FANDOM


This talk page is for discussing the RuneScape:Images and media policy page.

Note: This talk page is for discussing the Wiki's policies regarding images. For discussing image formatting and general usage, see RuneScape talk:Images. For discussing the project tasked with maintaining and improving images, see RuneScape talk:Image Maintenance.

Equipment images

The issue at hand with this criterion is whether images showing how items look when equipped should be allowed to depict equipment other than the piece at question. I think that if an image is supposed to show one item, then it should show that one item and no others. In the case of set images, obviously it is acceptable to have the full set on, but not for those that show individual items. During the debate on the IRC over this, the counter-argument that it would be much more difficult to have animations for each individual item was presented. I don't see why it's necessary to have them animated in this case; the only benefit an animation has over a still image is that slightly more of the item is shown. On the other hand, we either have an inconsistent standard for such images or we allow images that potentially show the items in question an an unclear way. Debating on the IRC has gotten nowhere, so I'd like the community to decide on the merits of these arguments. Skill 03:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As I personally stated in IRC, I agree with you Skill. You don't need animations for every single item, but if you do, make it so it's clear what that item is. Cool Spy0 03:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason why the criterion was set in the first place was due to the tendency of personal images being uploaded for the uploader's sole purpose of putting it in their userpage, while other editors attempt to place it into mainspace articles as an excuse to deem that image acceptable.

The purpose of the upload counts, as there are scenarios that it would be obvious that the original uploader had no intentions of placing such image into an article.

There is also the scenario that a "full set" of an equipment may be way too varied. As such, "Full Rune" may be judged as the Rune Full Helmet, the Rune Platebody, and the Rune Platelegs, the Rune Full Helmet, the Rune Platebody, and the Rune Plateskirt, the Rune Full Helmet, the Rune Platebody, the Rune Platelegs, and the Rune Kiteshield, the Rune Full Helmet, the Rune Platebody, the Rune Platelegs, the Rune Kiteshield, and the Rune Boots, or the Rune Medium Helmet, the Rune Chainbody, the Rune Plateskirt, and the Rune Boots. As such, a "set" cannot be reasonably determined.

As for the animated images, the scenario is that it would be very inefficient to record every single piece of item individually due to the longer amount of time it takes to record rather than take a screenshot. The animated images are also necessary that it may show more details that the reader may have interest in checking. With the script you are writing, it shouldn't be a problem to allow users to deactivate the animations if they are disruptive. Chompy bird hat (bowman)Tarikochi 03:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

  1. Regardless of the intent of the uploader, an image could be very unclear and still be used in mainspace as an equipment image without such a criterion. Whether the image was intended to be personal or not is irrelevant, as it's unsuitable for inclusion either way.
  2. In question here is not the content of set images, but rather whether it is acceptable to have miscellaneous equipment in an individual item image. Surely you would be more concerned with what defines a set given that you upload quite a few set images.
  3. Again, the matter at hand isn't whether the animations lag users' computers. Per your argument, it is too inefficient to have animations for each item in the set, therefore I proposed that still images could be used. The difference is that animations show the side view and such, which wouldn't be present in a still. This is insignificant in my opinion and doesn't justify having an inconsistent or flawed standard. Of course, it's up to the community to decide whether they agree with this judgement or not. Skill 04:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is a proposition: If the image is not deemed acceptable in a target article by a decided consensus in the appropriate Image Talk Page in one week which would be displayed in a list of "currently debated images" under a reasonable argument, that image is up for replacement in the article it was used in, with a newly created template on the article at the location of the image stating such. Such an image must be proposed via the appropriately agreed-upon RS:IMP policy, such as "personal image", and it must be a reasonable accusation. If it is an obvious errored image, then the usual policies apply. Chompy bird hat (bowman)Tarikochi 05:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems like a reasonable compromise and addresses my concerns. Certainly it's better to have a consensus decide on a case-by-case basis whether an image is acceptable than a vaguely worded policy. Given that there probably aren't going to be any objections, I'll go ahead and add this to the proposed policy. Skill 06:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Personal Images

