Forum:CC Complaints

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > CC Complaints
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 22 July 2010 by Degenret01.

I propose that a dedicated page be created for any complaints regarding the CC, including: requests for bans, complaints against CC Mods, etc. Sub-pages will be created for each complaint and transcluded to a main page (RS:CC/Complaints?) as well as a link. Continued in Alternative idea.

Any obvious crap will be removed, but legitimate (includes controversial) concerns will be kept and debated on.

Topics that will be relocated:

  • Complaints about unjust kicks, bans, etc.
  • Complaints about "corrupt" clan chat ranks

Topics that will remain in the YG:

  • Almost everything else

Alternative idea by Cook - Same as above, but all complaints will be housed in the Forum: namespace which functions in the same way as the YG does. All Clan Chat complaints would be in the Forum: namespace, but would not show up on the Yew Grove. This would be accomplished by adding a category (i.e. Category:Clan chat complaints) to the aforementioned pages. All of these would be found in a hub that would be a subpage of the Yew Grove (i.e. Forum:Yew Grove/Clan chat). This subpage would function exactly the same way as the Yew Grove, but would only include clan chat complaints. A link will be stickied on the YG that points users towards this page, and all clan chat complaints that are mistakenly posted in the Yew Grove would immediately be added to this category, which would remove them from Forum:Yew Grove and add them to Forum:Yew Grove/Clan chat.

222 talk 03:32, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Notice - This proposal has been implemented. See here for message. The current setup is similar to the YG and is located here


This section of discussion has been closed. Please comment on issues/changes regarding the prototype below.

Support - I am tired of these discussions taking place on the Yew Grove. It's supposed to be for decisions affecting the wiki. Most of the clan chat complaints do not satisfy that requirement. However, we should limit such a page to requests for bans and "unjust kick" threads. Actual discussions affecting the clan chat should take place on the Yew Grove. ʞooɔ 03:36, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Yea, they are only for complaints; not, general discussion/improvements/whatever about the CC. 222 talk 03:42, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that every clan chat complaint should be on one page? If so I oppose. Regardless of whether or not they should (they shouldn't) all these clan chat threads devolve into a continuation of the same argument that started them. They get too long to be put on just one page. I'd support a separate board to contain them though. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 03:37, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. A single page would run to infinity. Maybe just have them all be subpages, or even put them in the Forum namespace, but not have them show up on the Yew Grove. That wouldn't be hard to do either. ʞooɔ 03:39, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
No, no. We haven't agreed on anything yet. I'm just proposing a separate area to deal with them. We can work out details later. 222 talk 03:42, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Let them bitch on the Yew Grove if they want. Let's just close it faster. Unless we call it the "Whinning Ass Troll Grove", (thanks Degen), in which case I support. HaloTalk 03:40, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Uhh, I hope ur joking. Its an annoying irritation letting these thread spawn non-stop. 222 talk 03:43, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
Not joking. If we call it the Whinning Ass Troll Grove, I'm good with that. We should add deranking Degen/Christine threads to the previously rejected proposals though. That would cut it down by a good 60%. HaloTalk 03:45, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that I haven't been in the CC except a single time in the past two months or so, meaning there shouldn't be any current complaints about me, I support the name provided you spell it right. It's "Whining." :p All joking aside though, the "unjust kicks" complaint mentioned above is the reason you guys have so many problems. If this goes through, and I don't really care one way or the other, there should be no reason why single kicks should be listed as legitimate complaints. Unjust kicking once doesn't necessarily indicate there's a problem with the rank, and it's complicated by the fact that a lot of times, there was a mistake, a user-fault (not that they would admit it, since they're the ones complaining), or no one just plain owns up to it and it's impossible to know who actually kicked. If this goes through, leave it for serious complaints only, and let the Whining Ass Trolls to simmer down on their own. That said, I haven't read below this mark, so if anyone else wants to ban single unjust kick complaints from this forum, I agree with them. Christine 00:53, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, yeah. Read further down. I agree with the "ban all unjust kick complaints" group of people. You can do without the CC for an hour. Go outside or read a book. Christine 00:56, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Support a separate forum - ...Or just ban them altogether. ajr 03:47, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

