Forum:Updating our Images and media policy for 2020

From Old School RuneScape Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Redwood Grove > Updating our Images and media policy for 2020
Replacement filing cabinet.svg
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 8 April 2020 by Spineweilder.

After the introduction, the first line in our Images and media policy is: "Nearly all images uploaded to the wiki should be taken by the uploader themselves in the Old School RuneScape game client (in layman's terms, while playing the official Old School RuneScape client)." However, over time we have begun to use more and more images from other sources, such as the OSRS game cache and third-party clients. The goal of this thread is to discuss what limits, if any, we want to have on images, and to decide on how to update our Images and media policy (henceforth referred to as "RS:IMP") accordingly.

This thread will have two main focuses: (1) images taken outside the game, and (2) images taken from third-party clients. I will try to break down these two main categories into smaller topics, though feel free to bring up anything missing

  1. Images taken outside the game
    • Item/NPC/Object renders - Rendering these in-game models outside of the game allows us to get accurate transparency, arbitrary angles, and functionally limitless quality. This has been particularly useful for NPCs that are hard to take pictures of (quest NPCs like File:Glouphrie the Untrusted.png for example), models with transparency in them (like File:Killerwatt.png and File:Saradomin brew(4) detail.png), or undroppable items that are difficult to get close-up images of in game (File:Chicken feet detail.png for example). Recently, this approach has also been applied to unused models that can only be found in the OSRS cache, such as File:Broken plate detail.png and File:Barbarian (unused).png.
    • Chathead renders - Similar to other model renders, except that chatheads in-game are strictly limited by the chatbox. In this case, even though we can technically get high-quality renders of the chathead models, we tend to use low-quality renders that match their in-game appearance. Much of this topic has already been addressed by Forum:Chunky Chatheads, and I encourage everybody to read through that (and look through some of the old versions of those chatheads) to see what's up.
    • Equipped image renders - Recently, the ability to render models has been extended to rendering player models with certain items equipped. This has been used to get equip images of hard-to-obtain items (like File:Bounty hunter hat (tier 6) equipped.png), as well as some unobtainable items such asFile:Dart (unobtainable item) equipped.png and File:Astral tiara equipped.png.
    • Map tile images - By taking the map tile data directly from the cache, we can get completely accurate maps of locations that otherwise would be impossible to get with our old methods of cropping from the in-game world map or the minimap in the top right. One example of this is File:Water Ravine Dungeon map.png, which can't be fully mapped on foot and isn't accessible from the in-game world map. This should be less of a concern as the wiki transitions to interactive maps, as outlined at Runescape:Map.
  2. Images taken from third-party clients
    • Images with in-game overlays - In the past, guide images were made by manually drawing over in-game screenshots, such as File:Summer elemental start tile.png and File:Inferno Zuk safespots.png. Recently, images with in-game overlays like File:Black chinchompa north spawns.png and File:Kalphite Soldier safespot.png are being used in some cases, which in theory violates RS:IMP. Whether these images should be retaken was the impetus for this thread, though it is not the only topic to discuss.
    • Images with GPU-enabled quality adjustments - Third-party clients can offer some GPU-enabled graphics quality enhancements, such as anti-aliasing and increased render distance. One example of an image on the wiki using increased render distance (but not anti-aliasing) is File:Water Ravine Dungeon.png.
    • Maps with third-party icons - Some third-party clients add additional icons to the world map, for things like jewellery teleport destinations or fairy ring teleports. Similar to the map tile images topic above, this should be less of a concern as the wiki transitions to interactive maps, as outlined at Runescape:Map. However, it should be noted that these icons have a tendency to show up in some guide-like maps made for the wiki, such as File:Path to Raids.png. While that image in particular has no third-party icons, I remember during the creation process we had to instruct the map-maker to turn those map overlays off before making the image guide.

In your responses, feel free to address as many or as few of the different kinds of images I outlined above, and feel welcome to bring up any different image issues I might have missed. Any specific suggestions on how to change RS:IMP are appreciated, and I look forward to a (hopefully) fruitful and active discussion below! :) BigDiesel2m (talk) 09:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


Comment - I'll briefly run down my thoughts on each of these:

  1. Images taken outside the game
    • Item/NPC/Object renders - As long as the rendered models match the models' ingame appearance these seem fine to me. I love how it makes it much easeier to improve the wiki's coverage of obscure or hard-to-access content.
    • Chathead renders - Not to retread on Forum:Chunky Chatheads too much, I think we're mostly fine where we are right now. Personally, I would prefer if we were more aggressive about cutting off the tops of hats and bottoms of beards to match up with the in-game versions, but I don't think a pointy hat or two is the end of the world. Most of the real bad offenders have been chopped down to size.
    • Equipped image renders - Similar to the Item/NPC/Object renders, equipped item renders are a nifty tool to have handy. I'm sure it will be nicer than having to rely on jmods modelling for us :P
    • Map tile images - I think map tiles from the cache are good for both static and interactive maps, and I encourage their use in both cases.
  2. Images taken from third-party clients
    • Images with in-game overlays - Personally, I see no issue in using in-game overlays to make it easier for editors to make guide images. There's no reason why we should make Julia draw boxes and arrows in GIMP rather than just using in-game tile markers. That said, I much prefer subtle tile markings such as File:Black chinchompa north spawns.png over more blatant markings like File:Kalphite Soldier safespot.png. I think the Kalphite Soldier safespot image would be just fine without the big green outlines on the monsters, or even with just a small tile marking where the player stands rather than all the marked objects around them.
    • Images with GPU-enabled quality adjustments - I am strongly against GPU-enabled smoothing and anti-aliasing, as it makes the game look substantially different from the game people play in the default client. That said, there is a part of me that still likes the ability to increase the render distance, as it can make for very pretty images that can capture (for example) entire rooms of a dungeon, rather than being cut off by encroaching black bars. Personally, I'm not sure what the best approach to this is, and I'm curious what other people think.
    • Maps with third-party icons - These should clearly be disallowed. Maps should always match up with what regular players see in-game, without any third-party additions or whatnot. I doubt this is much a concern with the interactive maps project using official maps from the cache, but we should continue to make sure that unofficial icons don't show up in any maps on accident.

With regards to changing RS:IMP, I think we should make it clear that images generated from the cache using renderers are acceptable, and encouraged in places where they would drastically increase the quality or ease of editing. As for third-party clients, I lean towards a blanket ban on all but the most subtle of tile-marking overlays. I don't think editors should have to go out of their way to do something in a more difficult way to avoid using third-party clients, but I think some of the more recent images go a bit overboard with marking all sorts of things. I would encourage basic tile-markers used sparingly, if at all. BigDiesel2m (talk) 09:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Comment — With regards to 1), I'm fine with using the game cache and other external sources as long as they match what it looks like in-game (or would look, in the case of unobtainable items and such), for the sake of granularity.

When it comes to 2), I believe that anything from a third-party client specific feature should be omitted unless it's essential to the image, including increased render distance from the GPU plugin. When it comes to things like marking tiles, I'm of the opinion that if it would have to be edited in anyway, there's not much difference between that and using a plugin for it, but using plugins to mark those tiles as accurately saves a decent amount of time. I do agree with Diesel on making it appear subtle (which is why I opted to not use borders for File:Black chinchompa north spawns.png) and so the markers on File:Kalphite Soldier safespot.png could be toned down—in that image, there is also the question of if the markers are essential to begin with, as it's semi-visible that the kalphite is blocked by the rock (although their dimensions are a bit larger than the model suggests) and the rocks blocking them is almost obvious. --laagone talk 09:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Response - With regards in-game overlays, how do you think we should phrase RS:IMG to allow for only minor, essential overlays? Should we just lean on RS:UCS in this case, or do we want to put in place exact standards for what is and isn't allowed? BigDiesel2m (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Considering this is a recurring exception, I would rather change the policy page to reflect the current status quo (which also extends to using clients like RL but hiding any third party plugins, instead of strictly using vanilla client) along the lines of "All in-game images uploaded to the wiki should appear as they do in the official Old School RuneScape client. Third-party client plugins or image editing may be used if it is essential to what the image portrays, such as to highlight particular game tiles on strategy articles.", rather than using UCS with each time. IMG § Content could possibly also get a subheader with guidelines on how subtle and frequent the plugins/editing should be, but it's not a priority. --laagone talk 21:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


