RuneScape Wiki
RuneScape Wiki
Forums: Yew Grove > Media Policy
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 31 August 2009 by Azaz129.

The image and media policy [1] has been dormant for three months now without any talk or changes. The animation discussion came to an end so I added that to the policy, and also added rules for Youtube videos and Runescape music based on other yew grove discussions that reached consensus but never made any changes. Please review the policy below and post your support/oppose so we can make something happen and not let it die out again. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 18:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

To upload an image to the wiki, see the upload page.

The images and media policy describes preferred image source, content, and usage in articles and other pages. It applies to all images equally, regardless of uploader, format, and subject.

Image Criteria

All images should meet this criteria before being uploaded and used on the wiki.

  • Images should be created by the wiki community, not other fansites or the Game guide.
  • All images must be taken in HD graphics mode.
  • Player names should be removed from images.
    • Please don't censor usernames with a colour that makes it stand out.
    • Jagex moderator names can stay as they may be relevant.
  • The primary subject of the image should be shown without distraction, this includes purposefully adding your character or unnecessary details to an image.
  • Image descriptions should be included on the appropriate page, which generally is the [[Image:imagename.type]] page.
    • Keep descriptions short, sweet, and to the point, generally one or two sentences is enough.
  • All images hosted on the wiki must be used in the main article namespace at least once. Project-related images, such as the sysop crown, are an exception.
    • This means no images just for signatures, or your userpage. Use ImageShack, PhotoBucket, Flickr, or another third party image hosting site instead.
  • The maximum allowed image file size for images uploaded to the wiki is 2 megabytes.
    • Please crop out any unneeded space. For example, a picture of a tinderbox does not need to be accompanied by the rest of the inventory.
  • Images taken in Runescape Classic or before the HD update should be kept for reference, but removed from articles and replaced with its HD counterpart.
  • Any images or links from third party sites must adhere to the same standard of those on the wiki. (No vulgar, offensive, or otherwise unnecessarily suggestive media, please use common sense while linking/uploading from third party sites.)
  • Fanart that has been displayed on the RuneScape website is acceptable. Personal fanart and fanart created by another author is not acceptable on the wiki and is subject to deletion.

Flash Video

  • Streaming videos (e.g., YouTube embeddings) should not be used in articles.

Audio Files

  • Runescape music and sound effects are not to be uploaded or used in any article.

Animation Criteria

All animated gif images must meet this criteria before they can be uploaded or used on the wiki.

  • Animations should only be used to detail complex actions in-game that a still screenshot can not.
  • All articles are limited to two animation's maximum. Any other images should be still screenshots.
  • Animations must have a maximum filesize of 500kb or less.
  • Animations if used must be taken in HD graphics mode and with 4x anti aliasing.

Any disputes about any media meeting the criteria should be discussed on it's talk page and tagged with a relevant template.


Anti aliasing

Please do not require AA on. AA images look better for things with backgrounds like scenery or location images, but they transparency on them turns out horrible. AA should only be for images that do not require transparency. Karlis (talk) (contribs)

18:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
My bad, I was copy/pasting away while making changes with notepad and I must have forgotten to take that out in the final revision. Fixed. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 18:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Still images

