User talk:IsobelJ

Scarabtomb
Is basically another bad version of File:Kalphite Nursery map.png. 16:15, June 7, 2016 (UTC)

File redirects
In cases where an item page has no file that is named "PAGENAME.png", it is absolutely valid and acceptable to create a redirect from "File:PAGENAME.png" to a file used by the article. It's common practice and the precedent was set by Forum:Change to Exchange icons. 16:42, June 14, 2016 (UTC)
 * This practice finds the most usefulness with files that are used more often, such as File:Guam seed.png for use in drops lines; however, no rule states a minimum usage before a redirect is acceptable. No rule should exist either. If for whatever reason we made an automatic list of gloves, or th items, or blue items, being able to get File:Starfire gauntlets (40).png without an extra input is invaluable. Not just for that item, but for any item whose article does not have a "PAGENAME.png". 16:47, June 14, 2016 (UTC)

relevant to you
http://i.imgur.com/7TxKFER.png

In case it gets cutoff: http://imgur.com/7TxKFER

I guess? --Jlun2 (talk) 11:27, June 15, 2016 (UTC)

Image signatures
Well, if you only used an image that's already on the wiki, I suppose you could do. 16:15, June 29, 2016 (UTC)
 * Or User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature? -- 16:22, June 29, 2016 (UTC)

RE: Signature
I was planning to use imagemap to make the image clickable, something that (afaik) cannot be done with external images. So my current signature will be it, even though I want it in my own style.

Greetings,

Invalid thumbnail parameters
I left you an answer for the error message on RuneScape:User help, but just incase you want the answer quicker I'll reply to you here as well.

The max resolution an image on the wiki can have is apparently 12.5 million pixels. If you scale down File:Eastern Sea Map.png by just 1% you'll get it below that cap, and that should correct the error message. We had to do the same for File:PHAS Hint Map.png a few years ago. Hope that helps. — Heaven Sent (talk) 19:48, July 9, 2016 (UTC)

Re:Stuff
Afaik no idle anim has always been used as an argument in cases like this. As for nxt and stuff, of course it's allowed, but why would you ever use an nxt image when it's objectively worse? It's not a matter of opinion really. E.g. lighting in the abbey image: it was originally intended to be yellow, nxt making it blue is almost certainly not an intended change but Jagex not bothering to manually add the proper lighting there and thus using a generic one instead. Therefore the nxt lighting is worse. You all probably think of me just being annoying in these cases, but I fail to see how what I say is not simply common sense. 14:52, July 16, 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I wasn't a fan of its existence anyway. 20:40, July 19, 2016 (UTC)

There is no point for that.
Why do I need to give that to you? If Catcherby and White Wolf Mountain was added with no source at all too, even month wasn't added, just being said that it will be reworked in the future... Lairud123 (talk)

New exchange pages
If you go to a non-existent exchange page, there should be a "Create exchange page(s)" button alongside the "Create page" and "Discuss" ones.

I will admit that the pages I made need some updating for the correct item values and buy limits. 11:06, August 9, 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm really sorry about not properly naming my images! Thanks for the guidance. I look forward to contributing more soon. HMSRUNE (talk) 15:58, August 15, 2016 (UTC)

Mapsh
As I was trying to say before you left, :P, here's a link to the content. Can't edit (i.e. upload new versions and things) but can view everything. beep 09:26, August 18, 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Was hoping Ansela'd first me, she usually posts cute snakes. :3 07:52, August 19, 2016 (UTC)
 * The link is broken. D: On the bright side, I saw a squirrel today and it was adorable. 09:52, August 19, 2016 (UTC)
 * yaaaAAAAaaaAAaYY oooooowwwll :D 10:12, August 19, 2016 (UTC)

UTP
That's cute. You actually think I insinuated anything? Moreover, even if I were, insinuating someone has a neurological disorder does not constitute a breach of UTP, as it was not used as an insult and it is not a profanity. It's characterising a behaviour. 19:39, August 23, 2016 (UTC)

Pet names
The names that Ben and myself moved them to are (almost) the ones they should be in, according to the image policy. It's not our fault that Paul didn't know, or ignored, that policy when he originally uploaded the pet images. 21:12, August 23, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yet again making unfounded assumptions about my intentions. Tsk tsk. When I originally uploaded the images, nothing was known about this special case, and no one was communicating about it. There's absolutely 0 blame to be had there. More salt for my popcorn pls Ansela. 21:20, August 23, 2016 (UTC)

Skilling pet pages protection
That's actually completely unnecessary, and reactionary in a delayed sense. I'd already conceded that - in light of RuneScape:IMG -  was the correct name for the detailed images of the pets. The issue with the clashing names has also been resolved in that same motion. Things were not clearly laid out before action was taken, and it was disorganised. This led to confusion and frustration for multiple people. 21:20, August 23, 2016 (UTC)

