Forum:Changes to RS:G

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Changes to RS:G
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 10 October 2010 by Liquidhelium.

While RS:G is indeed a very useful, and for that matter a very commonly used policy, I find there's some things I've considered changeable with it.

Part A: NPCs and RS:G

Basicly the reasoning for this should be obvious, per common sense it's already widely accepted that NPCs are affected by RS:G, the reason I'm bringing this up however is to eliminate the need for debate on just how it applies. To simplify things I'll list them numerically to ease the comments people would like to bring up about them.

  1. NPCs with attackable counter parts like Nomad should be split.
  2. NPCs who are confirmed to be the same person, like Azzanadra and Dr Nabanik should be merged as they serve the same purpose.
  3. Monsters, tricky one, basically if different monsters with the same name are significantly different, like the different types of Dagannoth with different maxes, drops and detestably location they should be split, if however it's just a matter of a minor difference they should stay merged.

Part B: Subpage for the RS:G Page

As for this part, the reasoning is clearly not as obvious; my basic thinking here is stems from the ever growing things that RS:G can apply to, and the fact that the majority of the RS:G page can become a mass example of when to use RS:G and when not to, there maybe a need to move the "when to apply RS:G" to a subpage. While having a "when to apply this policy" is common for policy pages, few of those have as many different examples of when to apply it as RS:G does, since RS:G's use stems from images to items to NPCs to...well just about everything either whether to merge it or split. While a subpage merely for this may seem trivial, it would allow a more detailed reasoning for the split/merging rather than a one line explanation as well as clearing up some clutter from the RS:G page, basically creating this subpage would move the to merge or not to merge section out of the main article and to the subpage. Korasi's sword.png Archmage Elune  TalkHS Void knight deflector.png fetus is my son and I love him. 06:14, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment Should anyone not want to support something specific I added Letters to simplify opposing different parts, EX: Support A but oppose B or Support A 1 and 2 oppose 3. Korasi's sword.png Archmage Elune  TalkHS Void knight deflector.png fetus is my son and I love him. 06:14, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

Support A, Pending B - Common sense+per C7. HaloTalk 06:16, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

Support A and B - Sounds good to me. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 06:28, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

Support A, Neutral on B - For B, you can do the same thing on the same page too, I don't see why it needs a subpage. bad_fetustalk 08:49, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

Support A, Oppose B - Policies really shouldn't need another subpage. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 22:34, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

Support A, Pending B - A sounds good. But with B, I recommend extending the list, and then we can see if a subpage is really required and use common sense. Chicken7 >talk 01:55, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support A, Oppose B - Having the list on the page itself simplifies things. Suppa chuppa Talk 08:14, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support A, Oppose B - Per supposers (Support+Oppose). 222 talk 07:04, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

I lol'd. bad_fetustalk 08:51, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose A, Neutral B - NPCs like Zenevivia has about... a minute of talking time as an NPC before they become a monster that can be attacked. I oppose because under this new policy Zenevivia would have to stay separated when there is no real reason to separate them. It should be decided on a case-by-case basis, not be pre-decided by a blanket policy such as this one. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 07:12, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

You forgot that after the quest, Zenevivia forever resides in the Wise Old Man's house as a non-attackable NPC.  Tien  12:59, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support A, Neutral B - Per all. I think the list is fine on the policy page.  Tien  12:59, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose both - I would support A only if it were amended so that NPC (sane) and NPC (monster) pages were split if and only if there is a significant role that is played by both of the incarnations. For example, if, as Psycho said, the NPC (sane) lasts for an incredibly short time with very little significance, it is much better to have it as a subsection on the NPC (monster) page. Now, in the case of Nomad, the NPC (sane) has an important role as the manager of Soul Wars, and the NPC (monster) has an important role as one of the hardest boss monsters, so the two pages should be split. --LiquidTalk 23:52, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Lol, "sane" 222 talk 08:50, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Are there any other benefits to having subpages for RS:G. Theres nothing wrong with a long policy. In sub-pages, people might not read it all. 222 talk 08:50, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose A, Neutral B - Merging Nabanik and Azzanadra = instant spoiler. The current system is fine, and even if it weren't, it's much better than A. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 20:50, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose A1, Slight Oppose A2, Support A3, Neutral B- Oppose 1 per Phsyco Robot. Plus, look at Sigmund (monster). It is pretty much the same thing as Sigmund, but with small "Combat strategy" sections that could easily fit into Sigmund's main article. In order to be split, there should have to be a Significant difference between the different forms, like Nomad. As for 2B, I agree with the above person that things like Nabanik and Azzanadra should stay seperate simply because of the spoiler value it contains. Echned Zekin and Nezikchened, however, are fine. --Armadyl symbol.png Nightgunner Talk Illuminated Book of Law.png 21:33, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

{{close|Support for part A, no consensus to implement part B}} 222 talk 04:44, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Changes to Part A1

I am strongly opposed to the first part of 'A', so before this closes I would like to propose a small change to it:

NPCs with attackable counterparts should not be split unless there is a significant difference between the two incarnations.

To use examples of where they have already been split, see Zenevivia, General Khazard, and Sigmund. None of these are have significant differences between their two counterparts. Furthermore, with the exception of Zenevivia, the combat strategy for all them is essentially just "turn on protect from melee and hit them until they die". Such articles should NOT be split. Armadyl symbol.png Nightgunner Talk Illuminated Book of Law.png 23:33, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

You stole my phrasing! Lol Anyways, in all seriousness, don't worry about this getting closed soon. We sysops are more lazy than you would think, and no one wants to close and implement a thread that involves sweeping changes. That's why this hasn't been closed already. --LiquidTalk 01:28, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it is a difficulty on determining the size limit of an NPC article to be split? A man doesn't deserve split articles. But when you got some really powerful evil creatures it is split. Rewlf2 04:52, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support addition - Obviously common sense would apply above all this. But this small section ought to be added. 222 talk 06:44, September 21, 2010 (UTC)


This request for closure is complete A user has requested closure for Changes to RS:G. Request complete. The reason given was: Discussion has died

svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 01:03, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Part A with the modification will be implemented. Without the modification, there is insufficient support for the proposal. --LiquidTalk 13:59, October 10, 2010 (UTC)