  1. Images taken outside the game
    • Item/NPC/Object renders - Could somebody clarify what exactly the detail images are for? I know they're used in the npc infobox, I know they're used to get "detailed" item images, what's the detailed item image actually supposed to be, what the item looks like ingame on the ground as opposed to the inventory? Are the npc renders actually accurate to what you would see ingame?
    • Chathead renders - I'm fine with these provided they look as they would ingame. (sidenote: bring back long beards that break navboxes!!!!!!!!!!)
    • Equipped image renders - I am fine with these for making obtainable but very hard to obtain items easier to get an image of, but I dislike unobtainable items that are impossible to equip such as with Dart (unobtainable item), if it's true that this is only ever "equipped" in an animation then a gif of that animation is a lot more useful to the wiki than an image that implies that it can be equipped and is following equipped gear naming conventions and is in a template for equipment and gear.
    • Map tile images - I'm completely fine with these.
  2. Images taken from third-party clients
    • Images with in-game overlays - I tend to dislike all of these, although I'd be fine with small overlays such as a tile marker if they are subtle such as on the chinchompa images. I'm not fine with things like the kalphite safespot which are frankly horrible looking and provide very little or no relevant information to the image. In the same way as I'd not label the chinchompa spawns with text in the image and instead explain it on the page, I'd get rid of every one of the overlays on the kalphite safespot image and explain it on the page.
    • Images with GPU-enabled quality adjustments - As far as I'm aware there's no way for an image to have gpu-enabled and still be accurate to what that image would look like ingame, even without the anti-aliasing options turned on, just having gpu turned on innately makes the image look different.
    • Maps with third-party icons - Just no.

We also may wish to mention exceptions to the naming policy on rs:img, such as File:POH noticeboard (Rimmington).png all of these are named improperly on purpose as they are otherwise blocked by adblockers which is obviously bad. I can't think of other exceptions to it other than those but it wouldn't hurt to add a line about it. zTUG5mD.png Crow 653  10:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, this is the difference that GPU on vs off makes. This difference is unacceptable to me and should not be allowed. zTUG5mD.png Crow 653  20:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that there's no way to get increased render distance without other changes like this, but I appreciate you showing the difference. I agree that even with the relatively minor changes shown here, using GPU plugins that noticeably change the game's appearance is something we want to avoid. I guess it does make it easier for us to write the policy though, if we just put a blanket ban on all GPU plugin usage :P BigDiesel2m (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


    • Images taken outside the game - Full support, makes life easy, allows scaling, as other others have said as long as it is consistent with the in-game models. The egregious chatheads should be cut to be close and not cause havoc on pages.
  1. Images taken from third-party clients
    • Images with in-game overlays - The tile marker is highly preferable to me, but that should be the only thing enabled. It should be as close to base client as possible while affording time saving. Being subtle but clear is the goal. The chin spawn is closest one to my preference, as long as there isn't confusion from users.
    • Images with GPU-enabled quality adjustments - While this would be nice, I don't support it, If GPU eventually has toggles for everything but draw distance I would reconsider.
    • Maps with third-party icons - Hard no, would be confusing and inconsistent.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Choppe (talk) on 14:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC).


  1. Images taken outside the game
    • Item/NPC/Object renders - Given that rendering these things externally produces much higher quality images in a much simpler way and much quicker (opposed to spending time trying to line up the angle right etc.), I am fully in favor of these being used where ever possible. Obviously we have to make sure they match what is seen in-game, but that doesn't seem to be an issue.
    • Chathead renders - I'd prefer using the full chathead even if it's not entirely visible in-game. If the navboxes cause issues, surely {{chatl}} could be changed to work with the larger chatheads?
    • Equipped image renders - Are those even rendered externally? My impression of these was they were taken in Runelite mostly, since there was no good way to automate it (see this dialogue with abex™ from Discord). Either way, if we ever did get external renders it would probably be better for consistency and ease-of-use, so I'll pre-emptively support it. As for the unobtainable item part, I'm kind of mixed on it. File:Astral tiara equipped.png looks fine, presumably because it was meant to be equipped and as a result has a proper equipped model. On the other hand, File:Throwing rope equipped.png, File:Broken plate equipped.png, File:Gold leaf (unobtainable item) equipped.png, and File:Stool equipped.png are clearly not legitimate equipment models. They do not line up with the player model in any way, they just kind of exist around the player. As a result, they look very bad and should probably not have been uploaded. I think keeping the ones that actually look like that could be legitimate equipment images is okay, but I don't like the aforementioned four images that are so clearly faked.
    • Map tile images - Since they're just ripped straight from the cache, they should be identical to the in-game maps, right? So I see no issues with keeping them.
  2. Images taken from third-party clients
    • Images with in-game overlays - For tile markers specifically I think it is fine to use them as they can be nice tools to make it easier for editors taking images of things where the alternative would be draw rectangles in GIMP or a similar tool. I would imagine most other overlays are unnecessary but if anyone has any other uses for them I'd be happy to hear about it.
    • Images with GPU-enabled quality adjustments - I'm in favor of using GPU mode for the increased render distance as it makes the images significantly nicer without need for awkward cropping or some other such shenanigans. Additionally, I'm in favor of smoothing or anti-aliasing to make the images look nicer. I don't see how using anti-aliasing on objects is any different to how we do DIIs, which clearly look significantly different to how you'd ever see the item in-game. If it can increase the quality of the images, I'm in favor of it.
    • Maps with third-party icons - Seems irrelevant because of the transition to interactive maps, so I am indifferent.