I like that too. The ban them all together part. The fact is. If a sysop is corrupt, we won't need a YG to establish that. People will know, news travels fast around here. If someone needs a block...C Teng does have a talk page. HaloTalk 03:48, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
The main thing is that "unjust" kicks happen sometimes. Who cares. I'm pretty sure that you can live without the CC for a day. If we have a Shadowdancer issue, like Hal said, everyone will know about it. If it is a case of "Enter the CC, say hi, and get kicked", that is an entirely different situation. As it is, I am sick of people trying to manipulate their own wording and intentions to try and get out of a one day ban. ajr 04:50, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Support - We could move it all here or use this page(not where it is redirected to but the page its redirected from).Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 03:55, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

That might start flooding another page which is not designed for complaints. Isn't it for general discussion? 222 talk 04:00, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Why not create a new page, such as RuneScape:Clan Chat/Complaints. We could have subpages, but also have them transcluded onto the main page. ʞooɔ 04:02, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Banning them outright is so much better. HaloTalk 04:05, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
People have a right to appeal and complain. 222 talk 04:07, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
Oh really? Where is that stated? HaloTalk 04:15, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
Most laws in democratic countries, general social etiquette, etc. 222 talk 04:28, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
We aren't a democracy. So, no right. HaloTalk 04:33, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
I'm just saying, it's generally accepted in real-life. I'm saying democratic, etc. so you can't say I'm talking about North Korea =D 222 talk 04:35, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
I'm merely saying we don't have that right. We should redirect all complaints to another wiki. (Like one that we create as a complaint wiki) and yes, I'm joking now. HaloTalk 04:50, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind if someone created a forum arguing a kick for entering the CC and saying hi, with no prior trolling and an acceptable username. As it is though, all of these forums just manipulate words to make the kicked look in the right. The point is, these are happening so often that [[w:c:uncyclopedia:Nobody cares|nobody cares]] if you got kicked without warning, or "weren't doing anything wrong" (except for trolling the CC), we just want to get the thing archived and stop talking about it. It boils down to this: It's a one day ban, sometimes not even. You can live with it. If you were in the right, then you should have no issues with being kicked ever again. ajr 04:55, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
1-day? Clan chat is just 1-hour. HaloTalk 04:59, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
._. - Then why is this even an issue? (Also, shows how much I know about the CC :P) ajr 05:00, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
It's for our benefit. Stops irritating whingers from cluttering up the YG, but also giving legitimate complaints somewhere to go. 222 talk 06:40, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
Honestly...I can't say I've seen a legitimate complaint. HaloTalk 06:44, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
Neither have I, but one gotta come about one day... 222 talk 06:49, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Oh yea, I forgot to support as nom. 222 talk 06:41, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Another idea - Having them be in the forum space, but not in the Yew Grove. We would add a certain category to the CC Complaint threads, which makes them not show up on the Yew Grove. We'd have a subsection of the Yew Grove (that wouldn't be seen on the main YG page) to house these complaints. ʞooɔ 07:34, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean newer threads would be ranked higher like the YG? Because if it works like that, it'll be perfect. 222 talk 07:39, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it would work the exact same way as YG except it would only house CC Complaints. ʞooɔ 07:45, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
Can you add more details under the "Alternative idea" of the proposal. 222 talk 07:55, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

EXTREMELY Strong Support & Comment -

The Yew Grove is a page where community members can discuss larger changes to the wiki, such as policy proposal or suggestions to substantially redesign high-traffic content pages.
— Yew Grove introductory paragraph

Is the CC the wiki? No. Is the CC the whole community? No. Is anything about the CC a large change to the wiki? No. Should we allow anything about the CC to be on the YG? No. So then, right now, as policy stands, are any threads about the CC meant to be on the YG? No. The whole wiki is fed up with the crap that comes on the YG. I'm not saying that every thread is illegitimate and the creators are lying whiners. Not at all. I'm saying, the wiki doesn't want to hear about this crap. In my honest opinion, creating another forum/discussion page/area where these things can be discussed is the absolute best the CC should get. My preferred option is SORT IT OUT IN THE DAMN CC. If we're going to have this alternate forum setup like the YG, don't make it a subsection of the YG or subpage. Put the setup on RuneScape talk:Clan Chat, or even the subpage of RS:OS, which is seriously where the CC pages should be. Chicken7 >talk 09:38, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