Ghoul fight
Hey, look, I don't want to make a big deal out of this (took some reluctant convincing to write this up in the first place), but your revert summary wasn't very helpful. Obviously the matter's subjective and if we disagree on it then fine by all means, but I did try to explain the reason for reverting (i.e. less clarity of subject due to hectic shadows and dark lighting), whereas 'it's fine' isn't really indicative of its being better than the previous version. Again, it doesn't really matter, but, err, just saying, I guess? ... Got any more owls? 10:07, August 30, 2016 (UTC)
 * The new image definitely wasn't against policy, merely my own opinion. In this particular case, I felt LD and shadows detracted from the quality of the image to the degree that I decided to revert, not because it was strictly against policy (in which case I'd like to think someone else would have beaten me to it). Point taken, though. Lovely plumage. 12:46, August 30, 2016 (UTC)
 * Btw, be honest: are the images I take myself so terrible? They keep getting replaced for no reason whatsoever, I can confirm that's also off-putting. 14:21, August 30, 2016 (UTC)
 * Afaik nxt is permitted, not preferable? But even so, the majority of the replacements are almost identical and nxt benefits such as draw distance don't play a role, so that's definitely discouraging. Thoughtless replacing 'just because nxt' is not a valid reason imo. At least I don't suck with images, though, I guess, thanks. That said, I'll de facto have to retire from the image business. Qualis artifex pereo! 21:23, August 30, 2016 (UTC)

Demonic Skull for RC
Apparently, you added that it's 119k XP/hr here which is still on the page. Oddly, a search on youtube gives ~200k XP/hour instead: 190k, 200k, etc. Anything that might have such a large discrepancy? --Jlun2 (talk) 20:24, August 31, 2016 (UTC)

Re:Photoshop
I would assume they're probably using the Quick-selection tool because it's quicker, instead of using the Polygonal-lasso tool with the Anti-Aliasing checkbox marked to to make their selections and masks. Quick select can be perfectly fine if they're refining their radii and using "Auto-Enhance" alongside it. But they really do need to be using auto-enhance to get smoother selection lines and masks. This requires more system resources however, so most users tend to leave it off unless they're using a professional grade PC. — Heaven Sent (talk) 16:42, September 14, 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify a bit more, I do most of my Wiki-transparencies in GIMP because the outcome is better. Quick-selections work best when you have high-contracting colors between your subject and their background; what we get with depth-of-focus. For in-game screenshots without depth of focus, the backgrounds remain as clear as our subjects, making it much harder for the software to make clean selections as the two subjects intersect, or colors began to blend. This is what their tools should look like if they're going to be using Photoshop, but they should also be urged to use extreme caution when using quick-select to make large selections; it's probably best to use the Polygonal-lasso for fine details and in low-contrast areas. — Heaven Sent (talk) 17:27, September 14, 2016 (UTC)

Count
The NPC is large, aye, but we don't enlarge chatheads just because NPCs are bigger, that makes no sense. Especially considering huge monstrosities like Vorago. :P Exceptions are File:Queen Black Dragon Head Detail.png and similar, but those aren't actually chatheads. 16:22, October 4, 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the clarification, I was not aware of this (although I do have a peculiar sense of déja vu...but that isn't the first time). Let's conclude that it's a peculiarity of NXT, then, aye? Aye. I still fail to see how it's any better, seeing that, ignoring the size, the biggy-biggy-what-rhymes-with-biggy version cuts of the goatee and neck, in addition to lacking textures (presumably NXT uses directx, which has been unable to render chatheads correctly for a few years now, as opposed to opengl...) and lighting detail. So...that. :/. 19:20, October 4, 2016 (UTC)
 * gentle poke 15:48, October 5, 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't recall NXT images' being preferred no matter what, as far as I know a YG thread established NXT images are allowed. But I could be wrong, don't hold me to that. Either way, I would say RS:UCS applies here. If a full version of the chathead (plus proper textures) is available, why not use it? I'm not a fan of the "it looks like this in-game" argument really, since (i) it does only in a certain game mode and (ii) nobody would say that if by some bug half of his head was missing. :s 17:16, October 5, 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking at page histories, that bit of RS:IMG was added in April, whereas the first proper discussion on whether to allow NXT images or not was in July and its consensus was that they should be allowed. I don't think it's ever been established that they should be preferred. RS:IMG should probably be amended... While in some cases it's obvious where, for instance, draw distance is concerned, in cases like this it's equally obvious that Java should be preferred, methinks. 18:45, October 5, 2016 (UTC)