チェン (話し合う) 15:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


  • Item renders - While i see that it saves a ton of time to just always use the pre-renderd images for DII's and they are also always perfectly rotated but its not true that the quality is superior.

If i compare the quality of File:Ancestral robe top detail.png with the pre-rendered version, its definitely better to just take them in game, even if its not 100% perfectly rotated. But either way, i got told to not take in-game DIIs anymore so it doesn't matter to me anymore.

  • NPC - Not sure if the pre-rendered ones are better (or same quality) as taken in-game but i think the differnce is not huge. So i don't mind using them.
  • Objects - Haven't taken that many objects in my time but the pre-renderd ones looks really good and they should be used in my opinion.
  • Chatheads - Not sure wheter i like em or not. I love-hate them. I love them because its really easy to just upload them without having to log in and wating for the right moment to take the screen. And hate them, because apparently some of them don't look like in-game.

So either way, it doesn't matter to me. It would be cool to use them, but also wouldn't mind logging in and take them myself.

  • Equipped image renders - I know some of them were taken using RuneLites Dev tool. Since you still have to log in and take the screen yourself, it is definitely the way to go.

If there is another way to get them, without taking the screen ingame, and the quality is still as good (and original), i'd say: go for it.

  • Map tile images - Go for it.
  • Images with overlays - I mean.. It doesn't really matter if we use a third party client to draw a rectanle or if we use Photoshop/Gimp to do it. As long as other 3rd party client UIs are turned off.

Maybe its worth to have all of them consistent tho. Not one image is with runelite and the other is Photoshop. Not sure we can force such a "rule" tho.

  • Images with GPU - If the difference between gpu and no gpu is barely visible, i think we should use them for scenery images (render distance).
  • Maps with 3rd party icons - No.

Reanimate Aviansie icon (mobile).png BrokTalk 20:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Response - with regards to your point about the quality of pre-rendered images for DIIs, I think it's important to clarify that the size of the rendered images is functionally unlimited, as far as I understand it. For example, here is a DII of the Ancestral robe top that I rendered at about 6000x4500 resolution. This is not to say we want all of our DIIs to be gigantic enormous files, but I think it's important to clarify that the size of existing renders is not the upper limit for the size we are able to render. BigDiesel2m (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Response - Fair enough. I thought the ones i got were the best quality we can get out of the render thingy you got. I agree that we don't need enormous file sizes like 6000x4500, but i also think they should be at least as good as when taken ingame (or close to it).
Reanimate Aviansie icon (mobile).png BrokTalk 05:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Response - What do you think a reasonable size should be? Even if I zoom as far in as possible on my screen, I can't get in-game images the same size as you do, since my screen just doesn't have that many pixels :P Where do we draw the line for what's reasonable and what's overkill? BigDiesel2m (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)


  1. Images taken outside the game
    • Item/NPC/Object renders - Rendering outside of the game is preferred.
    • Chathead renders - Many, if not most, of the chatheads on the Wiki are oversized compared to what is actually displayed in-game. I don't mind this approach; but do agree that the chonky ones should be scaled down for ease of use on the Wiki.
    • Equipped image renders - Rendering player models is great; I am torn on the need to have unobtainable items rendered.
    • Map tile images - Continue using the method that gives us a whole map for the time being while interactive maps are adapted across the wiki.
  2. Images taken from third-party clients
    • Images with in-game overlays - I am a fan of the simple tile highlighting; less, but effective additions to an image is ideal. The Kalphite example is far too much.
    • Images with GPU-enabled quality adjustments - Increased render distance is great to get a whole area in an image. I'm not too familiar with the differences in anti-aliasing and thus don't have an opinion.
    • Maps with third-party icons - General maps that depict an area should not have any third-party additions. However, I would not mind an icon that better depicts a location, such as a teleport spot, for a guide image. Ideally, if we use those icons for a guide, we should use them in the prose or description of the guide for clarity.

