Forum:Changes to quest articles

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Changes to quest articles
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.

I am proposing multiple changes to quest articles. Right now, they are not even articles really; just walkthroughs. I will propose the various changes in individual sections.

Splitting of the articles

Example: User:Chicken7/Cook's Assistant and User:Chicken7/Cook's_Assistant/Walkthrough

The quest articles will be split into one main article and a walkthrough subpage. If you haven't noticed, our current articles are just the walkthrough and sometimes some trivia. An article is not a walkthrough. By splitting, we can have an informative, neutral article, including things such as an infobox, storyline, official description, development team, trivia, etc. Whereas the subpage would contain a walkthrough, reward, details, music unlocked and other things concerned with completing the quest. Other wikis have done this, Wikia Gaming being one of many examples. Other fansites wouldn't do this as they usually only have guides/databases rather than being an encyclopedia. I would also recommend using Template:Title on the subpage, (Cook's Assistant - Walkthrough instead of Cook's Assistant/Walkthrough).

Implementation of the infobox

Proposed: User:Chicken7/Infobox quest

An infobox can be a new way to show the non-guide information from Template:Quest details. I have taken a few fields from the current details template, and also added a few new ones. The fields are: name, image, number (in order of release), release, update, series, (official) difficulty, wdifficulty(wiki advised), (official) length, developer, link (to GG description). Most are self explanatory. image is for just an image from the quest outlining its main idea (for Cook's Assistant, it'd be at the stove). An alternative is using the GG images (image on right). Although I am unsure of the copyrights/fair use in that. We can add the new "Wiki difficulty" when that is decided upon, but for now let's use the blue stars; it can be changed later (please do not start that discussion here). That is pretty much all for that

Modification to Template:Quest details

Proposed: User:Chicken7/Quest details

I don't think we should completely get rid of this and make it redundant to the infobox. The informative fields should be removed, and only fields kept that are related to the guide. I propose removing the (official) description, release, update, members. I also think it'd be good to add a "recommended items" field, which would be auto-hidden when the field is not entered into.


Anyway, those are the first changes I think are required and would really benefit the articles. There are more ideas, related to changing the layout and style of walkthroughs, but let's not discuss them yet. Admins, please do not close this discussion after consensus has been found for the above changes, as there is a part 2. If Quest details is changed, let's not modify it just yet. Thoughts? Comments? Concerns? Queries? Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 09:52, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Support 1&2, Not sure 3 - I'm not sure whether removing some of those things from the walkthrough template would be such a good thing. I do fully support 1 and 2 though. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 09:55, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
All that information could be found in the main article. The release date, official description, etc will be much use to people doing the quest itself. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 10:02, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
I see you have striked through the "members" part. That was my only reason not to support, so I'll Support all now. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 14:59, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose all - There is no reason to separate the quest articles at the time being. What is more interesting to users: the walkthrough, or the development team? If we wanted to put stuff like the development team in there, we can do that to the current articles easily. Furthermore, since quest articles are guides, RS:NPOV does not apply to them (see paragraph at the bottom). Most users come to quest articles to look for the walkthrough, so that should be right up in their faces. They shouldn't have to click another link to get there. Just my 2 cents. --LiquidTalk 10:06, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia. The proposed is the way it should be, but the current is how we began doing it when the Wiki was founded, when most pages were merged together, rather than being individual like RS:G implies. The Dev. Team is not the only change. The stoyline, the infobox, more trivia, history of development, etc. And we should also separate NPOV info and non-NPOV info, as it just doesn't work when they are together. I also don't see how a user will give up when they have to click one link. With the state of some of our walkthroughs, I think they'll give up straight away. I have added 2 obvious links to the walkthrough page. Chicken7 >talk 10:32, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support1&2 - per oli. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 10:08, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I really don't see the point about seperating the two, I mean, on every other fansite their article on a quest is the guide/walkthrough, we provide detailed information on the quest without words like "you should...", what makes this fansite great is that we are an encyclopedia, the article provides the guide and makes it like a story, that makes us better than everyone else. Explorer's ring 3.pngBtzkillerv has entered the building! Cape (blue).png 11:21, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, most of our guides use "you", or sometimes even "the player", rather than imperative command. And, as you said, we are an encyclopedia, not "other fansites". So we should have articles as well, not just non-NPOV guides/walkthroughs. Chicken7 >talk 11:50, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support (all) - I chatted with Chicken in-game about it prior to this thread, and I fully agree with his reasoning for the changes. The current state of our articles is such that all of them merely walkthroughs with overly long trivia sections, and they are lacking a lot of relevant information. We should not be looking towards what information readers are interested in, but rather what information our articles are lacking. C.ChiamTalk 11:30, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - However, I oppose the removal of members only field in Template:Quest details. willwill Talk 11:55, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
Yes check.svgDone - I was kind of unsure of that. I've decided to add the members field back, as it is kind of useful to know when you are about to do a quest ^_^ Chicken7 >talk 12:26, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - I was actually pondering over this idea a few weeks ago. It would be a nice idea to have an informative article about a quest along with the walkthrough itself, since we're an encyclopedia. The infobox thing looks good, and the removal of certain details from the quest details template makes sense since they'll be in the informative article.  Tien  15:46, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • Question—Just asking because I don't know: How would this affect how Google and other search engines see our guides? Right now, when I use Google to search for, say, Lunar Diplomacy or Dream Mentor or While Guthix Sleeps, our guides come out as the top result. How would turning the walk-throughs into subpages affect our results? Horsehead Talk 15:59, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure about this. Chances are, the main quest page will still appear in lieu of walkthroughs, unless the search specifically contains the word walkthrough in it. --LiquidTalk 19:42, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
When I do a Google search, for just the quest name, wiki is second. If anything, this should boost our search result. A walkthrough page does not have many mentions of the quest name, but an article will have the name in the title, infobox, body, official description, trivia and other places, so if anything, the search result should be boosted. As Helm said, if "walkthrough" is added, most likely the subpage would appear. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 00:40, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
I am not disagreeing with you, Liquidhelium and Chicken, but I'd feel more comfortable hearing from some who actually knows how Google indexes sites and can explain how this proposed change will affect our search rankings. For example, I am skeptical that many searchers really enter the term walkthrough or walk-through in the search field when searching for a quest guide, so putting that term on a quest page probably is not going to affect a quest's ranking. Horsehead Talk 01:35, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Opppose 1 and 2, Neutral 3 - Sorry, I just don't see a point to this. Per Liquidhelm. Telos 21:08, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