You feel pretty strong 'bout this. 222 talk 11:24, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
Yarly. Chicken7 >talk 12:17, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I agree, Yew Grove is full of threads to De-rank people and such, a new forum would be great. Perhaps we could call it Swizzle Grove. Also, Is this not the same?   Swizz Talk   Events!   15:26, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah...I think so. I don't think it's full of it. And I've never seen a really legit one. So I think we should just ban them outright because like I said above. People will know if a sysop/rank is corrupt, and C Teng has a talk page for anyone who needs to be blocked. HaloTalk 15:29, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
The thing is alot of these "corrupted" admins are in the grey area and blocks are sometimes controversial too. Very annoying. 222 talk 02:27, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Support - So we can finally get that crap off the Yew Grove. I'm so sick and tired of people running and crying every time they get kicked once. Andrew talk 16:54, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Avoids having to see their clan complaints in the yew grove. :) Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 06:38, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Tentative Support - The following should be seriously considered: Runescape Wiki is by nature a community. Yes it is technically just an encyclopedia of Runescape that anyone can edit, however the way "anyone editing" is supported (userpages, yew grove, forums, clan chat) results in Runescape Wiki being a community. It's futile to insist it isn't. I can agree perhaps that a community isn't it's intended or original purpose, but nonetheless it is what it is.

Runescape Wiki is about Runescape. Fair enough. Runescape wiki has a clan chat within Runescape. Alright, simple. In this clan chat on Tuesday, part of a discussion going on was that perhaps the clan chat is frequently treated like an unofficial feature. I believe this is the case. It's frequently trivialized and all but ignored by the admins and ranks as a useful and significant part of Runescape Wiki.

Not many people realize it, but the clan chat is Runescape Wiki's only representation of itself within the game that the Wiki is about to begin with! This makes it important for many, MANY reasons. Lots of people, myself included, first came to Wiki's clan chat before making an account with Wikia or getting involved with other parts of the community. It's a good way to scope out how Wiki's community really is, before truly joining it. I believe we should pay great attention to complaints about the clan chat. I agree that there are many many threads from people who are simply angry about kicks, but they should all be carefully looked at before dismissed as "just more butthurt trolls" because there can often be very valuable information of perceptions of the clan chat there. Many players might come to the cc, find the atmosphere distasteful, and choose to turn around and leave. We could be missing out on valuable potential editors.

Another question brought up was why there are so many people who participate in the clan chat who aren't editors. I appreciate and accept that Wiki takes an active interest in educating new editors to wiki formatting, and proper editing. However, for some, this is either not terribly interesting, they don't feel they have anything to contribute, or find learning this stuff very time consuming or intimidating, and don't. I also congratulate Wiki in still remaining the community it's become and accepting them as part of it within the cc anyway, regardless.

So the question of why Wiki's cc has become an attractive hangout for non editors... Wiki's editors are some of the best informed players Runescape has. (More applause.) This makes Wiki one of the best places to come to ask questions. I don't mean the sort of questions where simply pointing to wiki would answer the questions. I mean the subjective ones. There are many helpful opinions waiting to be asked for in wiki's clan chat about nearly anything... Training, equipment, the best way to go about quests, etc. Wiki's community is almost as good a companion to the game of Runescape as the Wiki itself.