PNG only for still images - I think this is an important addition. We should also state that the image should be directly captured to the PNG format to avoid dithering artifacts (GIF) and compression artifacts (JPG). Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 08:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion - Any images taken of an item (lets say a godsword) should be taken with no other armour on, purely the character with the godsword equipped. Theres no requirement to show off or wear other items, which could detract to the usefulness of the image. Karis Talk to me 18:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I feel that that is somewhat a good idea. Sometimes, a player just wears items due to them being "famous" to be wearing it. But, what if we could double up on images? Like have a player wielding a dragon longsword and a rune platebody, so it could go on two articles, reducing space on this wiki? ~MuzTalk 21:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment - I think that Muzzy has raised a good point but I think Karis' idea is better, only the article (is this the right word?) should be shown. Statistics.png Lvl 3 skils3 Choice! Talk~ Holiday Signup ~Hiscores 05:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment - @Nacho Novo9 - Have to disagree with that. That would lead to a similar monotonous appearance as some people with repeated costumes on. (Chompy bird hat (bowman).pngPith helmet.pngTribal top (blue).png). I don't think you would like to see 100 of these; [1] [2] Also the Image Maintenance Project states that variety helps to present a less monotonous appearance as a wiki (e.g., different characters, different outfits). Adult chameleon (automatic).png Anurin Talk · Sign! . 11:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment - A fair point, but think of this - A completely new RS player is using this guide, he wants to know all about bronze swords, now if the image had purely the bronze sword with no other armour, would it not be clearer to the new player exactly what it was ? Karis Talk to me 11:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
A player looks at Bronze sword.png and text to know what a bronze sword is. The purpose of an image with a player wielding the bronze sword is to show the proporsions and the looks of the bronze sword - not to show what a bronze sword is. Adult chameleon (automatic).png Anurin Talk · Sign! . 11:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
On another note, shouldn't images be clear and consise ? The proportions and looks of the bronze sword aren't changed if the player is wearing other random armour, random armour which doesn't contribute to the article in any way. If ofcourse, the sword changed depending on what was worn, ofcourse an image would be helpful Karis Talk to me 11:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
How about you just crop the face, torso and legs off aswell? Clothes and faces don't contribute to the article in any way either. Adult chameleon (automatic).png Anurin Talk · Sign! . 11:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment - If you are referring to my statement, I didn't mean it like that. I worded it somewhat odd. I mean that only adding images for items with just that item will take up too much space. Also, there are many pages that are about the whole set of clothing, with separate articles for each part of that set. We can save space on this wiki if we allow images to be uploaded with other articles of clothing on only if they contribute to the article of the respected clothing. ~MuzTalk 11:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
If I were to reply to your comment I woulda put another tab before it. I edited my comment to make it clear that I was replying to the suggestion. Adult chameleon (automatic).png Anurin Talk · Sign! . 11:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion - I hope that I should have put the comment here rather then the bottom of the page... Anyway, I feel that the "SD" template rule directly contradicts the "Historical image" rule. Historical images don't need to be updated, yet the sd section says that you still should tag it for needing to be updated. I feel that an extra sentence needs to be tacked on the end explaining this. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 11:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


Comment - I support most of it, but I would still like to see the animation section mention that in absolute necessary condidtions, more then two animations may be used. I'm not sure which example is good, but it mine is emotes. It's hard to show the emote in the still...

09:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Look what guild wars wiki does for their long and complex animations ingame [2]. Perhaps we should do that, just link to an uploaded animation as to not bog down page load times. That way only users who are interested in seeing it will. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 17:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion and Support - As I raised on the Image Maintenance project, unneeded animations (examples [[:Image:Varrock Defender 1.gif|4]] (same as on the project page) (1, 2 and 3 have since been deleted)) should be replaced by still images. A note about this (replacing unneeded ones with stills) should be added to the relevant point in the policy (first point under "Animation Criteria". Also, audio seems to be used on many articles, and after a bit of research I can't seem to find any dicussions on it. Otherwise everything seems to be covered. Weird gloop.png @Gaz#7521 21:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Support - Very good guidelines. Look at File:Phileas Talking.gif this. Animation needed? I think not.Joe Click Here for Awesomeness15:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Support - Animations are completely unneeded on the wiki (except for special attacks and a few (only a few) other things). Statistics.png Lvl 3 skils3 Choice! Talk~ Holiday Signup ~Hiscores 05:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Comment - So, are we getting this passed? Anyhow, animations need to be sorted out, useless ones deleted and replced with screenshots. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 03:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I believe animations are only needed for:

  1. Special attacks
  2. Special effects of enchanted bolts
  3. Emotes
  4. Other emote-ish animations (such as the Prayer book's "emote")

May have missed some. I agree that useless animations, such the the one above of some guy talking and bobbing his head, should be trashed.  Tien  12:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Support - I agree with the points that Tien has brought up. As stated, there might be a few rare exceptions to this rule, but those four seem to be a great idea for it. ~MuzTalk 19:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I've come across a page (Zombie outfit) that has both an animation (unnecessary) and a screenshot of a male and female player wearing the outfit (should be kept). I don't know if I should just delete the animation on the spot, but since this proposal is still goimdashng on, I'll wait for now.  Tien  23:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Hehe, some useless animations are made by me. Blush Oh well. And is AA required for animations? As my computer doesn't support it. Miasmic Blitz.png Hapi007 Talk! Sign! . 09:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Err, are images like this (File:Egg Spawn.gif) also allowed? Miasmic Blitz.png Hapi007 Talk! Sign! . 10:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
That would fall under the "Unique and interesting NPC animations section of the currently proposed policy, so if that gets "passed" or whatever then yea it'd be fine. But you might have to take that armor and stuff off Lol Robot talkSilver bar.png 15:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose AA Requirement - In fact, AA should be forbidden in any type of GIF. All GIF images (that includes animations) are limited to a 256 color palette. Anti-aliasing causes the color count to increase dramatically, meaning poorer quality and pixelated-looking videos. Such an effect resembles that of a newspaper or mass-printed media when zoomed in.