You can't really oppose the first 2, then neutral the 3rd, as that would result in a loss of information from the Details template. Chicken7 >talk 00:40, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Support - The mock-ups that you presented look much cleaner than our current quest pages. This seems like an excellent idea. --Aburnett(Talk) 21:12, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Just to make it clear, I think this boils down to what are users more interested in? A walkthrough or all the technical release details? I believe most of the users are interested in the walkthrough, which is why I advocate leaving the quests as is. And stop calling me helm. --LiquidTalk 00:42, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Liquidhelium, we're an encyclopedia. For starters, we should not even have a walkthrough. Do you see walkthrough for games or movies on Wikipedia? I'm not suggesting getting rid of them, just saying. Plus, I don't know what "technical release information" you're looking at. I see one field in the infobox, plus a section about reworks which already was in the old 10+ item trivia, which took up a whole screen at my resolution. If the users are interested so much in getting their hands on the walkthrough, they can click the first damn link to appear in the article. I don't see users refusing to use the Wiki anymore due to an extra button to click... Chicken7 >talk 00:53, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
O_o I didn't mean to sound rude, chicken. Let's not get the cursing started... The technical information I was talking about was all the release dates, developers, etc. Furthermore, I am only trying to convenience the majority of the users here... --LiquidTalk 00:56, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
O_o If you felt offended by damn, sorry. Anyway, I'm only trying to stick to the values of an encyclopedia, follow our style guide and document the information that has been missing for so long. Chicken7 >talk 01:03, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support all 3 - Gives us a big edge over every other fansite! Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 01:35, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - wn? scoot4.pngscooties 03:07, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • Clarification I think you should create a sample page using the templates and changes you've proposed, so people can see how it would all work together. Because right now I don't really understand what you intend to do with the current quest info template. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 03:37, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
Like these? User:Chicken7/Cook's Assistant and User:Chicken7/Cook's_Assistant/Walkthrough Chicken7 >talk 04:07, April 8, 2010
Oops. Completely overlooked that link... Your fault! And yes that's what I meant. And that looks great so I Support kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 05:23, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
Made a modification so that mistake will never happen again. Wink Chicken7 >talk 05:27, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - Unlike our current articles [!] on RuneScape quests, these mock-ups for the Cook's Assistant quest feel like actual articles than guides. The current guides provide little, if few actual details in the presentation of the actual quest, more than a spoon-feeding layout. If we are willing and able to do this, it should be about time to get this show on the road. Albeit, that's a lot of work to be done for this task, but it'll be worth making the articles the way they were meant to be. Ryan PM 03:51, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - per above as nom nom nom and editor 05:11, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • Split
    • Support 1 - Yes, could provide information without spoilers. I've always defended a "plot" section on quest guides. This is a different (and better) option to implement it. Also, separation is more convenient for both those who want the guide to just do the quest, and those who are interested in learning more about the quest
    • Neutral 2 - Maybe those who just want info about the quest don't need to have the entire quest template. On the other hand...
    • STRONG oppose 2& 3 - ...someone about to do the quest needs all the information he/she can get. This is just splitting the quest information, instead of keeping it in the same place. Not convenient at all Balance iz powa!4ndrepd TalkContribsStupid monkeys actually have a use...Jump to the God Wars II! 12:03, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, I think it is better to have the walkthrough as the main page and the info as the subpage. Balance iz powa!4ndrepd TalkContribsStupid monkeys actually have a use...Jump to the God Wars II! 10:59, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
Someone who is about to do the quest doesn't need to know the release date. And someone reading the information about the quest doesn't need to know which items to bring. It's logical division of the information. Chicken7 >talk 14:37, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - we are the runescape wiki, not necessarily the runescape wikipedia. I must point out that wiki =/= encyclopedia. Although we aim to be encyclopedic I think we should be a fansite first and an encyclopedia second...obviously this might require an entirely new discussion in the YG 98.218.42.245 23:53, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
Definitely would require another discussion. That is an absolutely huge debate to be had. I'm not going to expand on or refute your point, as that'd just make more of a mess of this discussion. Chicken7 >talk 00:28, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose 1 & 3 - Simply put, I don't see a need to modify all the quest articles and to essentially double the number of quest articles. It's just not necessary. Again as said before, the most important things that players care about is probably NOT the names of people that worked on it or the composers of the music. Other reasons per above. Lil cloud 9 09:23, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
  • Split
  1. Weak Oppose 1 - If all information(plot spoilers etc.) about the quest is on "Chicken7/Cook's Assistant" page, thank you, I just searched "Chicken7/Cook's Assisant" for a WALKTHROUGH, not spoilers, and what did I get? A whole page all about the quest. All this information(that I didn't want to see), about the storyline, trivia, and any other information. Woops! Spoilers!
  2. Support 2- A nice infobox about the quest on some other page would be nice.
  3. Support 3- It's true, The Quest Details Boxes are huge, in some quests. This could help those quests become more readable.
  4. Proposal - Liquidhelium mentioned a good question "What is more interesting to users: the walkthrough, or the development team?". This question is one of the main reasons for opposition. So, I propose, to Change the name, for the current pages, "Chicken7/Cook's Assisant" to "Chicken7/Cook's Assistant/Extra Info" and "Chicken7/Cook's Assistant/Walkthrough" to be redirected to "Chicken7/Cook's Assistant". Thus, the most thing people care about, the walkthrough, is just as easily accessed as it was before, without the spoilers, or most of the unreadability. Creating two birds with one wikia pen. Stats Overall icon highscores.pngPlayerFroobTalk 11:15, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
I think that kind of argument is like saying "What do users want most when they visit this site; the main page full of wiki information, or the quest articles full of walkthroughs? Ooh, the walkthroughs, let's redirect Main Page to List of Quests." Chicken7 >talk 11:40, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The only valid argument against this proposal I see is the one that users would rather see a walkthrough first, rather than neutral information. But in my opinion, that is just poor organisation. I just can't see putting this kind of information on a subpage working. Arguing that we shouldn't even use this information is very invalid, as we strive to have as much information about RuneScape as possible. The only reasons other fansites don't do this is because they are not wikis, and they are not encyclopaedias. No offense, but users who refuse to use the wiki because they have to click ONE more OBVIOUS link than usual are just extremely lazy. Compared to other fansites, it'd still probably be faster accessing our walkthroughs through 2 links than other fansites' 1 extremely laggy page. Chicken7 >talk 11:40, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support all - This would finally add an encyclopedic and professional element to the quest articles. I'd like to see the storyline/plot sections developped most. It would help people that won't be doing the quest or have already done to see what is learned storyline/canon/Gielinor-history -wise without trying to find the information from the walkthrough. Though, I'd have kept the 'members' field out of the quest detail template: it's not related to the walkthrough aspect of the quest. By the way, I imagine the current proposal if passed would also apply to holiday event articles (eg 2010 Easter event)? Armeng90 01:51, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd apply this to holiday articles as I can. Also, this should apply to miniquests, although modifications will need to be made. Chicken7 >talk 01:55, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
Just so you know, I've created Template:Infobox event for holiday articles (see how it is used on 2009 Christmas event if you want to make any changes). White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 13:14, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - A lot of the justification for this comes from the fact that we are an encyclopaedia. This is, and has never been, true. That many of our articles are encyclopedic is no doubt a selling point for our Wiki. But we have always recognized the dual-nature of this site in many past discussions. Wikis are not intrinsically encyclopedic; the distinguishing factor of a Wiki is the openness of changing content. Our tagline used to include "encyclopedia" but we removed it.

