Forum:Make the RSWP official

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Make the RSWP official
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 30 October 2009 by Tienjt0.

Based on some comments here [1], and considering it has already released six issues, I think we should make the RuneScape Wiki Post official, and no longer just a proposal.


Support - As nominator. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  06:07, September 7, 2009 (UTC)

Full Support - What a great idea! Twig Talk 772kZGs.png 06:08, September 7, 2009 (UTC)

Support, but I do ask why this is necessary? If folks are involved with a "Wikiproject" or a "Wikiguild", and are busy, then it is official... at least as things go on a wiki. There were some viability standards for trying to establish a Wikiguild, but this project met those standards with flying colors quite some time ago. The viability standards were mainly to cull out a one-man band type of project, and even that I have to question, as long as progress is being made. Off-topic to Runescape or something really off in left field perhaps we can advise to shut down, but I really fail to see what the huge problem is here. --Robert Horning 08:14, September 7, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose The RuneScape Wiki is an encyclopedia. The RSWP is fan created content. --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 08:19, September 7, 2009 (UTC)

Who cares? Ignore all logic. Just because we're an encyclopedia, it doesn't mean we can't have projects like this. We organise wikifests, we have [[RS:WE|weekly events]], and many other community-related things that normal encyclopaedic wikis do not. Even Wikipedia has its own Wikizine. So, what's wrong with having our very own newspaper?   az talk   10:12, September 7, 2009 (UTC)
I care. Forget the Wikizine, RuneScape:RuneScape Wiki is not...#... Wikipedia. The RSWP has no consistency, there is no house style or writing guidelines. A lot of the content is of low quality (imo). I do not think it is ready yet to become official. That's not to say that it won't be in the future, but at the moment I do not feel it is of sufficient quality to act as ambasador for the wiki. --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 12:05, September 7, 2009 (UTC)
I also want to make a point about images uploaded to the wiki. If the RSWP is made official then it would make sense to upload the images involved to the wiki too. This goes against image policies regarding personal/fake images. Would the images still be expected to be uploaded offsite? --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 12:10, September 7, 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't go against policy. All uploaded images and videos must serve a purpose that is useful to the project. As an official WikiProject, such images would be allowed. Also, a relevant discussion: Forum:Abolish the Newspaper. C.ChiamTalk 12:18, September 7, 2009 (UTC)
I's be much happier knowing that people couldnt abuse the RSWP to upload personal images by writing one article. Perhaps a note that all images uploaded for use on the RSWP cannot be used on userpages? --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 12:24, September 7, 2009 (UTC)
I doubt anyone would write an entire article simply to have an image on their userpage. I wouldn't agree to a rule that says that images uploaded for use in the RSWNP cannot be used on userpages. That would be assuming bad faith. What if the user who inserts the image into their userpage isn't the author of any article, and is simply doing so because of [insert logical reason]? C.ChiamTalk 12:27, September 7, 2009 (UTC)
Mmmm i think I agree with you there. Better to just remove an image if someone does abuse the ability than ban it from the start. --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 12:32, September 7, 2009 (UTC)
In regards to "personal images", I really fail to see what the real problem is there either. I have never understood the harsh, IMHO over-zealous and aggressive removal of them from this wiki, and I've had time to reflect on the policy as well. It is a stupid policy. I'll leave that dead dog lying where it should (debate on a new thread if you want to take me up on this issue), but that I don't consider a reasonable excuse for being against this idea. As for complaints about this newspaper, this website, and other issues about quality... I say that is an excuse to fix the problems and improve the quality of this wiki. That is what wikis do best, and don't be a part of the problem, be a solution. --Robert Horning 16:31, September 7, 2009 (UTC)
Mercifull, as far as I remember, only 1 "personal" (If you can call it that)image was uploaded,and that was the picture of the RSW Civil War. Besides? What's wrong with having a newspaper? Several wikis have them, I believe. The Avatar Wiki, Central Wikia, Wikipedia, Star Wars Fanon Wikia.... People put a lot of work into the RSWP. Besides, we've had the RSWP for half a year now, and hardly anyone has raised a serious discussion about having a problem with it. (With of course, one exception:Forum:Abolish the Newspaper). Seriously? Why not? GIve me one good reason why not to make it official. --
Water Wave icon.png
Captain Sciz
TalkEditsHiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=
16:39, September 7, 2009 (UTC)

Support - per Robert. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 10:11, September 7, 2009 (UTC) Support - Per Stelercus. --Cannonball.pngJack Spiral1Rapier.png 16:03, September 7, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Why not? ShinyUnown T | C | E 16:10, September 7, 2009 (UTC)

