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! User:Myles Prower/Signature 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. --19:11, August 1, 2018 (UTC)
Support 3 - For the sake of consistency and avoiding confusion User:KelseW/Signature 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. 19:15, August 1, 2018 (UTC)
Support 3 -19:17, August 1, 2018 (UTC)
Support 3 - As per Scuzzy
- REDIRECT User:We left wikia/Signature 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.
User:Myles Prower/Signature 19:22, August 1, 2018 (UTC)
- Are you including the onyx skin in this? User:KelseW/Signature 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. 20:00, 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, 3.23:29, 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. -- 00:46, 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. -- 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. Haidro (talk) 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. User:TyA/sig 01:30, August 2, 2018 (UTC)
- Proposal Create a gofundme to support TyA changing his race every time we need an EII. -- 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
TyAanyone can't get mad if their image is replaced based on a highly-distractingunnatural skin-tone. User:Myles Prower/Signature 03:24, 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). User:Myles Prower/Signature 03:15, August 2, 2018 (UTC)
- Support ammendment - This is kind of what I was expecting anyway. -- 03:20, August 2, 2018 (UTC)
- Support ammendment - Per Myles. Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) 08:49, August 2, 2018 (UTC)
- Support ammendment - 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. User:TyA/sig 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. 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.--
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. 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 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. Coelacanth0794 Talk 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. User:Myles Prower/Signature 03:46, August 3, 2018 (UTC)
- Hey, can you split this into paragraphs for ease of reading please? Coelacanth0794 Talk 03:51, August 3, 2018 (UTC)
- Done. User:Myles Prower/Signature 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. User:TyA/sig 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 complimentary15:53, August 3, 2018 (UTC)