I really dont see the need to allow the wiki to host them. There are plenty of websites out there that people can "show off". Also, how many meleers w/ dragon and thier whip do we need? Wintumber tree Atlandy 03:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

i agree theres loads like photobucket, imageshack that takes to minutes to upload a picture and link it to the wiki Slayer Timwac talk Fire cape 08:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Personal images on users' home pages taken from Photobucket is fine. It's just when they use images on their homepage that are also plastered all over the website that gets me. It's all to do with egos. The more impressive you look, the bigger your ego. The online world is a constant competition to see who's most impressive. It's sad, really. Black cavalier Zenihdrol Tribal top (blue) 15:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I feel the same way about people who wear the same outfit in all their images *cough* kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 16:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


Now, now. We're all mature people here... (Though I do agree) Black cavalier Zenihdrol Tribal top (blue) 23:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Image creation

"Images should be created by the wiki community, not other fansites or the Game guide" I actually source a lot of item images (the "detailed" images) from the Grand Exchange Database. Would this be disallowed? I would agree that we should not be taking images from third-party sources (such as other fansites) but what is the reasoning behind disallowing images from the Game Guide, etc? Surely Jagex owns the images in any case, and we are only using them under "fair use".

I notice, incidentally, that some people are simply transferring the detailed images from the database to the wiki. This has two problems - firstly, the images have a lot of empty space around them, and secondly they come in GIF format instead of PNG. PNG doesn't come with the copyright baggage associated with GIFs, so we should ONLY be using GIFs for animations (if then), and use PNG in all other cases. Conversion should not be a problem. Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 20:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

what next?

What needs to happen to move this past a proposed policy and into an actual policy? I'm sure it has to reach community consensus, so I for one will put my support vote on it wherever it needs to be voted at. ~kytti khat 04:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Matter of Fact

This has been troubling me and trying my patience for a long time. We need to decide whether you need a transparent background or not for images. Also they need to specify what is deemed distracting. What is distracting to one is not distracting to another, therefore if we have an idea of what is "Distracting" set in stone, there should be less confusion about it. Bandos godswordJmoDragon platebody, 01:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, do you mean all images have transparency or just NPC's, monster's, items etc...? I do like transparency on those sorts of article but are we going to hold it against someone if they choose not to upload something with transparency (Yes, I am a big offender :D)? Secondly, I believe by distracting you are specifically refering to certain outfits that players are wearing in an image/animation. A good argument might be that say someone is showing off how the Water tiara looks for instance and is wearing a Dragon platebody under it, so it would seem that the body is directing attention away from the purpose of the image which is to show the tiara. I personally am not against stating that it is preferred that if you are displaying an item that no other item is worn (yes we could make an exception for a set of items). Elaborating a bit more on this, but by distraction would you also classify some text in images as being distracting. Like say a player is showing a certain ranging spot for some sort of article. If the player happened to say "This is a good spot to range <set monster>." Would that qualify as distracting. Thanks ahead of time if you answer. :) --Whiplash 04:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Animations and audio

I have updated the policy to reflect the recent discussion about an animation limit here [1]. As well as a discussion about audio here [2]. Please look over my changes and see if it they are acceptable. We should get this policy approved asap, it has alot of useful changes. Cap and gogglesTEbuddy 06:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Reformatted the policy page

I read through the policy and I thought it was a bit confusing and unorganized. I took a crack at re-organizing it and applying some formatting and I put it on my Sandbox page. I also added a few other policies that existed elsewhere but were not listed there, such as transparency. Take a look at it and tell me what you think! kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 20:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Er, well I just copied and pasted it into the project page since no one seemed to be doing anything... that was about a week ago I believe. Still nothing? Wake up peoples! Useless animations are running rampant! JPEGs everywhere! They must be stopped! kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 18:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd reccommend you take it to the Yew Grove for wider community input - you should probably go straight to this thread, as the former page was awaiting consensus - a fairly large change like this should really go through the entire process again, though see what the community thinks. Weird gloop @Gaz#7521 18:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I read on the main page that all articles should be limited to two animations per page? I disagree, some items have more than two things to them. (Like attack animation, weilding animation and special attack) so I'd reckon 3 animations per page? And all still images that can't be seen properly (mostly because they're not .PNG) should be deleted. Black cavalier Zenihdrol Tribal top (blue) 15:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Per the animation policy wielding and attacking animations should not be used. There's almost never anything unique about them. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 16:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Stolen images

I looked at the to-be policy and I instantly saw the one image rule which caught my eye: "No images from the gameguide or from fansites". You wouldn't believe how annoying it is to see an image just taken from the game guide and stuck on here.