Support - I've put a lot of work into the RSWP, I am not gonna be stopped by the fact its not official....--

Water Wave icon.png
Captain Sciz
TalkEditsHiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=

16:40, September 7, 2009 (UTC)

Reply - In response to Mercifull's concerns:

See RuneScape:WikiGuild/Proposals/RS Newspaper/RuneScape Wiki Post/Style guide. The newspaper has a guideline for each section, and personal images are not allowed. Comics, fan art, etc., will probably still be hosted outside, but other relevant images should be allowed to be uploaded. I think this is what we currently do at the moment.
If if you think quality is too low, why don't you suggest ways to improve the quality of the newspaper? This quality argument was brought up many times previously before, but IMO, the newspaper has improved in terms of quality. Blocking a project just because it is of low quality is nonsense, as we can easily improve the quality over time. Don't we do that for articles too? An article almost always starts as a stub, and eventually it has the capacity of growing into an featured article. If we decided to delete all stubs because of its low quality, we can never grow as an encyclopaedia. The same applies for any Wiki project...
Mercifull, if you really cared, you could have become a copy-editor/proof-reader/image editor/etc. for the newspaper team, and helped out. You can still help out right now... Smile   az talk   16:45, September 7, 2009 (UTC)
Yes indeed. Not all the best contributors are writers. Azliq is one of the greatest contributors, because of all the templates, categories, and content he puts in the RSWP. I don't see what you have wrong the RSWP. --
Water Wave icon.png
Captain Sciz
TalkEditsHiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=
17:19, September 7, 2009 (UTC)

Support - This would probably bring more awareness to the project, and I don't see how this could have any negative effect. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!I have 12 friends. 17:06, September 7, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per Chia. --Quarenon  Talk 17:08, September 7, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I never really liked the idea of a newspaper being supported by the wikia, many other ideas have been rejected based on this wiki indeed being a wiki and not a platform for others to launch their personal projects from. We also tend to stick with the whole spirit of the wiki and encyclopedic thing when an idea comes along no one but the thread starter likes, but ignore it when something comes along a few people think isn't a bad thing. A newspaper feels like something that belongs on a personal fansite like RuneHQ or Sals realm, and not here. I also have many complaints about what the newspaper being filler content. The articles are extremely short (~not even 3 paragraphs). The comics and classified section doesnt changed and is simply attached to every new issue. The interviews are made up of the staff interveiwing community members (which really defeats the purpose of an interview). A Runescape quiz in the activities section only seems to strengththen the stereotype that people who play Runescape are 11-12 years old and enjoy quizzes about games they play. The only strong section seems to be the fan fiction section but interestingly enough it eems to be the least popular according to the polls (overused btw) attached to every page. It is not up to the people opposed to the project to fix it up for their own standards, its up to the people who want the project made official to ensure its actually any good before suggesting it. The point is that I don't want anything to do with the newspaper, I dont want it on the wiki, so why then is it acceptable to tell someone like Merciful or I to sign up, edit it, proof it, make suggestions, etc only to get it approved later on?

The newspaper as I said in the previous thread has had multiple spotlights in the sitenotice, and is constantly linked to in the recent news. We shouldn't be approving projects that need proof of success hoping the new link will somehow jumpstart it into popularity and attract new eager people willing to make it happen. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 20:56, September 7, 2009 (UTC)

