Forum:AKA revisited

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > AKA revisited
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 5 May 2011 by Suppa chuppa.

For original discussion, see: Forum:AKA

This proposal is for making exceptions in the policy determined there. Specifically regarding Dungeoneering but there might be others out there.

In the Dungeoneering article people keep adding Dung as AKA term, which is decided to be unneeded. Talk to meTHARKONSignatures I made 18:00, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Question - What exactly are you proposing? ʞooɔ 18:08, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Well, proposing might not be the right word, but I wanted to know if it was ok for certain exceptions to what was decided in Forum:AKA. It doesn't bother me that much, but I felt that policies decided on should be followed. Talk to meTHARKONSignatures I made 18:40, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Few things.

  1. I don't think this needs a YG thread as it could have easily been on the page's talk.
  2. If people keep adding, why not just allow this tiny exception? Or else you'll be wasting time undoing to and it just happen again.
  3. I don't see a problem with it.

My 2gp. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 18:16, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Dung is shorthand, not an AKA. I think that's why they don't want it there.  Tien  18:31, April 29, 2011 (UTC)
It was decided that shorthands which were obvious did not have to be included. Since Dung is like half the word, it should not be included, just like Farming should not include Farm or Fishing should not include Fish I guess.Talk to meTHARKONSignatures I made 18:40, April 29, 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really that familiar with Yew Grove customs. I thought since the original discussion was here I should continue here, to make it an official exception and such. I'll just leave it as is then.

Comment - You said you feel policies decided should be followed. If they're not being followed, then fix them. If someone adds camel dung as an AKA for Dungeoneering, which happens frequently (and which I always remove), go ahead and fix it. Problem solved, right? sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 21:11, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - If there's a reliable source that calls it dung, then I think that can be cited in the section. If not, it shouldn't be. I don't want to see info likely to be disputed in articles without verification. Smithing 01:35, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

What? It's just an obvious abbreviation. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 01:37, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
I think it should still have some form of verification, even if it's obvious and doesn't need to be cited. Just in case of disputes etc. I really don't care what people other than from reliable sources have to call dungeoneering. Smithing 01:43, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
There's no official verification for almost all of the AKAs. Almost all of them are player-made. ʞooɔ 01:46, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
I completely agree with that. :) Smithing 01:58, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
So why are we looking for an official verification for Dung? ʞooɔ 02:05, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps his point is that none of them should be included. (wszx) 05:44, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
So you're now proposing that we do away with AKAs? sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 17:13, April 30, 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, misunderstood the above comment due to a typo and fail reading on my part. (: sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 20:39, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus for any change. Suppa chuppa Talk 22:24, May 5, 2011 (UTC)