I'm Edmyg (Camdozaal ingame) and I spend a great deal of time in the Future Updates section of the RSOF. Within that forum lies the lore community, something I am active in. We are a small group, but by far the biggest problem we have is what this wiki has in terms of lore. This is in no means a snipe at the regular users here, but I feel the reason behind this is the unsourced info that is here.
Very little of what is written here is sourced with even a mention of where it's from. In some cases it might be Funorb or the RS novels, neither hold much sway in the lore communities eyes and neither would be viewed as a solid base for a lore discussion. Yet they are used here without a care.
I propose a change to that. This wiki has recently been given permission to have transcripted sources something I hope will make all the difference. If you can see that something is unsourced then it clearly doesn't belong. I long since gave up trying to correct the wiki in it's current form as there is the possibility I personally am unaware of the source the editor has used. If all the sources are readily available there can be no confusion.
This would entail:
- Book Transcriptions (incuding things like Daemonheim and Dominion Journals)
- Quest Transcriptions (something very hard to get hold of in full)
- Quest Overviews (viewable ingame from your Quest tab)
- NPC dialogue
- Game update FAQs (do you guys have these stored by any chance?)
Following some discussion these pages would be subpages off existing pages. So for a quest transcription they would exist as a subpage off the relevant quest. For Books I thought of linking them off the existing book lists. I spent some time setting up a separate template for transcriptions and info page navigation boxes on the Jagex wiki, so maybe something like that as well? I felt it looked too cluttered combining the two. In other news, I have a new found respect for whoever writes the navigation boxes ;).
To make it simpler for people to correct existing pages the History category could be drastically expanded. So far it incudes very few articles. In terms of lore, anything that existed before the current game date (Year 169) is up for discussion as well as any quest events. In essence anything that has happened to you or someone else. Don't be to worried about over using the category, we can always take it off after. Might as well make use of an existing category :D.
Update: Some transcriptions can be found linked off [[User:Edmyg/Transcipts|this page]]. Bear in mind some of the links go to the current info pages until I've made sure they can be transcribed. The Mysterious Chronicles have been transcribed direct to the info page, such as Mysterious chronicle (part 1)
Support - as nom. Hope I've got everything done right.Edmyg 01:59, November 27, 2011 (UTC)
- Try not to get too hung up on the logistics of collecting the sources. I can get hold of everything required or know where to look for it. Edmyg 00:48, November 28, 2011 (UTC)
- Well subpages were used before the deletion of Template:HasDialogue. It also makes sure some pages aren't half conversation. 23:51, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
Comment - We can't have Daemonheim journal transcripts. It breaks copyright if I remember correctly, but I know for sure we had them all at one point and then they were removed. HaloTalk 02:22, November 27, 2011 (UTC)
Comment - While we can't hold the actual transcriptions verbatim, I think it might be a good idea to include summaries of them. Suppa chuppa 02:24, November 27, 2011 (UTC)
Comment - Apparently you can have the transcripts as Jagex have now given permission to do so, or at least that's what Cook Me Plox told me earlier. The subpage was Cook's idea. I was going to have separate source pages linked to the current ones, but either is fine by me.Edmyg 02:55, November 27, 2011 (UTC)
- Well if we can, I fully support it, they are a very interesting part of history. HaloTalk 04:54, November 27, 2011 (UTC)
Support - if legal. We were adding quest summaries already to a section on the article's page. I do believe we had been adding NPC dialogue in the past, but I don't know where that went. I also think quest dialogue will be VERY difficult, because sometimes you can say different things that leads to different answers and different options, etc. Maybe we could use some YouTube videos/walkthroughs to assist in obtaining the dialogue for quests we've already finished. Chicken7 >talk 11:49, November 27, 2011 (UTC)
- I tend to use youtube vids for quest dialogue, usually Amber Meow (although she does spam click through dialogue). In the rare case where the dialogue is gained fisrt hand try to get all the answers. There was a bug/problem (I don't know which) in Branches of Darkmeyer that stopped you getting full dialogue in a conversation with Vanescula but it was the first I'd heard of it, so hopefully it's not too common. NPC dialogue is where necessary as not many NPCs have dialogue worthy of discussion. The main ones would be Juna and the quest refreshers like Rory and Amelia in Burgh de Rott. There are others but they have less to say for themselves. I can work on getting a full list, but we tend to stumble across them from time to time.Edmyg 21:30, November 27, 2011 (UTC)
Comment- We got permission from Jagex from the head of Fansite Support system:
|“||Concerning the transcripts of in-game dialogue, you may post them on your fansite as long as our copyright is respected and the transcript is taken directly from read in-game text.
Please bear in mind that while our copyright has to be respected at all times, we recognise you as true fans and it’s a pleasure to read how in-depth you wish to delve into RuneScape.
The guy is not a lawyer, but I'll take it (and I hope we don't need to go through another drawn out fight to agree on that). I'm thinking the books can go straight on the item pages under a section header. Dialogue will be a bit more difficult than books and quest overviews, but we can still do something with them. Given the opportunity to use this information to improve our history-related articles, let's go for it. ʞooɔ 21:15, November 27, 2011 (UTC)
- So all you need is a standard "We do not own this content, it is owned by Jagex" line? Makes life easier, I guess Edmyg 21:30, November 27, 2011 (UTC)
Comment - I have a lot (at least, I think) of Update FAQs saved, but I don't think I did any this past month. I started making pages for them, but then I got lazy and stopped. ɳex undique 01:59, November 28, 2011 (UTC)
Support - Makes perfect sense to me. By the way, hai Cam.  02:07, November 28, 2011 (UTC)
Support - We now have legal permission, so it will be awesome to once again have transcripts :D.
08:06, November 28, 2011 (UTC)
Concern Where is a signed notarized copy of this legal permission?--Degenret01 10:00, November 28, 2011 (UTC)
- They wouldn't ever take the time to do that. Verbal consent is the best we're going to get, and it works too. If the Jmod found out he was wrong (which he probably checked on after he gave consent), he would've told us. ɳex undique 17:33, December 5, 2011 (UTC)
- The worst possible outcome if Jagex was to change their mind at a later date would be a request to remove the offending pages. It won't be a terribly difficult task, as we'd probably categorise all the dialogue pages. I also agree with Nex that we'll never, ever get a full, signed, official letter of consent allowing us to do this; it will always just be some forum reply. Chicken7 >talk 11:47, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
Support - Would be much clearer than some vague summaries. --Void Knight 11:47, November 28, 2011 (UTC)
- Following some talk ingame, Funorb and Novel information should be included but cleary identified. It is worth noting that Funorb (in particular Armies of Gielenor) was said to be canonical, although that particular JMOd post no longer exists. The person I was talking to did say that AoG should be viewed as secondary canon, where it is true antil something ingame contradicts it. --cqm talk 01:04, November 29, 2011 (UTC)
Support - Since we can, why not?11:21, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
Suport - Is it legal? HURRAY!15:36, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
Support - If we undelete Template:HasDialogue and all the dialogue pages that were deleted then that's half our work done. Would have liked to have seen an image of some sort to really prove it's legal but oh well, beggers can't be choosers22:16, December 11, 2011 (UTC)
Closed - Transcript pages will be made or recreated. Template:HasDialogue will be undeleted as will all pages deleted due to its request for deletion.02:04, December 13, 2011 (UTC)