Why do we need to be so perfect and utterly encyclopedic? It gets boring. The newspaper gives a little life to the wiki. — Enigma 05:38, September 8, 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we are either of those nor do I think that the newspaper will bring life to the wiki. If it was, it would have already given that the idea has been live for seven months already. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 08:37, September 8, 2009 (UTC)
So what you're saying is you want the newspaper to be a stronger, organized, and more professionalized project before supporting it becoming official? — Enigma 21:33, September 8, 2009 (UTC)
No, what I am saying is that the newspaper has shown in its runtime that it is not a very popular project and my personal opinion is that we should not have one. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 22:04, September 8, 2009 (UTC)
TEbuddy, What is your problem? You don't have to read it, edit it, contribute to it, proof it, or anything like that. You don;t have to have to do anything with it, but yet you just say you don't like it because you can't bring yourself to like what other people put work into. If you don't like it, then don't bother talking about it. --
Water Wave icon.png
Captain Sciz
TalkEditsHiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=
22:08, September 8, 2009 (UTC)
Am I not entitled to an opinion just like you? Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 22:46, September 8, 2009 (UTC)
Tebuddy, don't just think of yourself. Think of others, too. Other people really like the newspaper, and in no way is it harming the wiki. It's like an update to Bounty Worlds, but you don't pk. But you really don't like the update for some reason. Pkers may love the update, however. — Enigma 03:29, September 9, 2009 (UTC)
Why have an opinion if the needs and wants of other people come before your own? By that logic I may as well just support everything that comes through the YG just because it has other people that want it. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 03:39, September 9, 2009 (UTC)
You're missing my point, you're applying the situation incorrectly. In no way does this harm the wiki, it is merley for the entertainment and interest of the readers and does not harm the wiki. That's the only purpose it serves, but it serves it well (in my opinion, and in many others'.) What you're pretty much saying is you don't want something to exist even though it in no way effects you or anything anything you do. The only thing your are stopping by opposing this thread is some entertainment for a few dozen or so people that actually read the newspaper. So, I ask you, why bother? — Enigma 03:56, September 9, 2009 (UTC)
What Enigma is saying is that if the Newspaper is there or not, how does it have anything to do with you? you can live your life on the wiki and never reed any of it. The fact that you do not have a valid reason to want to make the newspaper go away (that you do not like it or that it has no place on a wiki, not considering that we have a clan chat, weekly events, and wikifests, all of that being totaly non information related.) gives you no reason to get rid of it for those that enjoy it. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 09:27, September 9, 2009 (UTC)
Its a valid point until you consider that its not just entertainment for a few people but is indeed being represented by the wiki's name as a whole. A name I like to think I proudly associate myself with. What I mean by that is I happen to associate an online newspaper like the one we have with consistently uninteresting, unfunny content being stuffed into one page and paraded around with the same contempt I do for tiny little fansites who have trouble getting 100 pageviews a week. It seems like nothing more than a gimmick to me. I don't really feel a need to stick to an encyclopedia only route, but there are some things I feel do deviate from what is a good project to allow and invest time and effort into and support with the steampower that a popular wikia like ours has right now, and a project that just takes up space and is only used by a small amount of people. So sure if you want to run it through a tiny criteria and be black and white about it I should have zero problem with this because it doesn't directly affect me, but this situation like every other in the YG is not black and white and there is never a universal criteria. Also, clan chat, wikifests, other features not directly related to something have one thing the newspaper does not, high number of users and consistent popularity. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 09:57, September 9, 2009 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? You base your argument on popularity and claim that the RSWP is the least popular. "least popular according to the polls". Note that we do not base our decisions according the polls per RS:NOT#DEMOCRACY, and the polls were meant to help the contributors to gauge their quality of work, not to access popularity. If the polls are being misused to do that, I would recommend removing these polls. So unless you can prove that RSWP has less readability than any other article or project, please refrain from using the popularity argument, as it is not a good way to gauge eligibility or suitability.
"nothing more than a gimmick to me" - You think?
"project that just takes up space" - We don't have a space restriction in this wiki.   az talk   04:24, September 10, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per Chia. Horsehead Talk 00:35, September 8, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per above. — Enigma 05:38, September 8, 2009 (UTC)

Support - I am surprised that it isn't currently official. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 05:52, September 8, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - per TEbuddy. I wrote an article for the first issue but I don't like what it's become since then. Andrew talk 20:13, September 8, 2009 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning towards Oppose - If I'm honest, I don't even like most of the RSWP. Sure, some of the content is great, but some of it... Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 05:33, September 9, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Actually, statements such as "I'm opposing this because I don't like it" doesn't really help, and merely states an opinion of an editor. I agree that every editor is entitled to his/her opinion, but according to RS:CONSENSUS:

Editors should make a good faith effort to reach a consensus. That means that the dissenting party has to state how the current proposal fails to meet the interests of the wider group, rather than merely stating they will not accept it. But after a good faith discussion, sometimes the dissenting party must consent to move forward even if they disagree with the specific course of action. (emphasis not mine)
In a perfect world [2].Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 09:59, September 9, 2009 (UTC)
Stop bringing past discussions into every other discussion. Every discussion in a forum is unique in itself. That discussion has nothing to do with this.   az talk   04:24, September 10, 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me, you cited a part in the policy which essentially states that "In spite of your disagreement you need to move forward with the goal of a compromise". You in the thread on swearing were unwilling to accept any compromise and would not cite evidence as to why your opinion was valid while some people on either side were willing to negotiate to reach a compromise. That thread is now closed. Now in this thread you demand that editors cite information other than their own opinion in order to stop the newspaper from becoming official. How does this not make your statement hypocritical. I agree that every discussion is unique, but you need to have consistency among your own ideals. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 05:06, September 10, 2009 (UTC)
What does Az's previous citations have anything to do with this discussion? It seems as when Az beat down your "popularity" argument, you resorted as to trying to indirectly attack her. Plus, you have no way to actually prove that it's not the "wider group" that it meets interests to you. We get millions of page views a month, but about 3/4 of those people don't actually edit, or vote in polls for that matter. Also notice how so far, you, Merciful, Oli4burgga, and Andrew are the only ones actually opposing? The Supporters seem to be the wider group at the moment. — Enigma 12:53, September 10, 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why this seems like a game to you. My goal is not to come out on top or make anyone else feel bad. I have my opinions and I will present and defend them accordingly, please don't accuse me of trying to win or otherwise get my way. Calling what someone says hypocritical is not a personal attack, if they say one thing here and another over there and those statements conflict, that is hypocrisy. Its not a defamation of character or a sneaky jab and if I ever do it I hereby grant you the permission to call me out on it in the harshest of ways.
Now, popularity wise the newspaper does not come out anywhere on top [3]. This thread wise, you guys having 11 supports and us only having four opposes really doesn't mean anything because we are not a democracy. So in this thread, however many supporters vs a small amount of opposers calls for a compromise or no consensus. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 20:18, September 10, 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to bother arguing with you. Your opinion is as hard as rock, there's no changing it. — Enigma 22:55, September 10, 2009 (UTC)
Well that is unfortunate. I have in the past changed my opinions based on arguments presented by the opposite side and it does not bother me if you choose to be stubborn and not participate because you think I will talk every thing you say down. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 23:14, September 10, 2009 (UTC)
Cool down. — Enigma 13:07, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

< -- Resetting tabs

The only semi-legitimate argument that I see about not supporting this project on this wiki (which isn't even the question being raised here in the first place) is that this is not encyclopedic in nature. Even the question of making this "official" in many ways doesn't even make sense completely, as the actions of any given user to create any page is "official" under the terms of RS:AEAE. The prior criteria for making a "WikiGuild" official (before this question was raised here on this thread) is that the project must prove viability by having at least 5 wiki users explicitly endorse that project within an unspecified period of time (on the order of a couple of months). This newspaper project overwhelmingly received that sort of support and much, much more.

If you want to argue that a Wikiguild must have a much larger user support base or tighten the conditions and criteria on what qualifies to become a Wikiguild, that is still another discussion. Any attempt to exclude the newspaper on any possible criteria other than it doesn't fit being an encyclopedia would exclude every single Wikiguild proposal and project currently in operation, and we might as well just put an AfD in for the whole Wikiguild concept. I, personally, would call that to be a significant and major mistake.

As for being encyclopedic or not, this is one huge problem I have with at least some who push for this wiki to be exclusively an encyclopedia. The "charter" of this project really says nothing about even being an encyclopedia. This is the "Runescape Wiki", which is a wiki-editable website written mostly by fans that is about Runescape. Nothing there even says that it has to be an encyclopedia, and indeed we have a formal policy that explicitly states that this is not Wikipedia. I fail to see the harm, other than assuming bad faith and treating contributors to this newspaper as unworthy of respect. --Robert Horning 22:21, September 10, 2009 (UTC)

So it cant be that the newspaper represents the name of this website and all of its contributors (The Runescape Wiki Newspaper) in a negative way, happens to be of questionable quality and popularity, and has zero benefit to anyone on the wiki, it has to be that we just don't want to treat anyone with respect or assume good faith? I understand that some users want to have a newspaper, I just don't understand why it needs to be represented by the entire wiki and linked into all the main menus. What is stopping someone from putting together a newspaper on their user pages or on a community page and running it not along the wiki? If its popular I don't have a problem with it catching on, but as of yet is has not proven to be popular and I have not been the only one to question the quality of its content. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 23:14, September 10, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Some people claim the newspaper articles are of poor quality. I agree somewhat; admittedly, there have been quite a few articles that looked like they were written by little kids (no offense). But if we only accepted the best-written and most thought-out ones, the newspaper would not contain poor content... it would be lacking content. Then it would be rather similar to the format of the Times, which releases a small number of very good articles periodically. That is actually what I wanted the newspaper to be like in the first place.  Tien  23:51, September 10, 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with a very small number of brilliantly written and managed articles. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 00:15, September 11, 2009 (UTC)
Quality over quantity is golden. Andrew talk 02:44, September 11, 2009 (UTC)
That would be better. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 07:43, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Tebuddy:

"Now, popularity wise the newspaper does not come out anywhere on top." That list (Special:Mostpopulararticles) is based on the number of edits, not page views and the number of visits. Obviously, the newspaper will be nowhere near the top, since people read it, not edit it.
My apologies to everyone for digressing: "You in the thread on swearing were unwilling to accept any compromise." Please... did I specifically say that? Any compromise? I chose to oppose that particular compromise because that compromise wasn't really a compromise to the dissenters. (Compromise n. Such an adjustment of conflicting interests as gives each adversary the satisfaction of thinking he/she has got what he/she ought not to have, and is deprived of nothing except what was justly his/her due.   az talk   07:52, September 11, 2009 (UTC)
My mistake, this page [4]. Also, the swearing thread was quite long and there were many, many smaller ideas, and you stating what you thought of swearing in general combined with both of your opposes made it seem to me like you were not open to any compromise. Regardless, the problem is you requesting that we ignore our opinions and let this go ahead when you did not do that yourself. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 22:38, September 11, 2009 (UTC)
I am a firm believer of quality before quantity. The RSWP lacking content isn’t necessarily a bad thing if the articles that are there are of high quality and perk people’s interests. Unfortunately it seems that time after time that same poor, badly thought out, badly worded and short articles come out. Some of the articles there are embarrassing to read. I am worried that people might link the low quality of the wiki post with the rest of its content if it were to become official. I have some suggestions that would need to be implemented to the RSWP before I would consider supporting a motion to make it official.
  • Comics and Classifieds have got to go – Comics are not funny and the classifieds are the same each time
  • Revamp interviews – Maybe I’m just getting a bit older these days but I don’t care what car a 16 year old wants. The interviews are just ordinary members of the wiki, there are not enough questions about their runescape character history and achievements. This is the Runescape wiki, lets have some more quality interviews. There’s always high level people hanging around places like edgeville, I’m sure if you asked nicely you could get a better interview with one of them. Perhaps only one interview a month too.
  • Fanfiction isn’t really one of my personal interests but I can see why people might like to read them. Why then are the fanfiction articles so short? Instead of spanning a story of half a dozen chapters why not make them longer and have it just as a 2 or 3 parter?
  • Editorials and Water cooler needs some major work. This is where most of the lower quality work comes from. There are too many articles and not enough meat to them. The Is Runescape safe for kids articles is just awful. I don’t think anything could be done to save that article.
I don’t really want to say much more because I’m starting to rant and this isn’t really the right place for me to suggest ideas and changes for the RSWP. To cut a long story short, the RSWP in its current state does not deserve to be made official. --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 08:12, September 11, 2009 (UTC)
OK, that the newspaper might need a little work is true. We have a relatively small user base to work with here (unlike Wikipedia), so this is something more akin to a school newspaper vs. something from a polished and professional editorial board. I don't see that changing in any way soon either, and in some ways that is its endearing quality as well.
Perhaps this is mainly semantics here. Perhaps this shouldn't be made "official", which word carries a whole lot of weight and baggage to it. This project is no longer "proposed", but rather "active". It was for ideas like this that the WikiGuild idea was started, and so far I've seen a fairly steady and active group of participants with this newspaper project. This is a wiki made up of 100% pure volunteers, and we should respect others for their voluntary actions... for as little or as much as they want to contribute. --Robert Horning 14:31, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

Support - It was as good as official anyway...--Joe Click Here for Awesomeness 18:07, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Looking through Special:Mostvisitedpages, [5], [6], [7], I noticed that any page in the project namespace does not show in this list. This makes me think whether a project-space like RuneScape: is even included in this list. Similarly, pages in the Exchange namespace (Exchange:) or Update namespace (Update:) is not included. Surely some of the Exchange pages would have appeared in this list? This list is unreliable as it only includes pages from the mainspace, userspace, and filespace.

Reply to Tebuddy - And, "seem to me like you were not open to any compromise" is assuming bad faith. Don't assume anything, especially when it involves other editors.   az talk   07:50, September 12, 2009 (UTC)

Still, I don't know how to prove it to you, but its not hard to see the popularity of the paper is low compared to the level of activity on other project pages.