Legaia2Pla · ʟ · 22:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Response - With regards to third-party icons on maps, one thing that concerns me is having a difference between the maps on the wiki and the default in-game worldmap, which anyone can easily access. If we have icons on our maps that don't match what people see while playing the game I think that just ends up as confusing. This is even more pronounced if the third-party icons try to emulate the official style of icons of 15x15 circles (Bank icon.png Spinning wheel icon.png), which can mislead people to thinking the third-party additions are official map icons as well. I am not generally opposed to labels, indicators, and paths being added to wiki maps on guide pages, but I do think we want to avoid misleading icons that seem official but are not. BigDiesel2m (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Response - Any third-party icons would be for guides that use a map. This way we can pinpoint a specific location on something, this could be saying that a location is located south-east of the Rada blessing teleport (labeled as img). This would be similar to using third-party interfaces in-game for better depiction of a guide. The only tricky thing, now thinking about it, is licensing and getting those images that would be used by the third-party clients. Hmm. Legaia2Pla · ʟ · 22:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Quest - I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. Do you think we should copy third-party icons that RuneLite or OSBuddy add to their in-game maps? That seems like it could be quite confusing when the wiki maps don't match the default ones. BigDiesel2m (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Response - I'm going to retract my support regarding third-party icons on the map. I don't think that it would be something that could be done in a successful way to be meaningful.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Legaia2Pla (talk) on 03:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC).
With the rise of intmaps we'll need probably want some form of utility icons for use on them; say a marker for clue scroll spots (see these ones Merds made for rsw). Should we discuss those now or delay it for a future thread? Or will it just be a case of RS:BB and not care about having a thread for those at all? Surely we'd want some form of standard for consistency for them, though. チェン (話し合う) 03:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
To quote Mr. Incredible, "We'll get there when we get there!" -- Recent uploads SpineTalkContribs 03:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I think the main issue I have with third-party icons are with ones like these which emulate the style of official icons, but aren't there on the default world map. If we have custom markers like the ones Merds made for RSW, or even just paste the item image onto the map to indicate it teleports there, I think it's a lot clearer that it's something added to the map for the purpose of the guide. BigDiesel2m (talk) 11:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment - RE: Chatheads: could we have the full version for use on the NPC article then a cropped version for navboxes, if navboxes are the concern? チェン (話し合う) 22:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Would be simple enough; I'd support that if there isn't a strong opposition to including the full-sizes anywhere on the Wiki. Legaia2Pla · ʟ · 01:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Would you want the full-sized chatheads to be full-resolution as well, rather than pixelated like the in-game version? Personally, I think using big, high-res chatheads on the NPC pages defeats the purpose of the chathead image. Once you start adjusting the size and quality to the point where it no longer matches what the player sees in game, I think we start to lose value as a useful resource. Remember, we're primarily a wiki for the game of Old School RuneScape, not a wiki for the files we can drag out of the cache. While in most cases there's no difference, in this case it seems like you want accuracy to the cache over accuracy to the game, and that's something I generally disagree with. BigDiesel2m (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Response - I would prefer it to stay status quo with the current chathead images that we're doing. Don't need anything sized up further or increased in resolution. Legaia2Pla · ʟ · 22:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)