Really, we should be looking for an alternative to GIF altogether. Animations on pages aren't necessary. Instead, have a thumbnail that links to a real video file. Once IE9 comes out, SVG might be an options; but even then, I'd like to see the actual animations kept separate from articles.

  1. REDIRECT User:Supertech1/Signature 20:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I don't know if this goes in this section, but can we allow .mov files to be uploaded? I have a Mac so I can't create or save .gif files. --Iiii I I I 13:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Currently you cannot, however once this policy passes, you can create a proposal thread in the Yew Grove to allow them. The only reason I would not bring it up here is because this discussion is winding down and bringing up another issue at this time is not really the best idea Robot talkSilver bar.png 16:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, .mov and .gif files are quite different and are designed for different media. .mov are, as the name implies for movies, whereas .gif files are for short animations. I am against either being used on the wiki because neither are particularly "good." It's just as easy to make a .gif on a Mac as it is on a Windows or Linux machine, though; you just need a good program. Try GIMP.
  1. REDIRECT User:Supertech1/Signature 16:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal images

Suggestion - Perhaps we can allow one personal image to be uploaded onto the site as they do on Central? It really wouldn't take up much space and would cut down on the amount of deletions and such that admins have to do.--Quest point hood.png Bigm2793Talk Quest point cape.png 19:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You can simply upload the images on Photobucket or Imageshack and take up no space. Deleting isn't a big problem, and it is easier to control them if none can be uploaded. It doesn't take long to load them on photobucket or imageshack, and you don't have to risk them being deleted. Karlis (talk) (contribs)
20:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal Images now of course that policy is a common one but why do we have it? Anyone?Joe Click Here for Awesomeness13:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Because we're not a personal image hosting site. Wikia pays for the space, and it's also much easier to monitor the images being used on our space if we only allow imaged ti first be placed on mainspace. Give me a bit and I will find the Yew Grove discussion. Karlis (talk) (contribs)
13:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I have a few reasons why I don't think that this would work.

  1. It would be tough to maintain this. There would need to be a count of all that each has uploaded.
  2. If they upload one image, don't get it deleted for personal, and then they add more personal images, possibly making more work for the admins
  3. Why take up more space on here, when Photobucket or Imageshack or whatever image hosting sites will offer you uploading images for free?

That is why I oppose the personal image issue. ~MuzTalk 19:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


Support - This looks like a good policy, certainly it's got the right idea and may need some tweaking, but lets get that stuff hammered out so we can get a consensus on this. Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 22:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Support - Especially the animations part. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 22:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Support Not a lot of input for something this far reaching, odd. --Degenret01 09:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment - If I'm not mistaken, there are a few audio files on our featured article While Guthix Sleeps. Should they be removed?  Tien  13:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Support - Good suggestions for image and other forms of media for this wiki. ~MuzTalk 21:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment This should be taken by a case-by-case basis. Personally, the majority of my weekly penguin locations video's views come from the RS Wiki. That proves that users ARE using the Wiki, and it proves that it IS helping hundreds of players weekly. The maps I create weekly and put on a video and upload to YouTube, then embed on the RS Wiki, can't be expressed with words. But hey, if I'm not allowed to help players like that, then someone can take up space on the article for 10 large pictures each week, and have them all uploaded on the Wiki every week. If it has to come down to that, I'm not going to do it. Nor will I let anyone use my images to do it. Meaning, someone will have to take hours of their precious time if they really want to help players to the extent that I have. Boomer12342 00:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If this goes through, RS:IAR can be invoked (so long as the community agrees) in this case to embed the video. Weird gloop.png @Gaz#7521 18:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I think linking to the vid is fine, not embedding it. While so many users do like it or what ever, most people visiting that page do not, they just go use the penguin cc on world 60. --Degenret01 06:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Support linking to the video rather than embedding. My computer lags enough as is playing RuneScape and doing anything else at the same time, a Youtube video automatically loading would probably freeze my Firefox entirely. I personally don't like embedded videos anywhere, and even have my LiveJournal account set to display only a placeholder instead of embedded videos. -- Aria Ryuko (Talk) 17:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Inventory images

Something I noticed is that some people add transparency to inventory images WITH the shadow and some do WITHOUT the shadow. I don't feel passionately about one way or the other, but it should be standardized. I personally feel that they look better without the shadows. We should get a consensus about this and add it to the policy.