In response to your bit about assuming good faith. You say you dont like swearing and very adamantly declare what you think it causes, and then deny a very decent compromise after days of arguing. I would then say its safe to assume you are no longer interested in compromise which makes sense because now the thread is closed with no consensus. Is that not only rational? Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 08:36, September 12, 2009 (UTC)

The compromise is decent from your point of view. Disagreeing with a proposed compromise does not mean that a person isn't interested in a compromise. C.ChiamTalk 14:18, September 12, 2009 (UTC)
My point is this in the end. Obviously, and I mean this in the calmest a way as you can read it, because it was an issue she did not like its pretty clear she paid little to no attention to it and did not bring up policy or the idea that setting aside your opinion is more important to the idea of compromise. The thread is closed now, that means aside from myself and a few other supporters, no one else stepped up and defended the idea of a compromise. Instead, the only compromise (which was talked out for days) had majority approval and was rejected anyway and the thread closed. AZ also voted against that compromise [8], and made it very clear that any compromise allowing any of the 3 most severe non racist words would not be allowed, but with that criteria it is impossible to make a compromise at all that allows some leniency. This is why I assumed what I assumed. Again, not bad faith, just my interpretation of what she said. I am not saying AZ is a bad person or she did anything I would not do, just pointing out to do something in one thread that violated the policy you are citing now is hypocrisy. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 15:17, September 12, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Please stop bringing up the discussion about swearing, and any refusal to accept compromise. That has nothing to do with this discussion or the RuneScape Wiki Post. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  04:31, September 13, 2009 (UTC)

All I did was mention it once in my original post, in fact if this dialog had remained between only AZ and I, it would only be a couple of paragraphs long. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 20:48, September 13, 2009 (UTC)
The point of past threads shouldn't be brought here. It's derailing the main effort of this current situation. If you wanted to talk about it, I'd go here. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 02:02, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Proposal (idea, suggestion, whatever)

I would like to propose a different format for the RuneScape Wiki Post. As I said in my comment above, why not have something similar to the Times, which periodically releases a small number of very good articles? There would not be as much work for the editors because we would only accept the best articles, and there might even be some competition among the contributors to try to write an excellent article that will be featured in it (unlike the newspaper right now, where we just edit an article and post it regardless of how poorly thought-out it is). Each... issue (?) would contain maybe 1-2 articles and 1-2 pieces of fan fiction. All four of the current opposers seem to like the idea, so I want to see what the supporters think.  Tien  20:36, September 13, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Sounds much better. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 20:49, September 13, 2009 (UTC)

Can we keep the comics section if we do this, I have an idea for a comic I would like to make... --Farming.pngFarmer JackNewspaper.png 21:51, September 13, 2009 (UTC)

Support - This is what I expected the RSWP to be like when it was first proposed. As for the comics... that's not one of the sections i'd ever be a fan of --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 22:14, September 13, 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Only the best articles? What someone thinks of the "best" could be some of the "worst" for other people. With so many differing opinions, might as well let a monkey pick them. This is not needed, the RSWP is fine the way it is. Enigma 22:23, September 13, 2009 (UTC)

By good articles I mean obviously well thought out with structure and penmanship. The biggest problem I have with the newspaper now is the articles lack both quality and good writing. So you don't have to agree/like the subject matter to acknowledge that something is written very well. Along with increasing the time between releases, the people writing have more time to think about articles that can be written that may be interesting, and have time to actually write them out without being under the pressure of a monthly release.

As for the comics, I don't really care for them. I mean even if you meet the goal you try for in the first place, at best you can get a chuckle. So theres no real reason to keep them. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 22:29, September 13, 2009 (UTC)

Changed to support - Per TeBuddy. — Enigma 22:46, September 13, 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support - Per Tebuddy. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 05:37, September 14, 2009 (UTC)

Query - Well, I do support this idea, but who decides which article gets featured in the newspaper? C.ChiamTalk 08:47, September 14, 2009 (UTC)

I imagine it would be up to the newspaper staff as it is now, just with three or four less articles per newspaper. Even better if they get more people working on less articles. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 16:40, September 14, 2009 (UTC)

I agree we should change the overall outlook of the paper, inlcuding getting rid of the comics and activities, but I think we should keep the Editorials, Crypto Challenge, Interviews, revamp the Water Cooler, and make changes to the Fan Fiction. IMO, stories should be at least 4 entire paragraphs, not too short, and well written. I have always thought we should have more than one person approve a story, because if one person likes it, that doesn't mean everyone one else will. Some water cooler articles were posted without approval of anyone. I support changes to the quality of the RSWP. --

Water Wave icon.png
Captain Sciz
TalkEditsHiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=