  1. Images taken outside the game
    • Item/NPC/Object renders - 100% agree with. The images linked in the example are fantastic, and truly put the object itself into perspective, with details a player can't normally see.
    • Chathead renders Higher quality chat heads should be fine imho, as long as it is representative of what is in game. (extra beards or hair not visible in chat boxes should not be visible, for example.)
    • Equipped image renders I might be biased because I am responsible for some of the ones cited as "bad" examples. File:Throwing rope equipped.png, File:Broken plate equipped.png, File:Gold leaf (unobtainable item) equipped.png, and File:Stool equipped.png were named specifically. I took these images because I find it absolutely fascinating that items--that cannot be obtained, but even if they were, can't be equipped, have models to them. This is the type of stuff that I'm sure fascinates other people too. The stool, specifically, shows some insight into what RS could have been like if we had to have stools for milking cows, for example. The Throwing rope item is very similar to an actual object in a quest, I forget which one. Gold leaf--it's mentioned in a quest, and I believe it's very interesting, fascinating, and essential to RS history to have. The Broken plate I would like to keep, as again, it's part of RS history, and it might have been modeled at one point to let players wield broken plates, but it was scrapped. Equipment renders have sometimes proven other factors false, like Da Vinci wielding an unobtainable item, when the actual model is far different. Bow and arrow 's item description and the actual character render are different, and is interesting. I believe they have their place, even if some of them don't necessarily line up properly--an indication that they were scrapped at an early stage in development. Frankly, when I see an unobtainable item having a broken/improper render, I don't see it as being unprofessional, but that it was perhaps not a finished/planned aspect, but is still incredible to see. I -do- agree that having equipment stats is not necessary given they can't be equipped, but I was not privy/experienced enough to have the image without them. Even if my "interesting" argument is not persuasive, I would wager that having all models of an item--equipped or not, is directly relevant to each unobtainable items' pages.
    • Map tile images So long as it's accurate to the actual game, I believe improving draw distance to see the entire thing should be 100% fine, in addition to creating an accurate mini map.
  2. Images taken from third-party clients
    • Images with in-game overlays - The drawn maps look far too unprofessional. The map titles being highlighted makes seeing the safe spots far, far easier for other users, and should be kept. It kind of sucks that you would have to resort to a 3rd party client to do such, but that's the nature of the beast.
    • Images with GPU-enabled quality adjustments No, I agree with most everyone here that anti-aliasing and image improvement (except upscaling/improving draw distance) should not be permitted in screenshots.
    • Maps with third-party icons If it's not visible in the official OSRS map, I don't believe it should be present in our guides, even if the information was useful. Lakai (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Question - What do you mean by "higher quality chat heads"? Do you mean larger size? Higher resolution? Or do you just mean with accurate transparency? BigDiesel2m (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Higher resolution, only stuff visible in chat box is visible. For example, an upscaled, higher res version of File:Wise_Old_Man_chathead.png would be fine with me, even if it gets to an amazing degree of quality like File:Chicken feet detail.png is, even if there's no way to achieve that quality normally. There's little details in the higher quality renders like that that make me appreciate the game much more. I don't necessarily want the whole res image on the respective article (since it would be huge), but it would be interesting and fascinating to see.Lakai (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
In general, I'm opposed to putting stuff on the wiki that is counter to the actual game experience. In this case, high-resolution chatheads (WOM for example) are not representative of the game itself, and actually go so far as to misrepresent the game. In my eyes this is different from the equipped renders you have uploaded, which provide an interesting perspective on the game for stuff that couldn't otherwise be seen. The equipped renders of unobtainable objects add to the information about them, without misrepresenting the game by providing an alternate version of something already in it. Hopefully that makes sense, but tell me if it doesn't. :) I wouldn't be opposed to rendering high-quality chatheads and putting them somewhere else like chisel, but I don't think they're good for main wiki pages. BigDiesel2m (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
You've kind of swayed me in that respect. Is there a way to make the chat head I linked above higher res, without actually making it non-representative of the game? That's what I mean. Lakai (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I can't see a way to use the high-res version without it being non-representative of the game. It's just not accurate to what people see when playing, and the wiki should strive for accuracy if nothing else. The thing is, while for stuff like DIIs or NPC models you can hypothetically zoom in really close on a big monitor to get high res screenshots like we have in renders, no matter what zoom level you use the chatbox (and any chathead in it) is the same size, since the UI does not scale with a larger game window. I think if we want to be accurate, we need to keep the low-res models, and if I could choose my way, we'd start chopping off hats too :P BigDiesel2m (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
To clarify, are you opposing the allowance of increased render distance that's made possible with the gpu plugin when you say that "anti-aliasing and image improvement (except upscaling/improving draw distance) should not be permitted in screenshots."? It's currently impossible to increase render distance without having anti-aliasing, so this statement seemed contradictory to me, let me know if I misunderstood it though. zTUG5mD.png Crow 653  21:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
It is possible to increase the render distance without anti-aliasing, though the way the game is rendered very slightly differs between CPU and GPU rendering; I'm not sure how to properly describe all the changes, but I notice some differences in color banding (which may result in a smoother looking image; the example image is with the "Remove Color Banding" option disabled, it's further noticeable with it enabled) and GPU mode eliminating seams between ground tiles. --laagone talk 21:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, Crow also had a good example of the differences even minimal GPU usage can create (on vs off). It seems like there's no way to just increase the render distance without also changing how the game looks, so I'm leaning towards a blanket ban on GPU plugins for wiki pictures. BigDiesel2m (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, with "anti-aliasing" I was referring to the smoothing that happens with gpu turned on and everything within the gpu plugin turned off, I thought that was anti-aliasing and not just color smoothing or something weird for some reason zTUG5mD.png Crow 653  21:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Addendum To be clear, I am very much in favor of increased render distance to capture things we might not have been able to capture, otherwise. If there is no way to do such without anti-aliasing, then I would still support doing it, even if we had to resort to anti aliasing to get the screenshot. I am not technologically inclined, so some of these terms don't mean that much to me. Lakai (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Question - Diesel, you had mentioned about how you'd prefer if we cropped the chatheads down to match what's visible in-game. Do you have an idea on implementation? Would it be something that can be easily done by the masses or would it take some skill with image editing to do? (sorry if I missed this somewhere in the discussion)Legaia2Pla · ʟ · 22:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Response - for a lot of the chatheads, the easiest way to chop them down would be to just revert back to the chatheads we had before we could render hats/beards outside of the player view. For newer chatheads or ones where we want to keep some aspects of it (like transparency or whatnot) I'm not sure how easy it would be to crop it down. Might be tough to automate, but cropping images based on what's visible in-game isn't a super difficult task, so it could be done by the masses. BigDiesel2m (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Response - Is there a way that we can render them cropped? I'm not savvy in the rendering part, I just snag from the trusty Chisel. Legaia2Pla · ʟ · 16:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Images with GPU-enabled quality adjustments - This is the only contentious point I have much of an opinion on so only commenting on this one aspect. I feel that scenarios where we have had to essentially fudge around with angles and camera height to barely get all of the major objects in an image is more of a detriment to viewers than the very slight disconnect from vanilla client anti-aliasing.