I believe more weight should be placed upon discussions involving the clan chat... If we're going to seperate discussions about the clan chat from the standard Yew Grove, fine. I believe it should still be considered carefully and paid attention to, and should be somewhere as easy to find as the Yew Grove itself. I am not vot, I am Melon! 00:17, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant comment, in my opinion. 222 talk 00:47, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I was hoping someone would read it, anyway. I am not vot, I am Melon! 01:03, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
Nice speech, but there are a number of reasons why many of us treat the CC as something that is both unofficial and unneeded. Many of the players in the CC are of a very typical RuneScape stereotype. I don't want to go into the psychology of it too much, but many of our dedicated editors and community members do not mix well with these editors. This is sometimes why we get disagreements. This, in turn, usually means discussion in the CC is usually about RuneScape aspects, rather than anything to do with the wiki. Although this is no where near a bad thing, as we encourage players to help each other or just enjoy their chat, this isn't particularly an environment where many of our users would be. A lot of CC users have the mindset that they are the only part of the wiki. Although every community member is integral for our success, the wiki would survive without the CC, but would the CC survive without the wiki? Chicken7 >talk 07:10, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I think this is a good idea to keep the Yew Grove tidy, however, I think that if we had a page like this, it would not get the attention it needs. People tend to go to the Yew Grove and see "oh, they're talking about the cc, I use that alot, I oughtta give my two cents on the matter." If we had a different page for this, people would get a certain attitude about it, telling people to grow up and stop complaining, because, naturally, this page would be flooded with complaints, and I'm afraid it may not get the attention it deserves. I think most of these forums have a point, such as the recent proposal to ban I Be No Hax from the clan chat. If these were given their own category, people may not look at it just because they don't visit the clan chat/think that the clan chat isn't wiki business, therefore isn't worth their time, as they're doing work on the wiki at that moment. I feel that the Yew Grove is just the place for these, as it is for larger changes to the wiki, and the clan chat IS part of the wiki.--Cheers, Off-hand ascension crossbow.pngYodaAscension crossbow.png 03:36, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Not very large changes though. Complaints about one user? Large changes for the CC will still remain on the YG. 222 talk 03:51, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
This could be a blessing just as much as a curse. When people come to the Yew Grove, they come to discuss larger changes to the wiki, not necessarily the clan chat. So, while there is a risk this new subforum could become ignored, on the other hand, anybody who goes to the new section is someone who is actively searching out these complaints and discussions about the clan chat, meaning they will get derailed much less frequently with posts simply opposing and asking for closure with unconstructive comments such as "another one of these threads?" Perhaps we can combat the possibility of this subforum from being ignored by actively asking people to go view the threads in there every so often, to ensure they receive attention that some of them may need. I am not vot, I am Melon! 04:02, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully, adding a bolded link from the main Yew Grove will enable enough users to comment on these issues. 222 talk 04:12, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
@Yodapen, incorrect. The clan chat is not an (integral) part of the wiki. You could say the clan chat is an extension of the wiki, or an add-on, but it does not form the sole base of our content, coding and community. Anything that happens in the CC is not a large change to the wiki. Although the CC discussions may lose a little notability, that isn't necessarily an absolutely shocking thing. In the last CC Ban thread to ban I Be No Hax, many of the non-CC, dedicated editors just opposed because it's an easy solution and they want to get dispose of the damn CC threads quickly. If we move the discussion area, as I said in another thread about this awhile ago, it would probably be a win-win situation. *looks through old contributions*. Found it: "There are many users who only go in the clan chat channel and don't edit the wiki. Those users will probably frequent this new discussion page, and although it may lose attention from some users, those are users who probably don't even ever go in the channel." Therefore, the CC-frequenters are happy because they get to see only CC discussions. And the wiki-only editors are happy because they only see their Wiki-related st00f. Win-win. Chicken7 >talk 07:36, July 14, 2010 (UTC) EDIT:Link to old thread with lots of other reasons

Support - This should have happened a long time ago. Ruud (talk)(Suggest me naems) 12:46, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - How about a stickied link that automatically goes to the top when a new complaint is registered? Just like current threads, a new comment sends the link to the top. I dunno if it's possible, I'm not a coder. 222 talk 04:14, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

I'm no coder either. I think what you describe sounds possible, but I am not exactly sure what you mean.I am not vot, I am Melon! 04:28, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
I mean this: for example this thread goes to the top of "Active threads" when someone edits it. My idea is that a dedicated link will be posted in that area and it too will update (go to the top) whenever a new complaint is registered (in a subpage of it perhaps?). 222 talk 04:44, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
Anything's possible if you know how to manipulate it (some things require staff-obviously). HaloTalk 04:30, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely familiar with how the policy on this works, but when can we try to gather a consensus and potentially discuss an actual process to implement this change, if the consensus is that we should? I wouldn't want to see this thread get closed simply because everyone came in and spoke their mind and then it gets forgotten about and stagnates, like the one linked earlier. I am not vot, I am Melon! 20:11, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

