Forum:Defining Discussion Pages

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Defining Discussion Pages
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 28 July 2011 by Thebrains222.

What is a Discussion page? Wikia says it's a place to discuss the contents of the article. We officially say that it's a place to discuss improvements to the article and not a place for general discussion. This template says nothing helpful at all. I don't think I have ever come across an article whose discussion page has nothing but discussions about improving the article.

People want to know what weapons to use, if they should pray or not, if their stats will suffice, etc. They don't use the forums as we suggest, and we all know barely anyone uses them. Therefore I suggest we do one of two things:

  1. Add a little template above the edit box for users editing an article's discussion page. In the template, explain that discussion pages are for improvements to the article, not for general discussion, and direct them to our forums. People have a tendency to ignore big red letters above their edit boxes, let alone simple templates, but this could help in the long run. It would open up the forums more too.
  2. Redefine discussion pages. Change our views on them to allow people to discuss anything relevant to the article rather than just improvements. Nearly every article follows this already...

Discussion[edit source]

Support 2 - I've never used a talk/discussion page to discuss improvements to the article, and I don't plan on it any time soon. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 06:50, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

Support 2 - We have discussion pages? svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 06:56, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

Support 2 - I'm with Zam. Twig Talk 772kZGs.png 06:57, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

Support 2 - I've never even seen a talk page used to discuss improvements to the article. Matt (t) 07:07, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

Really? Never? O_o bad_fetustalk

Support 2 - I do occasionally discuss improvements, but I don't mind to tell a noob which prayer to use against a goblin. (Turmoil and Deflect Magic, of course) User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 07:16, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

Nub, it is turmoil, soul split and smite of course... JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 08:58, July 14, 2011 (UTC)
Oh, wight, sowwy. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 08:50, July 15, 2011 (UTC)
You must be unbelievably pro to use Smite and Turmoil at the same time. Real Crazy 09:27, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support 1, Oppose 2 - I believe it would be very beneficial for the wiki to have more people at the forums. While many RuneScape players use us as a primary source, the common opinion is that we do not really have a community. If we can attract people to use the forums, on the other hand, that could change their opinions, bringing us even more popularity among RuneScape fansites. I oppose the second proposal because I find it completely disorganised to keep both these things on the same page. Also, while you people might not be using talk pages to discuss small improvements to articles and use IRC or the CC instead, lots of other people do use talk pages for that purpose. Let's not make the talk pages unusable for that purpose by encouraging people to discuss the content of the article. bad_fetustalk 17:20, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

2 would allow users to discuss anything relevant to the article, whether it be equipment setups or article improvements. It wouldn't limit anyone - just clarifying. (: sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 18:48, July 13, 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. It makes it chaotic. That is like letting people ask RuneScape relevant questions on the Yew Grove. More importantly, it has absolutely no benefit at all whereas the first proposal would benefit the wiki in the long run. I see no reason to support the second proposal. bad_fetustalk 12:38, July 14, 2011 (UTC)
Then I suggest you get some glasses. 2 is already what pages are used for whether anyone in particular likes it or not. Acting on 2 clears up the current inconsistency. Trying to act on 1 would be asking a lot of people to suddenly change everything they write on those pages. Why try to fix what isn't broken? Ardougne cloak 4.png Raging Bull Talk 17:16, July 14, 2011 (UTC)
Because talk related to the improvement of the article can easily go unnoticed in the current system in the middle of "OMG HOW DO I MAKE MONEY111". Also, people are posting in talk pages about content of the article when they aren't supposed to in the current system, and you are calling it not broken? You are trying to fix it too, just with another method. bad_fetustalk 14:24, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

Support 2 - Per above. --クールネシトーク 18:57, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

Support 2 - No sense forcing this change, because it's true, option 2 is kinda how we run already. HaloTalk 19:15, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

Support 2 - per all JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 08:58, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

Support 2 - Although I tend to stay away from talk pages as they will garner little to no attention, I don't mind changing views on something that is done already. While some may want to help improve the article, others might want to know the best setup for a specific beast. Ryan PM 17:11, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

Support 2 - There really isn't a point stopping what is "normal" already. There is also no point in trying to hold up and glorify something that has been dead pretty much since I joined the wiki. Only thing that might come from this are a couple more archives for various talk pages. 222 talk 09:29, July 15, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral - I know that forcing talk pages to be limited to page improvements will effectively kill them, since very few people actually post things like "This needs a rewrite", however I can also see the advantages in directing people to the forums; while activity has certainly improved since Jeff's thread closed, they still aren't exactly high-traffic. Real Crazy 09:27, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

Support 1, Oppose 2 - The argument that "many people use it for relevant discussion about the article" or "almost every talk page does this already" does not convince me. If it would be better if people followed the policy, than we shouldn't change it to accommodate some people. There are alternatives to using discussion pages for that stuff, such as the forums, the Chat, IRC, Clan Chat etc. And besides, many questions, such as "what weapons should one use?" can be reworded to actually discuss an improvement to an article. Discussions about improvements help make our wiki a better place; discussions on anything relevant to the article may not.

The first option could definitely bring more people to the forums, giving them a better sense of community here, and encouraging them to stay. Relevant discussion on articles (such as just "this article sucks") may distract people from important ones (discussing improvements). Smithing (talk | contribs) 16:44, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - The function of discussion pages will be expanded to include relevant discussion about the article and the policy will be amended to allow for this. 222 talk 06:46, July 28, 2011 (UTC)