I remember on Priff release someone mentioning that Spine did a great job of "making do" and fitting everything from Gwenith into the Vanilla client's draw distance for the location image; I don't think "making do" is good enough. A Discord conversation (that I could find) where this exact issue cropped up semi-recently. I don't mean to read too deep into what BigD said but again it feels as if "Spine did a good job" only makes sense in the context of being limited by render distance. This then perfectly leads into the conversation of Kels attempting to take a Location image with GPU on with the increased render distance (unintentionally) to make a nice photo composition, that being noticed and Kels having to compromise and retake the image. So what did we lose between the two photos in this very real-world scenario of GPU vs Vanilla? Essentially all of the context of the photo, you lose all of the cliff-face as well as the broken bridge to the observatory and even the fact that it's next to the woody area in the background. While I'd say that the render distance in the first one is a little high and includes areas not pertinent to the location in question (I would have dropped it a little myself to get a bit less of the background area), it's still a much more full and descriptive image of the area than the vanilla variant.

So what do we actually gain from the switch between the two? Slightly more accurate anti-aliasing? To be perfectly honest with you, looking at the "jaggies" between the two images, there is so little difference as to be unnoticeable without zooming in on both images significantly. This however is a moot point as there's something even better at anti-aliasing than any AA method, increasing render size to viewport, aka the render-scale which, believe it or not, we do for effectively every image on the wiki. We don't use the whole image's size on any article other then icons or inventory sprites; every location image is scaled down to be a reasonable size to fit the article. Even when people click on the image itself to get a better look, we still don't display the whole image unless it's under 1280x900px in dimension or the image is opened in a separate window. How large are most of our location images at the moment? 1500x1000. Every location image on the wiki as is see's some kind of faux anti-aliasing effect from increased render-scale.

Which of these two images has GPU on? Zoom in on the grass or something, they're both a jaggy mess in terms of AA. Not to mention, having to zoom in in the first place means that, again, render scale is more important than any AA difference between GPU on and off. I think it's insane to sacrifice such an increase in image context and composition that increased render distance adds for the sake of a negligible difference in AA when we already "distort" the image for viewers with scaling. Choose OptionTalk-to MitcheII Slayer of Imps (skill: 2,685)    Talk-to MitcheII Slayer of Imps (skill: 2,685) 15:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