20:30, September 14, 2009 (UTC)

Slight Oppose - I do not feel this is in the spirit of the news paper. Yes, Quality is good, but a competition to write the best? (Yes, I know it would not be a literal contest, but I am opposed to people trying to be the best when it is just supposed to be a bit of fun). Therefore, I could support a reformed version of this. The paper staff pushing to make sure that they turn in quality work is all it needs. After all, Quality and quantity does not have to be far out of reach if the writers are actually applying themselves. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 01:16, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - 1 or 2 each of articles and 1 or 2 of fan fiction isn't very much... Maybe we could have it 3 of each? — Enigma 01:38, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Comment—If we are asking for better-quality stories, I am all for that. Who doesn't want to read quality articles? But putting a cap on the number of stories seems off the mark. Some months, we might have little news and one or two stories. Other months we might have a lot so news and many stories. A better editorial guide, it seems to me, would be to say we want the editors of the paper to vet the stories as they are submitted and publish the ones that are up to their editorial standards. The editors are responsible for determining what to publish each month. While I appreciate that not everyone likes the cartoons or the fiction, that is not a reason to remove them from the paper. No one likes every section of any paper. I don't really care for the business section of my local newspaper, for example. My paper is not going to stop publishing business stories, however, because other people do like that section. It's even OK if some people hate the newspaper. It's not for everyone. But if what Tienjt0 is saying is that we work to improve the quality of the writing and let the editors decide which articles, cartoons, and stories to publish in each month's edition, that is a great solution. Let the editors of the paper be the editors and work to create a quality publication. Horsehead Talk 02:11, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Weak support - I suppose this is a pretty good compromise. However, I oppose a cap on the number of editorials/fan fiction pieces (per Horse). Having someone "judge" whether the article is "worthy" seems OK, but I think a cap is extending it a little too far. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  06:11, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Its not really a cap, what I would prefer is just spacing out the release dates until the people writing the newspaper feel they are ready. If you guys feel like you can write 10 articles really well and release every other month thats fine with me. But, I think with the people on the paper now, it would be better to give it a run with only two or three articles and see how it plays out until the next release. We can always adjust it accordingly. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 06:35, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The way i see it, if the cap is set to X, and Y articles are submitted, then the extra good articles are just saved until next month/week/however the frequency of the paper is. --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 07:50, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Comment—A cap will not create good articles and is not how a newspaper or this wiki or any publication that reports current events works. We don't cap how many pages we create each month for the wiki, for example. Instead, we let the events of the month determine how many new pages we create and then let the writers and editors create the articles. Likewise, the newspaper is driven by how many events happen that month. An artificial cap would only limit the usefulness of the paper, just as a cap on how many pages we can create each month would limit the usefulness of the wiki. Our goal is to publish an entertaining and current newspaper each month. Let the editors work to create good articles and decide how many to publish each month. Horsehead Talk 11:51, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Comment In fairness to the Times, they have a slightly larger user base than we have here, including a slightly older, more mature community base and folks who love to write. Trying to get the RSWP to the level of this kind of editorial content is IMHO absurd. It is frustratingly difficult as it is to simply get some kind of written content produced that demanding certain high quality standards before anything is released is going against the very spirit and philosophies of what a wiki is all about. If there is so much content pouring in that the RSWP has the ability to send out "rejection letters" on content that fails to meet the cut for that month's edition, that would be amazing. I hope we can aim to get to that level... eventually. But it isn't time to kill off the project before it even starts. If you read some of the initial entries into Wikipedia and how poorly they were written, or worse yet if you read Ward's original WikiWiki, you would think the whole idea was a joke. But the quality of wikis have improved over time and attracted people with better writing skills that have in general improved the community as a whole. This can also be the case for the RSWP... where perhaps a budding author can get their feet wet and write about something they love.