I believe C7 is drawing up something. Consensus has already been reached. HaloTalk 20:20, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I fail, lol. I don't see where anybody acknowledged that but I probably just missed it. How do they determine when consensus has been reached? I guess this is too off topic... I am not vot, I am Melon! 22:40, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
Consensus is something that is completely in sysop's hands. It's generally pretty easy to tell, but experienced sysops should know how the community feels pretty easily (and in difficult situations). Note that if you ever disagree with a sysop, you can always ask them on their talk page, or go to someone else if you have a problem with them ignoring you or something. Also, I suppose I should mention that you shouldn't try to override them (by unarchiving a thread, etc, as this could just escalate things and end up in some nasty things we don't want). Also, this thread should remain open for a while, even though it's likely consensus has been reached, 3 days isn't long enough, we want to wait closer to a week so everyone can get their say in if they want. HaloTalk 22:44, July 14, 2010 (UTC)
It hasn't been mentioned here before that I was working on something, but I will put forward a prototype when I get time, within the next few days. I personally think consensus is to move the discussions, but obviously I'm extremely biased on this thread. Lol I am only making the prototype to show how it could be, and then we can discuss pros/cons/changes/other ideas, etc. Putting forward the prototype could sway some of the opposes Wink Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 06:40, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
Prototype? Using which idea? Good thing we have a coder on the support side. 222 talk 09:26, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
Probably a Yew Grove like setup, on RuneScape talk:Clan Chat or something. I'm still unsure of whether to keep threads in the forum namespace, or somehow have them as "RuneScape talk:Clan Chat/__name of thread__". Be aware, I'm no expert coder, but I have created a forum with the setup of the YG on another wiki before. I'll also most likely be testing it on my personal sandbox wiki, so that current pages, (MediaWiki) coding and namespaces are not affected here. Chicken7 >talk 13:49, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

(Reset tabs) I still maintain that it's easiest to have this in the forum namespace, rather than subpages, which can get messy. Anyway, it's pretty easy to make a little forum thing, something like this: ʞooɔ 13:56, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

category=Clan chat threads

We'd change the Yew Grove code to:

category=Stickied threads
notcategory=Clan chat threads
It is easier to have them in the Forum namespace. I think people are just concerned it'll start mixing with YG threads. 222 talk 00:26, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
Which, of course, they won't. ʞooɔ 00:44, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Didn't we already come to a consensus about this once....I think so, but I'm not 100%.

Bonziiznob Talk

15:53, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

If you mean Forum:Splitting the Forums, then no. It was closed because consensus wasn't reached and the discussion has continued on here. ʞooɔ 20:05, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
This discussion probably has more chance of passing because we have a narrower scope than the previous thread. Also, because a prototype is in the process of being released. 222 talk 00:30, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

You should specify the "complaints about corrupt admins" thing to "complaints about corrupt clan chat ranks" since corrupt admins 1.) applies to stuff done in the wiki and not on the clan chat and 2.) does not apply to non sysop clan chat ranks, neither of which are your intentions. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 00:45, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

Oops 222 talk 00:52, July 16, 2010 (UTC)


Notice of intent - Okey, Cook and I have finally managed to get a new Clan Chat forum up and working. There won't be any official name at this stage, like "Yew Grove", so it just says "Clan Chat Forum". See it here: RS:CCF. You can make threads if you want, then, but don't just make spam crap. I'll close this in a few days, to give users a chance to comment, suggest or criticise. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 01:45, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

Just moved the comment a bit, if you don't mind. 222 talk 01:59, July 17, 2010 (UTC)
So, uh. Where do we put improvements to the page, after this thread is closed? Unless we have a talk-talk page. 222 talk 02:07, July 17, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I request to keep it open. There are a few issues still lying around. The most important being having enough attention on that page, which I personally believe is a serious concern. 222 talk 02:14, July 17, 2010 (UTC)
The page only needs attention if there is a thread that needs attention. If there is one, all will know about it, indeed, it would be impossible not to. Anyone who wants to be doubly triply extra sure that by god they do not miss a single update the moment it happens should make that forum their homepage or link to it off their user page.--Degenret01 04:08, July 17, 2010 (UTC)
Can we place an automatically updating notice on the YG? That was one of my previous ideas. 222 talk 05:25, July 17, 2010 (UTC)
Why? You will see it in recent changes. And we do not even do that for real issues that actually affect the wiki. If you are soooooo into the whole drama thing, make it your homepage.--Degenret01 07:35, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

I strongly advocate moving the page to Forum:Yew Grove/Clan Chat. Having a forum page in the project namespace doesn't make much sense. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 08:22, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah...what Psycho said. If we can do it without screwing something up anyways. HaloTalk 08:25, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, wasn't that the idea we decided on? Locating it at Yew Grove/Clan Chat? Why have we gone back to my original option? 222 talk 08:58, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Whatever happened to using Forum:Index like it was intended and create another Yew Grove ~like~ sub-forum? Ryan PM 11:39, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

