HRWiki talk:Personal images

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Contents 1 Multiple users using an image 2 Fourth category 3 Article images becoming unused 4 Upload 5 Personal images on other pages 6 New personal image? 7 Off-site Images

[edit] Multiple users using an image

To me it seems that images should only be attributed to one person at a time. This was made clear when Joey's image was temporarily attributed to more than one person. I don't see how that could be anyone's image but his, and anyone else who puts it on a page is merely using it. By the same token, several users can get together and loan each other images. (If this becomes a problem then we can figure out what to do then, but it isn't like users aren't already putting gobs of pictures on their pages; they're just using ones that are already in use.) — It's dot com 23:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

There should be a new Template stating that the Personal Image Owner has granted permission to Other Users to use the Personal Image in Question. --Wi2K Talk-Favorites-173 13:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Please reply to my User Talk Page

[edit] Fourth category

Should we make a category for images that are so general it's likely a lot of users might want to use them? These would be considered owned by the wiki and thus wouldn't count against anyone's total number of images. I'm talking specifically about things like H*R Wiki logos and whatnot. It would be simple enough for someone to say on an image's talk page: "I think the wiki should claim this one," and if there's a consensus, then it gets put in a different category. What do you think? — It's dot com 23:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure. If its so wildly popular, wouldn't it probably be in an article somewhere? — Lapper (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking of things like this (which are shown full-size): I'm not even sure this is a good idea, but the idea popped in my brain and so I thought I'd at least bring it up here. — It's dot com 00:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, now I know we're talking about signature images, too. I'm sure that if a particular signature image became widly used among users then of course the wiki could claim it. How about something like this?

{| align="center" style="width: 80%; background-color: #f1f1de;
   border: 2px solid #996; padding: 5px;"
| [[Image:personal-image.png|50px|Copyright undetermined]]
| <center>''This image has been claimed by HRWiki and is 
   no longer a '''[[HRWiki:Personal images|personal image]].'''''</center>
|}


<includeonly>[[Category:Personal images in use|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly>
<noinclude>
[[Category:Image Notices|{{PAGENAME}}]]
</noinclude>

This image has been claimed by HRWiki and is no longer a personal image.

Thoughts? — Lapper (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

(Is all that code really necessary to be visible here?) Well, yeah, something like that would work, but we can figure out the wording later. And you didn't really answer my question: I'm asking whether we should have a class of images that would use a template like that. — It's dot com 00:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article images becoming unused

If a user is using an image from an article, our current standards say that this image doesn't count against his or her total. I'm fine with that. My question concerns what happens when the image from the article is removed or replaced. Does the image become a personal image at this point? My guess is yes, it does. If the user who is using it is already using the maximum allowed personal images, do they have to eliminate one at this point? My guess again is yes, unless we want to say that they are grandfathered on that specific image as long as it stays on their page uninterrupted.
    I really hate having to split hairs like this, but you know it's going to come up sooner or later, and I'd like to have already discussed it a little when that happens. Also, the point of the knowledge base is not so you can make a user page full of images. There are other wikis (including our Fanstuff) and personal websites for that. — It's dot com 00:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Upload

How do i upload a personal image? — Foop (Talk | contribs) 18:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC) (left unsigned)

The same way you upload any other image. — Has Matt? (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

And then tag it with one of the personal image templates. — It's dot com 19:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal images on other pages

Question...if you create your own page and add images to it, does it count as a personal image? For instance, say the Greasemonkey script had an image in it that was not linked to from anywhere else. Would that count as one of Phlip's personal images? Religious Corn   21:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It depends — if it's an image uploaded for a wiki-wide purpose, then it doesn't need to be designated as a personal image. For example, if you decided to start a page or project that wasn't quite ready to be put in a common namespace, you might create it at User:Religious Corn/Project X, and images on that page wouldn't necessarily count as your personal images, as long as the page is beneficial for the wiki as a whole and not just for personal use. Trey56 21:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay...say I wanted to show off my StinkoComics. Would those images count as personal images? Religious Corn   21:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Very yes. And they should really go on the fanstuff wiki, anyway! You can upload all the stinkocomics that you want, there. Loafing 21:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe I'll do that someday. Religious Corn   21:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New personal image?

Me again, I think I has another question.

If you have two personal images, like I do, and then delete one, is it all right for you to upload a new personal image? I want a photo in my signature.

By the way, my personal images are Image:Drive-Thru Putt Place.png and Image:ss n2s.png. Religious Corn   20:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

According to my knowledge of *ahem* mathematics, 2-1=1. So, if 2-1=1, then 1+1=2. And if we just roughly translate it to personal images... yeah, I'm pretty sure that you can delete an image and upload a new one. Join me next week as we unravel pi! Don't say jorb 101

[edit] Off-site Images

Is it all right if we have personal images on our page (just one or two) that are hosted off-site with a free image hosting site? And if so, then how do we have those images show up? Strong Vader 00:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The spirit of the rule is to keep people from cluttering up their pages with superfluous images, and making their user pages their whole focus here (not that it stops some people from just using images from articles). Why would you need three large, featured images? — It's dot com 00:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. Three is clearly a smaller number than a million. They wouldn't be large. Just small, thumbnail images off to the side. Strong Vader 00:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

In cases like that, we tend not to care, and I can name a few people who do it. Still, you can't do what you want using images we already have or CSS styles? — It's dot com 01:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There's another concern, which is ethical. Inline linking of external images from other sites is generally not appreciated by the owners of those sites, as it increases downloads from that site, without actually increasing site traffic. You're essentially using some other site's bandwidth to host your images for your page. Though there are no laws against it, I believe doing so to be tantamount to stealing someone else's bandwidth, and while it's only an infinitesimal fraction of their total bandwidth, it builds up, not to mention that stealing even the smallest amount is still ethically questionable. The exception of course, would be inline linking to an image on a site that expressly states that that's its intended usage. If you find a site like that, let me know. (Another option would be getting your own domain name and server and hosting them yourself.) — Defender1031*Talk 01:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

For free image hosting, there's Photobucket and ImageShack. I use the latter. Strong Vader 01:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure even those want you to view the images through their system, rather than hotlinking from another site. — Defender1031*Talk 01:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand your intent, but I gotta say, I think you're gonna have a hard time ridding the world of all hotlinking, man. You'd be just as well trying to rid the world of, I dunno, littering, or speeding. Just sayin'. -128.103.10.135 02:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to rid the world of it, just mentioning my take on it in response to a specific question about it. — Defender1031*Talk 14:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It's beside the point, though. Both of the services named above provide links for the express purpose of hotlinking. Hotlinking is not the issue; it's whether the image should be on the user page in the first place. — It's dot com 15:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)