That said, I actually support this proposal, or rather a more general proposal to compartmentalize all non-neutral information such that non-neutral language does not invade articles that we would like to be encyclopedic. I don't think users will really have any trouble finding the walkthrough the way Chicken's laid it out. Endasil (Talk) @  16:11, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - one thing I'd like to add is that rewards and requirements (skills and quest prereqs, not items) belong on the encyclopedia page for two reasons. First, they're neutral (we could just source Jagex's page in the KB). Second, that is information that people would want to know without needing to go to a separate walkthrough page, since they might not be intending to actually do the quest. Endasil (Talk) @  16:21, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 21:58, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Love the idea of splitting the walkthrough page to get rid of the mounting trivia sections. LordDarkPhantom 11:31, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - I like the idea, but I think it would take alot of work to do this for EVERY quest. Good idea, but the work required is too much if you ask me... SplâshTâlkSîgn hêrê 18:56, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

The work isn't really much of a reason to oppose (or refrain from supporting), as everything takes work, but it will eventually get done. There has been much bigger projects than this in the past. The GEMW received a large amount of hesitation when it began, and was only a one man job for awhile; look at it today. And the music track articles, I thought I'd struggle to pass the proposal, but the articles were made within a day or two. And if you can't be bothered, there'll always be others who are willing. Smile Chicken7 >talk 06:25, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support 1, Strong support 2, Weak oppose 3 - I totally like 1 and 2, but I don't like the "Official length" section in 3. In Freeing the Mountain dwarf in Recipe for Disaster for example, the official length is "short" but it can be very long if you don't have Ice gloves. Matt (t) 07:19, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

As we're trying to make the articles factual, we want to supply the Jagex rating there. I agree with your example, and understand your concern. If/After this proposal is implemented, I plan to start a WikiGuild that will deal with greatly improving our current walkthroughs. One idea is to supply our own length rating, also including it as a time frame (1-2 hours or whatever). We can also add asterisks that link off to a notes section below, explaining the variable factor of whether you have ice gloves or not. But for now, it is important to have both ratings, so players are aware which is Jagex's. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 08:02, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

Since Chicken says that the only valid argument he sees is that users would rather see a walkthrough first, then how about this:

We put the walkthrough on the main page and have a subpage of Quest name/Information for all the encyclopediatic, technical information.