The metallic Dragons were the worst to suffer, because the images from the gameguide are small, pixellated and half their tail is cut off. (That's been fixed now, myself and another user have replaced those images in their respective articles) I really hope this rule sticks when the policy gets passed, will be nice to see some quality pictures users have taken themselves for a change... Black cavalier Zenihdrol Tribal top (blue) 04:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand this... {{Fair use|Jagex}} is used for images that come from the game guide. ShinyUnown T | C | E 04:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
While you can use them, you probably shouldn't. Jagex's knowledge base images are, usually, small, JPEG, and low quality. Just take a look at any knowledge book page and you'll see the issue. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 05:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Plus it kinda suggests we're too lazy/untalented to get the images ourselves. Weird gloop @Gaz#7521 09:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
For those interested, there is a rather long list of images from the game guide on my userpage. --Armadyl symbol Nightgunner Talk Illuminated Book of Law 19:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Audio...

I disagree with the part that says music and SFX cannot be used in articles. For one pure reason that it doesn't give a proper reason.

My reason for going for having audio on articles, is that it's nice to read articles and be able to listen to music at the same time. It's not technically stealing, because the Audio is still coming from RuneScape in-game itself (Being a RUNESCAPE wiki) So all credit indesputedly goes to Jagex.

So, why not? Black cavalier Zenihdrol Tribal top (blue) 05:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Tebuddy added that in a long time after the policy was first created and people started to discuss it and no one really noticed because the discussion had died down. However Azaz picked up on it and brought it to everyone's attention in the Yew Grove discussion, and consensus there seems like it'll be, since it was added with no discussion, that it will be removed. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 16:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I added that little bit during my initial rewrite of the media policy based on this discussion a long while back [3]. It was no attempt to covertly sneak my own way into an article, its just that a small amount of activity coupled with no one being truly sure we were not breaking any copyright laws combined with music embedded in web pages is looked down upon by the majority of the web design community, combined with people already complaining about lag on the wiki motivated me to add it. Please if you have a problem with something I have done bring it up on my talk page, this discussion is probably old but I just now found both threads where people were hinting that I was trying to ninja my own views into a policy without consensus. Cap and gogglesTEbuddy 01:40, September 2, 2009 (UTC)
Everything happened before I got involved in the discussion, so I can't really say exactly what happened, and I certainly did not think you were intentionally being malicious or anything like that. However it probably would have been prudent to link to that discussion in your edit summary Lol kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 02:07, September 2, 2009 (UTC)

Audio Redux and fair-use

Starting this discussion all over again, huh? Uploading music onto this wiki is illegal, and is a blatant violation of copyright. Without formal concensus on this point, it should not be asserted as legal on a formal policy document like this. The section quoted here applies to personal fair-use and not something necessarily being re-distributed in a public manner such as this wiki. In short, this quoted section does not apply in the context of how we are using it on this wiki.

Without a formal discussion on this point reaching consensus, the content on this wiki page should not be changed anyway. For that reason, I'm doing a reversion of this document to reflect the earlier concept that uploading entire songs to this wiki is illegal. --Robert Horning 03:01, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

Animations limit

All articles are limited to two animations maximum. Does it includes articles like Combat, Magic, Special attacks etc? --Nup(T) 07:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow you know that was in there from the start, and I never thought of that. I say that it should be removed, but we can't really do that without consensus. I'm going to put a thread up in the yew grove proposing a series of new templates/categories for the new policies that were recently enacted. I'll bring this issue up there, that tends to get more attention than the talk pages. I guess leave them in for now until some more people put their thoughts. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 02:08, September 2, 2009 (UTC)

this will work

as an editor and as a player that often needs help visually this will work way better as there will not be editors showing off with the one item idea Legaking100 02:08, September 6, 2009 (UTC)

clarifaction

the justifaction for animations section has this in it:

  1. Unique and interesting item animations
  2. Unique and interesting NPC animations

i think it should be shortened to:

