| abstract
| - 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. File:Chompy bird hat (bowman).pngTarikochi 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. File:Chompy bird hat (bowman).pngTarikochi 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)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)