, August 2, 2018 (UTC)
Support ammendment - Pernix cowl detail.png MAGE-KIL-R (Talk)Zaros symbol.png 11:26, August 2, 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - This is literally the exact same thing. I don't think it is a good to codify that it is okay to replace the image just because it has a non-standard skin color. I think this whole discussion is unnecessary and trying to make a bigger issue out of nothing than necessary. I want to be able to upload images when I feel like it and not have them be removed just because of the skin color. If my images were to be replaced solely for that reason, it is very discouraging to ever make images. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 14:21, August 2, 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - I feel like this amendment isn't an amendment at all but is rather just a new way of wording proposal #3. If #3 passed, it's not like we would delete images that use an un-natural skin tone. We'd still keep it up until a better one arrives. This is the exact same as this amendment. jayden 15:52, August 2, 2018 (UTC)

Option 4 Just use complementary skin colors, if item like example above, you will just need to have a different player take the screenshot instead. It really isn't that hard is it? I wouldn't want to hit the makeover mage each time to change it just for a pic.--Bronze dagger.png: RS3 Inventory image of Bronze daggerElven CoreRSDragon dagger.png: RS3 Inventory image of Dragon dagger 14:54, August 2, 2018 (UTC)

Support 4 - Use common sense. If a skin colour doesn't work well with an equip image (e.g purple on purple), don't take a photo. We already have enough guidelines for taking photos in-game (which people already get confused about) without needing to require people to change their skin colour if they want to contribute. Turning off cosmetic overrides and such is quick, painless, and free. Changing your skin colour, as Ty says, is not. jayden 15:52, August 2, 2018 (UTC)

Support 1 - I'm yet to see an image on the wiki in which a promo skin colour is a distraction, or otherwise lowers the standard of the image. Your example is unconvincing. If you feel strongly about that particular case, replace the file. As Haidro reminded you, we've had a discussion on this already and nothing in this area has changed since. Perhaps someday character model rework might warrant a return to this subject. Until then, it really doesn't matter enough to be mentioned in the guidelines. So petty. You've got too much time on your hands, all of you. There are actual flaws in some worn equipment images and you want to regulate skin tones. For example, it's been over four years since this YG thread and we still have beauties such as [[:File:White chainbody equipped.png]]. And we also have [[File:Marmaros kiteshield equipped]]... or do we? Wait, what? That's right, it seems an item from eight years ago doesn't have an image. And don't even get me started on worn equipment images [[:File:Profound decorative armour (female) equipped.png|taken from waist level]]. But I ramble. So, back to skin tones? Or? 5-x Talk 22:11, August 2, 2018 (UTC)

wow it's almost like we're a wiki and we want to fine-tune standards. Achievements Coelacanth0794 Talk Contribs 00:45, August 3, 2018 (UTC)
If you find any images that are not up to scratch please do tag them with {{retake image}}. I've been making an effort to clear through that category, and I hope to do more retakes in future. Making consistent shield and chainbody separate equipped images from set equipped images is on my to do list, I did already retake some of the dg ones. Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 12:22, August 5, 2018 (UTC)

Support 3 - Achievements Coelacanth0794 Talk Contribs 00:45, August 3, 2018 (UTC)

Sorry in advance for long comment - I think this is important to be stated as part of this discussion, and these are my last thoughts on this proposal as it currently stands. To be completely honest, my only motive behind opening this discussion is that, as a Wiki which anyone is free to edit, in essence if the rules don't say you can't, then you can (in a general sense, with exceptions of course). If I upload an image that doesn't by guidelines, or even one that does, and someone else comes by later with what in their opinion is a "better" version, they are free to upload a new one. The original uploader might feel slighted by this, and I can speak from experience this has happened to me in the past, and I can't say I was happy about it. So, rather than simply impose my point of view that, in this case, EIIs with a natural skin-tone are "better" in the same sense that (for example) a higher resolution image is better, I would prefer to have a consensus on what "better" means to as much of an extent as possible. At least then, there is a legitimate explanation to mitigate any hard feelings about the replacement of an image.