No shadow - I think its slightly clearer, the shadows tend to make the images look fuzzy, especially on smaller images. Robot talkSilver bar.png 21:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No shadow - The image sprites can do without the shadows, it appears messy on any other background which isn't the same color as the inventory. Zig 02:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


Ohai guise. I felt that the policy page looked a bit sparse as it was so I took a shot at re-formatting it. I also added a few policies that were discussed elsewhere, the biggest of which was the animations policy, which was discussed here and here. I made the changes on the RuneScape:Images_and_media_policy page, but they can be reverted if they prove unpopular, since I have it saved on my sandbox. Discussion on this topic seems to have reached a standstill and I'm eager to move things along so we can start acting on images that violate this proposed policy. Robot talkSilver bar.png 18:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the extra explanations, it helps. Otherwise seems very similar to the original proposal, which I assume wad the intention. Weird gloop.png @Gaz#7521 14:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Correct, all I intended to do was make it easier to read, not change any policies. The only major thing I did was add the animation guidelines, which weren't already in there. Robot talkSilver bar.png 15:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Re-Support - This is a good policy with good intentions. Unfortunately, the discussion has gone dormant at least twice so lets try to get a consensus on this. I think this policy helps encourage quality images on the wiki. That just makes things look better. Thanks for the renewed support and updating of the policy. Looks good. Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 23:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Support - Look great per all support so far. - TehKittyCat (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per Tollerach. --Quarenon  Talk 11:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per all. ShinyUnown T | C | E 13:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

support - per my original reasons. There's absolutely no need to have an animation for a guy wielding a fury amulet rotating around. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 17:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per all. -- Aria Ryuko (Talk) 17:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Shall we call for closure? - This discussion has been going on for a while and it looks like we have a lot of community support, with no clear opposition. I think it may be time to put this policy into effect. Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 20:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait! See below.
Well, that issue is either resolved or can be moved onto another thread. So, the Request for Closure is reinstated. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 22:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sound files

"Runescape music and sound effects are not to be uploaded or used in any article." Aren't we using music and sound effect samples in some articles? We had discussed about allowing this.   az talk   15:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That bit was in the original policy, I personally see no reason to include music clips, but I also don't see any reason not to. I guess I just don't care Lol Robot talkSilver bar.png 17:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
"That bit" was added much later on 7 April 2009. The discussion about using music samples "ended" on 14 March 2009.   az talk   11:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Well if it was added without consensus, then I do believe it should be removed Robot talkSilver bar.png 16:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I have no objection to sound files being linked to from articles, but I do not believe that sound files should be embedded in articles. I don't see why linking would be a problem; it's considered fair use under U.S. copyright law.

  1. REDIRECT User:Supertech1/Signature 20:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - So it looks like the audio file statement has been a part of the policy since this thread started. That means, all the support that this proposed policy received also supports the audio file statement as well. Since this thread is newer than the previous discussion, I would imagine that this thread takes precedence. My interpretation of this is we have a consensus here to remove music and sound effects from all articles. Although, if anyone disagrees (I don't see any disagreement yet in this thread), I move that we take that statement out of the policy, so that we can pass this policy. Then we can have a separate discussion about audio files. I say, let's get this community supported policy enacted. Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 21:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

We had discussed about this earlier, but no one actually discussed whether to keep or remove these files now. Someone just added that statement into the policy, and thought that it will pass unnoticed without any discussion. People sometimes overlook things. I myself didn't notice that statement until recently. Silence doesn't always mean that it is consensus, especially when it comes to policy statements. (If it wasn't clear enough earlier, I disagree that the statement should be included.)   az talk   10:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Remove - Personally I would rather see them removed, however since it was added in unscrupulously without any consensus or discussion, we need to remove it for now. Robot talkSilver bar.png 15:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Support closure - A week has passed since the last post. I could close this myself, but I have posted in this thread. Could a neutral sysop/b'crat close this, so that I can finalise the policy? Thanks.   az talk   13:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that consensus on implementing this has long been reached. If anyone objects about the sound files, they could always start another topic or use the talk page. Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 19:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Robot talkSilver bar.png 02:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Closed - Per Scruffy.--

03:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)