Discuss. --LiquidTalk 11:42, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning oppose - Unorganised and just, well, doesn't work in my opinion. I said that above. Is it really so much trouble to spend A FEW SECONDS clicking a link to a walkthrough of a quest that may take SEVERAL HOURS?? Chicken7 >talk 11:46, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

That's a few seconds more than it has to take. I'm just trying to convenience the users here. --LiquidTalk 11:48, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
I'm just trying to be encyclopaedic, organise information properly and convenience ALL users rather than only the ones who want walkthroughs. Chicken7 >talk 11:54, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
Your proposal conveniences only those that want to see the technical information (by placing it on the main quest page), and inconveniences those who want to see walkthroughs (by placing it on a subpage and forcing them to click on a link). That's not exactly all users. --LiquidTalk 11:56, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
Stop referring to it as technical information; the only tech. info there is the developers, and that's not the only thing on the page. Right now, we're inconveniencing some users significantly by not having this information at all. If this proposal passed, we'd inconvenience some users slightly as they have to click a link. Liquid, please take a look at this. Chicken7 >talk 12:03, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
The storyline and whatnot isn't really necessary, and may be difficult to write in some quests. How do you write one for Legends' Quest, for example, when the user has a choice of different actions? --LiquidTalk 12:09, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
Exactly how we wrote the walkthrough: with two different sections, outlining what happened. Chicken7 >talk 12:13, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to say something like what they use on [[starwars:Main_Page|the Wookieepedia]]. Hello71 14:20, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

"Neutral", leaning support - Agree with Liquidhelium! FTW! That's exactly what I said, but you put it better. Stats Overall icon highscores.pngPlayerFroobTalk 12:27, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Slight Oppose - Then no-one would go to the other page anymore and the information would be lost. It's not a big deal to click the "walkthrough" thing anyway. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 18:39, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I agree the the argument that a walk-through is not encyclopedic. Put it on a subpage. --Aburnett(Talk) 20:22, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I personally do not want to have the same look and feel as other fansites. I like the more professional feel that Chicken7 has done. The few seconds will not kill you or anyone else. Don't we want to differentiate from the crowd? Ryan PM 20:37, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Sorry, don't see a point in splitting. Telos 21:05, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support all 3 of Chicken7's proposals - per Chicken. I've always thought that would be a good idea. Also, oppose Liquidhelium's proposal per Chicken's post above. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 00:54, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose this alternate proposal. By this logic, should Tormented demon/Strategies be moved to Tormented demon and the info found on 2nd page (drops, infobox, ...) be moved to [[Tormented demon/Information]]? If not, I don't know why quest articles should be different. By having the facts on the first page makes the quest articles more professional. If people can't stand clicking on another clearly indicated link, then it's their loss. Armeng90 01:51, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Nice example. Chicken7 >talk 01:55, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - It seems illogic. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 07:11, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Quest dependency - If you are going to reorganise all the quest pages, it would be good to add what quests can be completed after a quest, as well as which ones are required first. If I have nothing to do in the summer I may produce a proper chart of them all... Margarath 10:35, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

Continued

Support Chicken's proposal per above. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 12:22, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

You can't vote twice. --LiquidTalk 17:44, April 25, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, oops. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 23:49, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Chicken7 Split with Addition Would it be sensible, whichever one takes place to include the spoiler message somewhere (eg: "Stop! H.A.M. time! No spoilers for you, this day." (Another_Slice_of_H.A.M.)) in the box seeing as they all have their own now? --King Runite1 01:12, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Additional. Personally I think we'd be better off with two details-style boxes rather than the thin infobox. Just my thoughts. --King Runite1 01:15, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
Wait, didn't we abolish spoiler warnings, though? White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 22:21, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
Yep. Consensus 3 separate times. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 01:55, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
Pfft, just because there is a consensus doesn't mean that the consensus gets implemented. If the closing administrator doesn't do it, and no one else is bothered enough to do so, then there is no change. --LiquidTalk 02:00, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
It has been implimented twice, with it currently being in practice on all quest pages. After it was first implimented, it was added back to the quest template without discussion and another discussion was made on it. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 02:59, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not talking about re-implementing spoiler warnings. I'm talking about putting Jagex's spoiler warning somewhere on the infobox/template, rather than in the trivia section --King Runite1 17:27, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
Oppose King Runite's idea, it would overcrowd the infobox. It doesn't really even need to be in the trivia section, either. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 17:41, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Your proposal can already be added to holiday event articles. It's already been done for 2009 Christmas event, except for the infobox. No one needs a walkthrough for an event that is over. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 20:54, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I just wanted to comment on Oli's statement "Then no-one would go to the other page anymore and the information would be lost." ...so if you say this, wouldn't you agree that many people won't bother to care about that information. It seems all this proposal is to bring this kind of information to the foreground, when it really shouldn't be. The current way we have (why it was naturally organized like this to begin with) is a good compromise. Lil cloud 9 11:59, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