I have no intent to discourage anyone from uploading images - quite the opposite. It is my stance that as many people as possible should upload images, especially considering the points of 5-x above, we have a lot of areas where we can improve. I am yet to see, however, how the benefits of not updating our policy at all would outweigh the benefits of coming to a reasonable consensus on this matter one way or the other. I completely understand and respect TyA's (and others) feelings, that this policy would exclude certain people from participating in certain ways. However, with all due respect, all of our guidelines/policies stemmed from a consensus discussion at some point. If I choose to take all my images with the Eclipse skybox because I personally like how it looks, my images are going to be replaced because as a community we have decided that Midday/Daystone should be used. While some may vehemently disagree, it is of my viewpoint that using a custom skintone is equally as distracting to an EII as the wrong skybox may be in a location image, and I feel we should make this policy in exactly the same way.

I certainly would not imply that any user must play the game in a certain way; choosing to use a chameleon skin is the right of any player. Unfortunately, this may mean they cannot participate as freely in uploading one certain type of image to the Wiki. Yet there are so many other ways to contribute, this self-imposed limitation really should not (in my opinion) overshadow creating a policy on this matter, one way or the other.  RS AdvLogMyles Prower  Talk 03:46, August 3, 2018 (UTC)

Hey, can you split this into paragraphs for ease of reading please? Achievements Coelacanth0794 Talk Contribs 03:51, August 3, 2018 (UTC)
Done.  RS AdvLogMyles Prower  Talk 04:28, August 3, 2018 (UTC)
tl;dr i don't like colored skins, those who use them shouldn't upload images. It is nearly every time I ever upload images a discussion happens over it, though rarely do they hit the YG. It gets really old and annoying. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 14:13, August 3, 2018 (UTC)

Support 4 - per Jayden. Although I can see the benefits of having consistency, they're outweighed by the cons in my opinion - I'm personally in the camp of editors that have a custom skin colour and thus would be unable to take EII images (I'm not going to pay to change it back lol). I also don't think it's necessary for (probably the vast majority of) pre-existing EII's to be retaken/tagged for retake because of this - an example of an image I've taken with custom skin, doesn't really take away from the subject itself tbh.

But yeah, use your noggin to see what is and isn't complimentary Star Talk ayy lmao ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 15:53, August 3, 2018 (UTC)

Support 2 - I literally don't understand why this is an issue. Surely there's better things to pick on? cqm 06:37, 5 Aug 2018 (UTC) (UTC)

Support 3 - My stance has not changed since the original thread. The brightly coloured skins do detract from the image's subject in my opinion and I think the more natural skins should be preferred. It's not realistic to expect people to pay to change skin colours for an image, but with a preference for a neutral/default skin it would be acceptable for the image to be retaken which is what I think should happen. Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 12:22, August 5, 2018 (UTC)

Summary - By my count, at this point in the discussion we have 13 people in favor (62%) of adopting policy to disallow custom skin colors and we have 8 people who oppose (38%) changing the policy that feel we should continue to allow custom skin colors. There have been various finer points discussed as well, but most of them on both sides tend to fall under UCS such as not outright removing any pictures. Use of "prefer" language vs "prohibit" language in proposed policy is more widely accepted. We would not necessarily need to tag for retake images if policy is updated for "prefer", but users would be permitted to update a picture based on new policy. Onyx skin was brought up, but this could be discussed later if needed, otherwise it would just be a UCS/AGF judgement call on the part of user potentially updating these. (If anyone disagrees with my vote tally, or feels I missed something in this summary that was important, please comment. It has been about 4 days since any new comments, and about a week since first post, so it seemed like a good time for a summary of where we stand.)  RS AdvLogMyles Prower  Talk 17:06, August 9, 2018 (UTC)

Based on a few people who firstly supported #3, then changed to support the amendment #4, I'd say that there are less people in favour (10?~) of adopting policy to disallow custom skin colours, instead preferring natural skins (yes I'm aware you bring up this point later on, just thought I'd mention it in reference to the opening sentence). Star Talk ayy lmao ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 17:50, August 9, 2018 (UTC)

Closed - No consensus to make a policy for natural skin tone. However, images with unnatural skin tones can be replaced with ones with natural skin tone of similar quality. --LiquidTalk 21:35, August 15, 2018 (UTC)