  1. Unique item animations
  2. Unique NPC animations

because interesting depends on what the user finds interesting, for example a person may enjoy the fishing animation and find it interesting while another person may not, unique cannot be based on the users opinion and so is a good option for justifaction(doesnt make alotta sense but its a good point :P) Slayer Timwac talk Fire cape 19:55, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

animations max file size 1/4 that of still pics

Ok, that ratio confuses me all to hell. But I don't know all that much about comps, so can someone explain the rationale to me?--Degenret01 03:12, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

A large high quality PNG image can be several MegaBytes (such as File:EnchValleyWF.png}, but an average animation, such as File:Cleave.gif is much smaller due to compression in the form of dithering and other colour reduction. Despite having no noticeable blurriness or colour reduction, that image is only 165KB! Still, I don't think anyone really pays attention to those size limits, and they seem rather arbitrary. Maybe they should just be removed. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 03:17, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
Cool, thanks, And probably. And omg who added the ugly ET to our Featured Image tag? Ewwwwww.--Degenret01 03:22, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
Azliq created that template with that image, so unless a previous template existed, its always been like that. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 03:33, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

lower case file extensions

This wiki is case sensitive on file names, and it is a real pain working with images with .PNG and .png being different.

I would suggest that the image upload policy be amended to the following, and this is based on the most common usages I've come across so far, so would basically be bringing images inline with the majority.

File Names

  1. use lower case extensions. For example .png rather than .PNG
  2. if the image name is multiple words then separate them with spaces, do not run them together or use underscores. For example Ice amulet.png rather than Iceamulet.png

Ideally it would be nice if all file names were be lower case too - but for most images this isn't the case, so I'm not recommending that. Aka Edge 01:18, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

You should propose this on RS:YG. scoot4.pngscooties 01:23, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, have done: Forum:Lower_case_image_extensions. Aka Edge 03:58, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Other sites using our files

Newly created RuneScape fansite RuneZone is using content from other fansites. Most notably us, the RuneScape Wiki, for all their image content needs. I would like to request someone to either clarify whether our files are liable for other fansite use or if an administrator needs to contact the site about plagiarizing other sites work. Ryan PM 19:18, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of general principles, I don't have any problems of any kind with another website using our images. The terms of this website are that the content must be used according to the terms of the CC-by-SA license (see the "copyrights" disclaimer on the bottom of each page for details). Furthermore, most images on this site are also used under terms of fair-use and in fact are not copyrighted by us but by Jagex. Appropriation of images from this wiki to another site is not only legal, but in fact encouraged. Furthermore, even blatant copying of the text from this site is even encouraged.... as long as the text on the new website is also used according to the terms of this same license.
Yes, I know that there is a sort of "gentleman's agreement" between the major Runescape fansites that one site won't copy the images from another fansite and that the images are exclusive to that fansite. I call that BS on the most basic level, but irrelevant anyway.
In short, don't get your panties in a bunch over this issue, and there is no liability of any kind that we can do enforce "copyright" from things copied from this website in the first place. Exclusive use images simply can't be used on this wiki. --Robert Horning 01:08, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

help with software to use

can someone add what software to use for taking /making animated gif's and how to capture them. 222 talk 02:45, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

This is more of a policy stating what to follow when making images. RS:FAQ has some information that may be helpful for you, though. ~MuzTalk 02:51, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

Map Images

Should images taken from the World Map have labels or not? Most images I've seen have labels, but some don't, some are reverted to take the labels off, etc.. Can't find any policy on it. Urbancowgurl777 (talk) 06:33, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

Anti-aliasing

For the section "Anti-aliasing", AA images are now widely used in our most recent images. Should it be changed, as even NPC's with transparency have AA? Spined helm SpineTalkBook of knowledge 17:45, August 15, 2011 (UTC)

Streams

Where do images from streams like Developer Q&As on Twitch come under? Are they allowed to be uploaded? Ashë and embers. (talk) 17:41, May 26, 2015 (UTC)

No, but you are allowed to cite them a you would cite any other article, using the twitch link of the video. Fallen leaves ThePsionic Eek 17:51, May 26, 2015 (UTC)
Welp I'm blind, images from streams are of course allowed, provided you use {{Fair use}}. Fallen leaves ThePsionic Eek 17:57, May 26, 2015 (UTC)