It was originally organised this way, because at the dawn of the wiki, many article topics were merged together. It would've been silly to have two quest articles, when they were merging articles about all the monsters and items into single articles. This is a link to the original Cook's Assistant quest guide. In my honest opinion, it hasn't really changed at all. Just a walkthrough. Don't we want to advance the quality of our pages here? Chicken7 >talk 12:21, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
I didn't mean that people don't care about it. If people have never heard about the Wiki, does that mean they don't care about it? If people have never heard of these articles existing, does that mean they don't care about it? Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 09:17, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment- make 2 articles per quest. one is the article for the quest which is presented like a story which goes through the story line of the quest and little bits on trivia. a second article which is called "Quest name"/walkthrough we can all edit both these pages. having each user having their own walkthrough for a quest isn't particularly helpful if the user making the guide doesn't know how to do a certain part of the quest or did it by chance. Also if one user makes their own guide what about temple of ikov? 2 routes in it and the writer will need 2 member accuonts to make an indepth walkthrough of both routes.

Saradomin sword.png Shadow-fox

12:38, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken that is already the proposal. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 13:37, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support C7's Idea - This'll put us ahead of all the other fansites! The only problem would be the articles could be too short Concerned   Swizz Talk   Events!   15:02, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

  • Splitting the guide off into a separate article is unecessary. More information in the vein that Chicken proposes in his examples might be nice to have (particularly a prosaic explanation of the whole storyline, including the resolution and any spoilers that entails). However, there actually has to be substantive content other than a summary and boilerplate information to include, and someone has to write it. I find it highly unlikley that there is significant content to write about each quest like there is for Cook's Assistant. I suggest that Chicken write up such example articles for several other randomly selected quests to show that there is such non-boilerplate and non-plot information for most quests.
  • Assuming, though, that I am wrong and such content exists for most quests, I do not think we need to split off the guide. Just include everything in the one page. This will, of course, require some re-working of now-standard structures to maintain organizational balance in the new articles, but that's not a problem.
  • If this proposal passes, we should have the main content drafted before we split of the guides. Otherwise we're going to have 150+ pages exist as a stub until someone can be bothered to write the info. Also, for the love of all that is sexy, can we please not use hyphens in the title of the guide articles.
  • As a minor note to Chicken: [citation needed] about this site's being an encyclopedia; the word "encyclopedia" appears nowhere on the main page or RS:ABOUT. So the "this is an encyclopedia" argument holds no water. (wszx) 02:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
"Also, for the love of all that is sexy, can we please not use hyphens in the title of the guide articles." I lol'd. :O --Iiii I I I 02:23, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
Refute -
  • Cook's Assistant is the shortest quest in the game. It is most likely to be the shortest example. I'm busy lately, so don't have time to create more examples. If you give me a few though, I'll attempt them when I get time.
  • No way we can include it all in one article. It may just be an appropriate size on short quests like Cook's Assistant. But think of ones like WGS. Already, the current guide is much larger than the recommended page size. Imagine if we added all this other information. I can imagine 60kb+ articles.
  • I agree with drafting before creation. Maybe a temporary WikiGuild could take care of this? Also, I haven't used hyphens (-) in the title. If you mean slashes (/), they're crucial as they are what make the subpage. I understand they look ugly, so that's why in my proposal I have used Template:Title, so we can display an alternative "prettier" header.
  • I've already explained about us being an encyclopedia somewhere above. I can't link you to anywhere or thing. But once you have been here enough time, and been part of the closer community, you realise the general idea is that we are an encyclopaedia and need to keep content mainly encyclopaedic. Maybe RS:NPOV covers this. You're going to need to create a new thread to discuss us being or not being an encyclopaedia; that's an issue that's too big for this proposal. Chicken7 >talk 09:58, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
  • WGS is a special case—very few quests are like that. Without examples we're just dealing with "well I think"–"no I think". You say it will be too long for most articles; I don't (I also doubt you will actually get people to write the content). You can't really argue for changing the status quo without any evidence that the content you propose would be unduly long in main articles. It is undeniable that most readers look at our quest articles for walkthroughs—you need a compelling reason to shove that off to a subpage and you have not provided it. You do use hyphens in your proposal by using {{title}}, it would render as a hyphen even if the actual page name uses a slash. Oh and nice job trying to cast me as an outsider who can't understand that you really are an encyclopedia until I have "been a part of the closer community". It's not going to fly, though: my point still stands that there's no official declaration as an "encyclopedia", and so trying to suggest that all our content must adhere to an encyclopedic model is a nonstarter (not to mention that "encyclopedic" is such a nebulous term that using it as a criterion is worthless). At least two people have raised the point above (one of whom is an administrator, and I would imagine that's part of the "closer community"), so at the very least there is no universal agreement on the "encyclopedia"–"something-else" question. (wszx) 20:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