That was what I thought would be happening. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 13:14, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I oppose putting it in the Forum namespace. We are trying to show that the CC is nowhere near as important as the Yew Grove. Already, we have given it the same setup as the Yew Grove. In my opinion, that's more than enough. Sitting it alongside the YG, so that they get equal importance is just inappropriate. There is no downsides or coding problems with putting it on the talk page. Chicken7 >talk 13:05, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. At the risk of regurgitating what melon said in the above section, the CC is the sole representation of the wiki in the game we are documenting. I've seen many new users/editors driven away by the attitude in the CC sometimes. Maybe the CC isn't as important as the main YG, but its still a lot more important than you're making it out to be. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 13:14, July 17, 2010 (UTC)
"...that the CC is nowhere near as important as the Yew Grove." That is a more than valid statement. I've said it on this thread before. The wiki without the CC would survive. The CC without the wiki would most likely not. With all these extra promotions of the CCF, we're probably making CC threads more notable and blown up then they were. Wasn't the whole point of this to get the complaints out of important discussions and areas?! Chicken7 >talk 13:26, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

Why not have it in the Forum namespace, but have it be a subforum of Yew Grove, instead of them both being equal? We could have a stickied link to it, that could (possibly) update every time a thread there was edited. I'm not sure if that part's possible. ʞooɔ 20:30, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I vote that we put it in Forum:Clan_Chat, which will be set up exactly as Forum:Yew_Grove is. Putting it in the project space makes no sense, and this sort of discussion belongs in the forumspace - but not the Yew Grove. In my opinion, the ideal solution would still use Template:Forumheader, but pointing back to Forum:Clan_Chat instead of Forum:Yew_Grove. It would use a parameter, cc=trueforum=cc, to add [[Template:Clan chat thread]], as opposed to a user adding it manually.

I've added this parameter to Template:Forumheader already and modified the header at the top of Forum:Stinko_is_at_it_again_unfortunately to use this parameter, in order to demonstrate what I mean (it should display the same as it did before, but it is implemented with the parameter).

As a separate idea, I would also suggest that Template:Forumheader only point back to Forum:Yew_Grove, or Forum:Clan_Chat if cc=trueforum=cc is set, as I've never seen it linking anywhere else. This would eliminate the need for the first parameter, but may be restrictive in the future.

In reply to Chicken, just by putting it in the Forum namespace we are not saying that it is as important as the Yew Grove threads in that namespace. I also don't think that the point of this is "to show that the CC is nowhere near as important as the Yew Grove". I think that the point is that CC threads do not belong on the Yew Grove, because they don't. Each section would have its own purpose, and neither needs to be more important than the other. They would be separate things, implemented in similar ways. The Yew Grove would be for threads about changes to the wiki, and the Clan Chat forum would be about issues with and changes to the clan chat.

In response to the idea about locating it at Forum:Yew Grove/Clan Chat, that, to me, gives the wrong idea about what the Clan Chat forum really should be. The Yew Grove is about changes to the wiki, not the clan chat. Since they are separate things, including one within the other seems illogical. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 22:11, July 17, 2010 (UTC) 

That works for me. ʞooɔ 22:13, July 17, 2010 (UTC)
Can you use something like forum=cc instead of cc=true, so that in the future we don't wind up with a bunch of mutually exclusive parameters? --Quarenon  Talk 22:16, July 17, 2010 (UTC)
That's a good idea, and it makes the idea of forcing the page to link back to even easier should we choose to implement that. I've switched it to forum=cc, and the forum parameter defaults to yg. The changes should work their way through the cache in a few minutes. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 22:23, July 17, 2010 (UTC) 
(edit conflict)Oh, I forgot to mention, my modification to Template:Forumheader also means that the cc=true parameter stops Category:Yew_Grove from ever being added, making the notcategory=Clan chat threads line in Forum:Yew_Grove unnecessary, as no clan chat threads will be considered part of the Yew Grove. Given my previous point above about the two being separate, I think this is appropriate, both for simplicity and to avoid confusion. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 22:23, July 17, 2010 (UTC) 

