Help talk:Cosmetic Images

Image Policy

We've had a few discussions in the IRC regarding class images that are for cosmetics, as you know on the page there are quite a few examples of what not to do when making said images, though in the IRC there's been discussion regarding the 2 new image examples added, that being the Over 1000 pixels and the non-stock weapons/taunt props being used, despite these being on the page there is no actual official rule regarding these recommendations. This is why I am making this discussion to see if these image rules should be relaxed or not.
Cheddar • Talk 19:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I believe that the 1000 pixels thing should not be a hard rule, simply a guideline you should try and keep your images around 1000 pixels at max. If an image is good but it's 1050 pixels wide then it's not much harm, it should just be a case-by-case basis.

For non-stock weapons and taunt props: I believe that certain taunt props can be okay (e.g. the Headcase or the Rancho Relaxo), however I do think that they should only be included if they fit the theme of the cosmetic or have some other connection (e.g. Connoisseur's Cap with the Headcase would fit perfectly, or the Allbrero/Seeing Double/Six Pack Abs with the Oblooterated due to the connection in Love & War). As for non-stock weapons, no reason to not allow them. There should not be a restriction on the weapons used.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 19:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

1000 pixels - I think this rule is fine and I don't really have a problem with it. When the images are really wide like that they don't look good as thumbnails and it's not hard to stay within that limit. 1000 pixels wide is very generous. The only time I've struggled with 1000 pixels is when I was re-doing the Deep Cover Operator picture and that's only because it has two classes. Even if you make a great image that's slightly over 1000 you could always scale the image down so I don't see the rule as a big deal.
Taunt Props - I think they should generally be avoided but with some flexibility. I pretty much agree with what Swood said. There are some taunt props that could improve the image and having them as an option to enhance the picture should be an option but should only really be used if they fit the picture.
Non-Stock Weapons - I think they should generally be avoided but with some flexibility. It sorta depends on the image. Sometimes a non-stock weapon fits the image and could improve it. For example the Larkin Robin with the Huntsman makes sense and could result in a better image. Something like this image looks great in my opinion and the Eyelander goes well with the design of the medal. But on the other hand, if the Seasonal Employee image had the scout holding the Back Scatter that's just sort of random and doesn't improve the picture and stuff like that should be avoided especially when that scout could have the Candy Cane instead and actually enhance the image. Like with taunt props I think non-stock weapons should be avoided unless they are somehow related/connected to the cosmetic.
Mediarch ♥ Talk ♥ My Edits 20:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Cosmetic images should never be used as thumbnails, so that's not really relevant.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 20:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

By thumbnail, I'm referring to the smaller image previews. The full size original image might look fine but when they get shrunk down to the smaller size for the info box or the class gallery they don't look as good Mediarch ♥ Talk ♥ My Edits 20:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I was unaware of the 1000 pixels thing, is that new? This isn't applicable because there has been image creators in the past with a higher resolution monitor than 1920x1080 (1920x1080 is the minimum, but not maximum). His images were much larger than the usual due to a higher resolution, such as File:Courtly Cuirass.png. It does extend to 1000 pixels, but it's also squared, so it doesn't become wide. Though having a higher resolution image is not always the best thing (if the image itself is not good, like facial flexing, posing, etc.), and images don't need to be replaced solely due to being in a higher resolution than 1920x1080.

I am against regarding the whole nonstock weapons and taunt props in images. The idea of cosmetic previews is to, well, show the cosmetic. If we start including weapons that aren't stock, the images start to get way too busy. And if we do allow nonstock weapons, then, what guidelines would exist that would exclude festive or festivers? Because those make things so noisy and flashy, and they are not needed, at all. The Weapon Demonstration project also have everything with stock weapons with the exception of the weapon being demonstrated, alongside having no cosmetics being worn at all (except item sets).

Taunt props follow the same principle due to being noisy and busy. Having an Engineer sitting on the Rancho Relaxo just feels weird, plus, we have to think, what would new players think? What about readers that are new players to TF2? There would be nothing on the article that states about the Rancho Relaxo on the cosmetic we are showing. While we do include stock weapons on images, stock weapons are available from the start for any player, so it's pretty easy to understand what those are.

Finally, a lot of these rules ended up not really being written until Bojjob did this page, and some of those rules were to keep consistency with the rest of the Wiki (although I'm still against having nonstock weapons on images, save for item sets that include said weapon). Some of methods have also been improved, but the page does have a good general rule regarding how images should look it. A lot of "consistency" on the Wiki were made by me and Omolong back when he used to edit. One of my very first images did include taunt props, which got replaced by him as they were too busy. - ▪ - 20:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I think simply being allowed to include non-stock weapons cannot be harmful. We assume at some level that players are at least familiar with the very basics of the game (unless we are explaining said basics), which means they know there are cosmetics, unlockables, they know there are different classes, they know all of the gamemodes and the basics of them, etc. I don't think that showing the Bonk! will suddenly make users lose their mind in confusion. We would obviously exclude any addons or reskins that aren't separate models (e.g. Batsaber or Postal Pummeler, but no Australium/Golden weapons, festive/festivized, war paints, decorated, etc., just the basics)
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 21:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to the discussion, but I'll also give my thoughts. I think the 1000 pixels rule is fine, making an image wider than 1000 pixels (or just wide in general) leads to it being small on the actual page, so I think the rule should stay. There have been times where I was making an image and it was wider than 1000 pixels, the solution to this is just to zoom out a little bit or slightly change the pose. I don't think it's that big of a deal to change the image when it is over 1000 pixels wide.

As for taunt props, I think some of them should be allowed. Some props are small and can fit an image (for example, the Most Wanted taunt prop with the Killer Exclusive), however there are some like Gabriel mentioned such as the Rancho Relaxo which take up too much of the image and lose focus on the actual cosmetic. Perhaps there could be a separate discussion on which could be allowed.

For non-stock weapons, I think they should be allowed as long as they don't take away from the focus of the cosmetic (which applies to stock weapons already as well). I agree with what Swood said with festive/festivized, war paints, decorated, and other customization not being allowed. However, I think reskins should be allowed as while they do have the same functionality as their original weapon, it still looks unique enough compared to the original weapon unlike the other customization options, which just adds something/changes the base color of the weapon.

Andrew360 18:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I believe the 1000 pixel should not be a hard rule, but just a general guideline instead. Instead of an image being sized down because it's 1050 pixels wide, a simple guideline stating "images should, at max, be around a 1000 pixels wide". Then have a case-by-case basis for which images are too small and which are fine.
| s | GrampaSwood (talk) (contribs) 21:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)