The resolution scaling is a good point. I think using increased render distance where it's helpful (like some location images) would be alright. --laagone talk 16:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Where do you suggest we draw the line? From Mitchell's comment it seems like just about every location image could benefit from increased render distance, as even if the location itself is small (like the tiny Goblin Settlement Kels took pics of) the increased render distance adds context by showing more of the surroundings. Are there any location images where this wouldn't be the case, and if so, would you support retaking pretty much every location image at increased render distance to improve coverage/context? BigDiesel2m (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I think having some of the surroundings in the picture adds to it (though I agree with Mitchell in that the original goblin settlement picture had a bit too much of the surrounding area) both from an aesthetic and informative perspective. It certainly varies case by case, especially as there are no defined borders on a lot of locations like the goblin settlement, and it would be hard to establish exact guidelines on this because of how subjective the nature of photography and what looks good and what not is. For reference, this is how I would take the picture (save for the low resolution and not max brightness). Side note, even if the GPU plugin and thus increased render distance wasn't used, I would definitely try to avoid showing the end of the rendered game world because it looks tacky without bringing authenticity to the table, especially in a game like OSRS where it by default abruptly cuts off instead of using something that fits thematically like fog. --laagone talk 20:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I much prefer the larger render distance as well. If for some reason the rest of the GPU features are an issue despite barely making a noticable difference (imo), I'd compromise if we could get a plugin that only increased the render distance, and didn't add anti-aliasing or anything strange. The former picture Kels took looks so much better and it's bizarre to me that we deem it unusable due to GPU plugin. Optimally, I'd say no location/scenery/etc images should have the black voidness of unrendered chunks in them. チェン (話し合う) 03:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment - I'd compromise if we could get a plugin that only increased the render distance, and didn't add anti-aliasing or anything strange. +1 Legaia2Pla · ʟ · 03:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment - These are my thoughts as someone who's been on the forefront of image-taking:

  1. Images taken outside the game
    • Item/NPC/Object renders - 100% on board, as long they reflect how they look in-game.
    • Chathead renders - Have no issue with these, as long as they're close to how they look in-game. As for CHONK chatheads, use common sense based on the chathead and the user's discretion, which is basing my closing statement on Forum:Chunky Chatheads. My opinion has not changed from that.
    • Equipped image renders - In short, Per Brok. Yes, we do use them for some difficult to obtain items like the Victor's capes and Bounty hunter hats, but for the most part, if we can easily get it ourselves, we usually do it the traditional way anyway.
    • Map tile images - No issues with it at all, just like everyone else in here.
  2. Images taken from third-party clients
    • Images with in-game overlays - Like Diesel, I prefer subtle tile markers like File:Black chinchompa north spawns.png over more blatant markings like File:Kalphite Soldier safespot.png.
    • Images with GPU-enabled quality adjustments - No. I love how it looks and would love it if we could upload location images with increased rendering distances, but it is not good practice for the wiki to showcase rendering distances from a third-party client, even if we heavily rely upon them now for the other features.
    • Maps with third-party icons - Heck no, just like everyone else in here except Legaia, who, based on my interpretation, prefers them in a different form (i.e. make-our-own). But in short, heck no.

For RS:IMP, yes, revise it so that cache stuff and renders are acceptable, and that in-game screenshotting is still a good alternative for things such as equipped and location images, which has basically been the unwritten rule since abex bae-bex blessed us with the very tool that saved us hundreds of hours that very Christmas Eve in 2018.

As for third-party client usage, subtle tile markers like the chinchompa image should be the only acceptable type of screenshot which shows usage of third-party clients. However, if absolutely necessary, more obvious markers like the Kalphite safespot should be used if it is deemed more helpful to the reader to showcase them. -- Recent uploads SpineTalkContribs 22:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

As another example of what should NOT be done, look no further than File:Osrs razorback kebbits.png. -- Recent uploads SpineTalkContribs 22:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
we need a wiki hall of fame infamy for images like that チェン (話し合う) 03:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Closure - The following policies will now take into effect:

  1. Images taken outside the game
    • Item/NPC/Object renders - Images of these types that are obtained outside of the game itself is acceptable, provided that their appearance reflects how they look within the game.
    • Chathead renders - Chathead images that are obtained outside the game itself is acceptable, though for "chunkier" chatheads, refer to Forum:Chunky Chatheads. In short, use common sense.
    • Equipped image renders - As current methods require going in-game anyway, these are acceptable. However, there is not enough consensus to determine whether equipped images of unobtainable items, such as Zaros mjolnir and "dummy" items, should be allowed or not.
    • Map tile images - There are no issues with these and continued usage of them is encouraged.
  2. Images taken from third-party clients
    • Images with in-game overlays - Tile markers will be accepted, with subtle tile markings being preferred (e.x. File:Black chinchompa north spawns.png), though anything outside those are not allowed.
    • Images with GPU-enabled quality adjustments - These will not be allowed.
    • Maps with third-party icons - These will not be allowed.

Diesel will be making revisions to RS:IMP based on these changes soon™. -- Recent uploads SpineTalkContribs 00:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)