Support and Comment - However, the link to this forum should not be stickied. Stickies, as per consensus, are only for significant or time-sensitive Yew Grove discussions. Unless anyone has a serious problem with this, I will be adding the link to such a forum page somewhere else on the Yew Grove page, but not the stickies section. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 22:51, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

Why has the category gone red and the forumheader stuffed up? 222 talk 23:57, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I still greatly disagree. Why should the CC get more attention and more importance than other features, such as the IRC, TeamSpeak, events team, University of Lumbridge, etc. But go ahead, I won't oppose, and I seem to be largely outnumbered. And as Steler said, don't sticky it. Put a link in the "Notes:" list at the top of RS:YG. Chicken7 >talk 01:53, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - A few questions. Why is the page (RS:CCC)stuffed up. There are no threads in it; there used to be. Also, why are some pages still missing from the YG (Fansite Tournaments). Finally, so we are moving it to Forum:Yew Grove/Clan Chat? Thank you, 222 talk 02:20, July 18, 2010 (UTC) Edit:THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN FIXED

All the extra coding and messing about to get it into the Forumspace seems to have stuffed it up, even though it was working perfectly before with the original coding... Chicken7 >talk 03:13, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, when TLUL changed the Forumheader with the cc=true, he also removed the little template that added the page to the Clan chat threads category, because it was part of the Forumheader. After we tried to change it to forum=cc, it got messed up. Apparently the Forumheader was reverted to what it used to be before TLUL edited it, so the pages don't have the template, nor do they have the cc=true/forum=cc. I hope someone can fix this. I would, but I really have no idea what I'm doing... ʞooɔ 03:17, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
Also note, it has messed up Yew Grove threads that have nothing to do with the CC. Chicken7 >talk 03:26, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
So, who's gonna fix the other threads? 222 talk 04:04, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
Stelercus was making some more modifications, which disabled both cc=true and forum=cc. His method is now replacing the first parameter (which always used to say Yew Grove) with cc, clan chat, or clan (case insensitive). I've corrected the template, since he says he managed to mess something up while doing this, and I'm editing the other pages to use this method now (it really does make more sense, because the parameter is roughly equivalent to the intended function of forum= anyways). The redlinks were caused by incorrect capitalisation in Stelercus' edit (Clan Chat Threads as opposed to Clan chat threads) and linking back to Forum:Clan_Chat instead of RS:CCF. I'm not sure what caused the other problems, but I'll try to find out. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 04:35, July 18, 2010 (UTC) 
Everything is fixed on the RS:CCF side, as far as I can tell. If you notice any threads that aren't showing up on the Yew Grove where they should, please point them out. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 04:42, July 18, 2010 (UTC) 
When viewing a thread on CCF, the Forum:Clan Chat doesn't exist. Should we just leave it as is, because we'll (likely) be moving to the Forum space? ʞooɔ 04:45, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict with 222)That's been removed, it just hasn't been updated in the cache yet. If you purge the page, it'll change to a link to RuneScape talk:Clan Chat, which is where it's currently located. When we decide on a place to put the CCF permanently (it seems to be between Forum:Clan_Chat and Forum:Yew_Grove/Clan_Chat), Template:Forumheader is easy enough to change to accomodate that. Also, I've removed the redlink in your post, to prevent WantedPages clogging. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 04:55, July 18, 2010 (UTC) 
I still can't find Forum:Fansite Tournaments. I think Swizz is gonna be annoyed. And, yes. You ought to leave it until we have solid confirmation to move to the Forum: namespace. 222 talk 04:50, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
At this point I'm just trying to fix Forumheader such that it doesn't mess with pages that aren't part of the CCF prototype. I can't explain what happened to Forum:Fansite Tournaments, as far as I can tell it's in all the correct categories to show up on the Yew Grove. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 04:55, July 18, 2010 (UTC) 
Forum:Fansite_Tournaments is back on the list after I edited it. I think it was probably just a cache issue. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 05:19, July 18, 2010 (UTC) 
(edit conflict with TLUL)Looks like everything's working again I think. Thank you brilliant coders! 222 talk 05:21, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

Back on track - Now we can get on with moving it to Forum:Clan Chat or Forum:Yew Grove/Clan Chat. 222 talk 05:22, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

Closed The new clan chat forum is operational.--Degenret01 02:42, July 22, 2010 (UTC)