WGS may be a special case, but what difference does that make? We need to be consistent, or it will just confuse users even more. And as I've said before, it just isn't organised and appropriate to NPOV information and biased guides. I tested merging the Cook's Assistant guide+info, and it turned out as quite a good-sized page. Now, that is the shortest quest in the game, completed within minutes. What about quests that take hours upon hours? And I can argue to change the status quo, when I have brought up so many benefits. Ten examples are not a necessity. I provided at least one here, which so it seems, was the best example to show that the articles would be of adequate size, seeing as it is most likely the smallest quest article at the current time. And, I'm sorry my reasons for this proposal do not suffice to your criteria. I've provided multiple compelling reasons. I don't see how we're "shoving it off to a subpage", when the subpage can be easily accessed in a few seconds. The argument that this is inconvenient is a joke. Also, I still don't see any hyphens. No one else has commented on that; screenshot it please (even then, I fail to see why hyphens are so bad). Lastly, I never said there was an official declaration. You don't need an official declaration for everything. Sometimes common sense needs to be used, and it needs to be understood that the RuneScape Wiki is a "RuneScape fansite, using wiki software, written in an encyclopaedic format". If you go now and change an encyclopaedic article to a biased page, it wouldn't be long before it was reverted or disputed. I'm not saying all content must be encyclopaedic; if that was the case, this would be a proposal to remove all guides. If you would like a "universal agreement on the "encyclopedia"–"something-else" question.", you'll need to create another Yew Grove, as I've mentioned. I see one IP user who has mentioned the "not an encyclopedia" issue; no administrators, but that is irrelevant. Our current guides/articles are outdated and incomplete. We try to be better than the other fansites. Do they offer information such as that proposed? Chicken7 >talk 09:10, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
You have provided no benefits. Weight of history is against you: if the content you propose was so desired, don't you think someone would have put it in at some point? No, because most people don't care. Most people come here for the guide, and to dispute that would be absurd. So, however small you perceive the inconvenience to be, what you are doing is putting the content people actually want in a less-desirable location. So, just for kicks, tell me again these multiple compelling reasons for doing so (and please don't bother with your lofty "this is an encyclopedia and our articles must therefore be encyclopedic!" argument—you're clearly going to continue to insist I'm wrong because of some nebulous "we just know it is an encyclopedia even though it's not written down anywhere and much of our content would not go in an encyclopedia" argument and divert my point by saying we must discuss it somewhere else. You think it's right I think it's wrong so that's not going to go anywhere).
I'm beginning to think you are just saying I'm wrong and just ignoring the facts: I would also recommend using Template:Title on the subpage, (Cook's Assistant - Walkthrough instead of Cook's Assistant/Walkthrough). That quote is from the very first paragraph of your proposal, and that is a hyphen. A lot of the justification for this comes from the fact that we are an encyclopaedia. This is, and has never been, true. ... Endasil (Talk) @ 16:11, April 13, 2010 (UTC) and Endasil is an admin. We're getting derailed here a bit, but don't cite AEAE at me; that policy is just absurd and nobody actually believes it. You yourself just violated it by saying I can't possibly understand that this is an encyclopedia because I'm too new and haven't been part of the closer community. If that isn't discounting my opinion because I'm not as equal as the rest of you, I don't know what is. (wszx) 21:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment - Personally, I think the hyphen issue should be forgotten about, but, if we're going to use a title at the top, why not just use "Cook's Assistant Walkthrough" and solve the whole problem? Do we need a hyphen?
Length is definitely an arugment and one which is not based on opinion; the Cook's Assistant walkthrough is just over four pages at my resolution, and the informative page is three pages. I think that three pages of information can be written up for each quest since it can be written up for Cook's Assistant, the shortest quest, and I'm sure we can find people to work on writing it. The information definitely needs to be there due to RS:G and because we are "the wiki for all things Runescape," regardless of the fact that the information isn't currently there and regardless of the opinion that "most people don't care."
Since Cook's Assistant, the shortest quest, takes four pages for the walkthrough, there are many quests that will take many more than four pages, and that's a problem. While WGS is an especially long quest, it's undeniable that even the medium-length quests could reach an uncomfortable length, and with uncomfortable length comes uncomfortable size (kb), both of which should be avoided, if only to make our pages load more quickly. I'd like to point out that slow loading pages inconvenience everybody, especially dial-up users.
I've been in more than one discussion about AEAE; by consensus, it means that valid arguments are not weighed more or less because of prestiege, rank, age, level, and so on. I stress the word "valid" when I say that arguments like "Noboy actually believes it" are ridiculous and, of course, will be considered ridiculous regardless of equality. Chicken called you new to the community and thereby uninformed; he didn't say "Shut up! You're comments don't matter."
That said, Chicken has a point; if a biased change were made to an encyclopaedic article, it would be reverted, regardless of any lack of official documentation. I believe RS:NPOV covers this, and, if I can speculate, it seems to me that guides were tacked on regardless of RS:NPOV in an attempt to make us a better fansite...
I repeat that length, size (kb), and loading time are valid arguments for separating the article into information and walkthrough. Also, I'm seeing unnecessary hostility and personal attacks; stop that, please. Leftiness 23:47, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
Length, data size and loading time are actually all the same argument, and I doubt anyone whose computer is strong enough to play RS is going to have problems loading anything but a behemoth page on this site. If Chicken, who is the proposer and has spent much time arguing here, cannot even be bothered to write another example, what makes you think we'll get it written for all of them? And, even if I'm wrong, do you suggest we split the articles before all the content is written? You and Chicken seem to be treating "NPOV" and "encyclopedic" as if they were the same thing; they're not. We can have perfectly neutral information that isn't "encyclopedic" (whatever that even means). "Unnecessary hostility" is such a funny phrase; what exactly constitutes "necessary" hostility? If you're going to chastise me for making personal attacks (which I have not), please actually cite what was a personal attack rather than a blanket statement. Otherwise, I'll trouble you not to patronize me and derail this conversation. (wszx) 05:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment - The example which I would consider a "personal attack" would be "Oh and nice job..." I apologize for the lack of specifics in my blanket statement; it's just that your writing is coming off as very "tongue-in-cheek," for lack of a better phrase. Being presumptuous doesn't help that. In regards to "unnecessary hostility:" we're in an argument; of course there's going to be hostility, but, again, I feel as though your hostility is over-the-top. It's my opinion, of course, so I asked, with "please," that you tone it down.
Length, size, and loading time are different aspects of the same argument, so I felt it necessary to point out each one. That said, you're arguing about seconds. You're contending that clicking a link to a guide so inconveniences the user that the information and the guide should not be split, that the few seconds it takes to click an obvious link are bad. I agree that a few seconds of inconvenience are bad. As such, I pointed out that everybody is inconvenienced a few seconds when the page takes a few more seconds to load.
I didn't suggest splitting the articles before it was written, and I trust this community to be able to write the informative pages. Also, it's a personal attack to suggest that Chicken "can't be bothered to write another example;" if another example were necessary, it would be written. I think multiple examples would be overkill; the Cook's Assistant Walkthrough is just over four pages, Dragon Slayer is just over 14 pages, and I'd consider Dragon Slayer intermediate in comparison to Cook's Assistant and While Guthix Sleeps. Do we need to prove that other walkthroughs are much, much longer? I like the idea of removing four-ish pages from each walkthrough page by splitting the pages.
When you say "encyclopedic (whatever that even means)," it really kills the argument that NPOV doesn't mean encyclopaedic. Encyclopaedias are factual, broad in scope, and neutral in perspective. We are broad in scope as "the wiki for all things Runescape," and we are neutral in perspective per RS:NPOV. I'd say that we're an encyclopaedia without official declaration; we fit the description... except with these guides. Because guides aren't neutral is another reason to split the pages. Leftiness 18:53, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
As I've stated many times before, I never said we have an "official policy" that states we are an encyclopaedia, which is what Endasil was clarifying. Reading the rest of the post, though, it can be seen that he agrees with this proposal, that NPOV and non-neutral information should be separated, and that keeping our articles encyclopaedic is a good thing. Also, as the wiki gets larger and bigger, we are always attempting to grow and expand our content. I don't think Merovingian and the founding users were considering writing articles like this, when they were missing half the quests and thousands of items. I think that statement that "most people don't care" is incorrect. I know we don't count votes, but majority of users who have commented on this thread have supported (and sometimes, always wanted) this change.
About the hyphen, sorry, I didn't recognise that part in my proposal. That can be easily changed/modified, but still, I don't see why it's so bad. Also, when I said "you" in my reply somewhere above, it was "you" as in "a user". Poor English on my part. I've already started to write up a final proposal, the goods, the bads (with refutes) and what exactly will happen. You seem very adamant on your stance, so I'm unsure if there's much point in trying to convince you anymore though. Chicken7 >talk 02:05, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
←The same goes for you, which is why I'm not trying to convince you. I'm hoping the closing administrator is prone to close based on arguments rather than numbers. Our little back-and-forth is designed to show him the flaws and strengths in our arguments (and, ideally, that yours are more flawed than mine).
I think you and I have hashed this out enough, but I would like to pick at two things: I think that statement that "most people don't care" is incorrect. I know we don't count votes, but majority of users who have commented on this thread have supported (and sometimes, always wanted) this change. While it is true that many of the editors here have supported the change, that's all it means: the editors here. You are wrong if you suppose that the majority of people who come to this website only to read and use the information care that much about the content you propose. The second is your characterization of Endasil's comment. You are putting words in his mouth, and while I do not wish to do the same, I think you are severely incorrect in your interpretation of what he said. (wszx) 05:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to have to disagree with the "majority of users who have commented on this thread have supported (and sometimes, always wanted) this change." It makes me believe even more you are not even taking into consideration all of the things that the opposers have said and just completely disregarded them. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 20:15, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
If you looked at the context, (wszx) was suggesting that majority of users opposed the idea, which I was simply showing was incorrect, when looking at this thread. I also mentioned that we don't count votes, as it is arguments that matter. I've replied to most opposes on this thread, and regarded every single one of them, making changes based on their reasons. Chicken7 >talk 02:59, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment - {{RFC}} Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 05:21, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support original ideas - Inferno adze.png Ryndinovaia Woodcutting 21:45, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support - Yea,I did notice that whenever quests that come out have had dev blogs/diaries about them,the page tends to get rather clogged up.Also i believe alot of people don't come on the wiki looking for just walkthroughs.For example i mainly just come on the wiki to take wiki walks :D,and i am pretty sure thats what most people who go onto wikis do. Battleben 12:00, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion

Well, there have been mixed responses from users. I think its time we closed this discussion and finally implemented appropriate changes. I understand there has been some concerns brought up by users, and while I had modified the proposal in reply to their comment, some were still worried. Although I personally think this could have passed as rough consensus, I'm now proposing something different. Not splitting the articles. Simply write up the information and keep it together with the walkthrough on one page. In the future if it is found, first-hand, that the articles do become much too large, we can rediscuss splitting them off or another similar compromise. The information will be at the top, shortly followed by the walkthrough. I'll also add [[User:Chicken7/HasWalkthrough|this notice]] to the top of articles, offering an instantaneous transition to the Walkthrough header. Quest details has also been slightly modified so that it is more noticeable for viewers who wish to scroll down manually, and also more easy to understand. Features such as a checklist and start point map are also under development. See an example of everything together here.

Finally, I'd like to make a request for a WikiGuild named the "Quests Improvement WikiGuild". A WikiGuild is extremely beneficial, as it enables users to work together to both create ideas to improve our quest walkthroughs and then collaborate together to actually modify the walkthroughs. It's a large task, and may involve doing quests again with new or additional accounts. Not only will we be updating information and adding images, but implementing new features and ideas, some of which have been brainstormed here (contribute your own ideas!). Once the project is over (although I don't think that will happen in quite a long time), we can still continue keeping the same standard across all articles, develop new ideas, take more suggestions, look for articles that are still lacking, create and improve articles about new quests and similar tasks.

Proposal: Write informative, neutral information about quests and add it to the top of the article, together with the walkthrough. Create a WikiGuild that will deal with the implementation of this, and future projects involving quest walkthrough improvement.

It's disappointing that the original proposal could not be implemented in all its glory, but let's not deprive the wiki of this information altogether. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 11:43, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Question - Does this mean that we will use your quest details template? Because that's the worst template I've seen in my life, and I mean it. bad_fetustalk 12:00, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, using the new template is planned. I have made some changes, as you suggested in-game. If you still hate it, please just oppose the template, and judge the other changes separately. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 12:37, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It seems best to keep stuff on one page; people don't like needing to click too many times just to get the info that they want. ajr 15:11, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Support except for the new quest details template - Sorry, but your new template is still uglier than the current version. bad_fetustalk 15:14, July 31, 2010 (UTC) See below.

Very good. Support. (wszx) 21:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Support - Looks neater this way, nothing much else to add as all I can think of has already been stated by others. Korasi's sword.png Archmage Elune  TalkHS Void knight deflector.png fetus is my son and I love him. 02:42, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support except for the new quest details template - Per chess. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 05:45, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I found the quest detail template very nice, but if people don't like it, I guess that's an issue. As for other suggestions, I was thinking about putting an image in the background of the template but soon realized it wouldn't be possible due to technical reasons (not hard to do, but text would be unclear on top of it). I support the new proposal btw. Quest point cape.pngTalk Newbie856 edit count Nomad guideMusic icon.png 15:29, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support - However the new quest templates need a complete overhaul. --Aburnett(Talk) 17:00, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I am still convinced that we do not need to change the quest articles. Also, your new template is unsightly (blue background ftl). --LiquidTalk 15:03, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

You haven't really supplied reasoning. All this is is an expansion to some pages, so in effect, I didn't need to make this final proposal. I just wanted to let the community know. You are opposing the inclusion of valid, new information. Pretty much every other opposer above this section was opposing the split, as it was an inconvenience to users who wanted a w'through. Can you really oppose information addition? How is our wiki meant to move forward? Chicken7 >talk 08:24, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. But I really hate the new quest template. The blue colour scheme doesn't suit. 222 talk 06:50, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Kay, I have modified the new template so that it is default looking. I've managed to keep the new features and additions, except for the colour scheme and stylised look. The columns/boxes have to be kept, as they allow the parameters to be aligned well, which in turn makes a cleaner and easier-to-read template. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 10:27, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It's great now. bad_fetustalk 10:31, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Looks great. But make sure that the WikiGuild encourages using citations in the quest info. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 22:24, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Looks awesome. Smile Can't wait to see this implemented. I would like to see some color on the quest details template, though... or maybe those webkit/moz border curves again, I dunno, it just looks kind of plain to me right now. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 10:21, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Same. But so many opposed it, and I don't need something else preventing this going forward. Lol When/If we get a new skins, we can redesign this and many other templates to suit the skin. Smile Chicken7 >talk 11:25, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. ^_^ Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 04:03, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The new templates would look really good if we had the current Wikipedia skin/layout. It's much more contemporary looking. 222 talk 07:47, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - In every other wiki I've seen, all the infoboxes are a ton better than those ugly ones we have here. Is there a chance that the changes you made to Template:Infobox quest will be made to every infobox here on the wiki? White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 01:24, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to revert changes to Infobox quest. The gradient and shades of blue/grey will be removed from the infobox, as per complaints above. But I shall keep the "borderless" look. I think it'd be preferred if all our infoboxes were like that. It really is only a matter of changing the class to "toccolours" on them all. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 08:01, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't notice the complaints. But as long as they're borderless, that's great. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 12:20, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Request closure - There is support for the "Concluding" proposal. Most of the opposition is concerned with the design of the new template, which has been addressed. Also, Chicken appears to have disappeared, with no indication of when he will return. 222 talk 05:11, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

{{Closure|Discussion is dead}} svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 01:29, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - The concluding portion of the proposal will be implemented. --LiquidTalk 15:14, October 10, 2010 (UTC)