Articles don't start out on the first edit as a featured article, nor should something written in the RSWP. It will take time to develop authors willing to write and to get a fan base interested in submitting to something like this. I've been involved with fan-produced literature for decades now in a variety of literary fields, and these magazines/journals can have a huge impact even when the quality isn't perfect. One fan journal I know now has hundreds of submissions each month... and they finally get to pick out the cream of the crop. We can hope, but it will take time. We also have to be patient with the volunteers who are working on this... and let them be volunteers. Volunteer groups thrive on compliments and encouragement, and we should be doing that as well. Raising standards is a good thing, but raising the standards too quickly can also kill the idea off as well. I just don't think this is necessarily a good idea to push too hard to kill off the RSWP through such, to me, extreme measures. --Robert Horning 12:37, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Well said. Don't impose restrictive "caps" and shoo away the few contributors we have for the newspaper. Having a high standard where only editors with superior literary skills are allowed to contribute is not what a wiki is about. All editors are equals. My only suggestion is this: both the newspaper "staff" and the contributors really need to buck up.   az talk   14:46, September 15, 2009 (UTC)
I think maybe you misunderstood and assumed what was meant by what you keep referring to as a cap. The idea is not to force them to compete, then pick and choose, then shave off the untalented writers, its to encourage them to work together a little more efficiently and decide in the end what makes it into the paper and what doesn't. As you can see from the above discussion of currently involved editors, decisions were made without anyone else knowing, content was slipped in, no one ever approved or proofed anything. Obviously we don't intend with a simple reform to automatically match the tip it times standards, but by taking a few steps in the beginning in the right direction you can guarantee that no matter what happens a certain quality will be reached just because you went about it the correct way. Thats all I was saying by reccommending they only start with a small number of articles, not to shoo anyone away or discourage. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 18:15, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I don't think I mentioned a cap anywhere in my post, but if I implied it, then I didn't mean to. When I said that "we would only accept the best articles," I didn't mean that we would only accept articles that are perfect. I didn't say that only good writers can contribute, nor did I say that our content needs to match that of the Times. I suggested a format similar to the Times, not quality similar to it. Anyone is welcome to submit content; the content just needs to be well thought-out, not a bunch of rambling. If an article doesn't really meet the standards, we wouldn't just reject it; we'd tell the contributor to perhaps expand the article or clarify the focus of the article so readers aren't going, "What's the point of this?"  Tien  21:37, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Amendment to proposal

  • Remove the deadline for each issue. So, instead of trying to find content for the next month's issue, wait until sufficient content is available before releasing a issue. This should eliminate the rush to find content when there is none. It also allows the staff to compile good content for each release.
  • Revamp the newspaper sections - remove "unnecessary" sections, per discussion above. Although how we decide which sections are removed and which ones are kept is beyond me.
  • No limits on number of contributions - per opposes above.
  • Have a team of editors-in-chief to decide on final acceptance. - This is to ensure that individual editors don't make executive decisions based on personal opinions.
  • Improve on below-par content, not reject them outright - The staff should be able to discuss with the contributors if the content is found to be below-par. Since the newspaper doesn't have a deadline, the staff would have the time to improve on it and bring it up to par.

  az talk   15:18, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Comment—If we are going to do away with the monthly schedule, I suggest we move to an online-newspaper or blog-type schedule, where the editors post articles as they come in, instead of waiting for a critical mass of stories before posting. That way, the paper will always have fresh content, and we don't wait months between posts. Horsehead Talk 16:56, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I disagree with not having some limits on the number of contributions per release, and also requiring other editors to help with a rejected article. Especially if you want the paper to become popular requiring that someone on the newspaper help another person with their writing is going to incredibly draining on anyone involved as there are likely to be a large number of articles being submitted. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 18:20, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Support - I like this idea much better. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  21:15, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Support Az's proposal - The best articles are the ones that are well thought out, well writen, written and rewritten, proofreaded, and not typed out without even reading it over. An example: [9] Personally, I think that article cannot be fixed. (No offense to the writer, but you didn't do it right.) Writers who think up something, type it, and submit it to an editor should never have their articles posted. I'm not pointing fingers here, but I think writers need to write, rewrite, and write some more. I think that only the best, and the very best, articles should be posted. I like the idea of having many editors go over what should and shouldn't be posted. --

Water Wave icon.png
Captain Sciz
TalkEditsHiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=

22:27, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Support as Proposal - I would rather see this be the whole proposal, rather than an amendment, per the reasons Az stated. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 09:26, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

Support - I support this idea as after six months, it should be official.

Youdead00 20:36, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

Support as Proposal - Per Stelercus --Farming.pngFarmer JackNewspaper.png 14:18, September 22, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Yes, the wiki is a "Runescape Encyclopedia" (emphasis on quotations), and having an organized newspaper does no wrong in my books. I mean, if we were printing this on paper, no, but we have near infinite space provided by Wikia. Essentially, I see this as a Userpage for an idea. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 23:01, September 24, 2009 (UTC)

Request for closure - Azliq's idea has unanimous support, I believe we can close this thread, by making it official and making changes. --

Water Wave icon.png
Captain Sciz
TalkEditsHiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=

18:48, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

//facepalm Andrew talk 19:02, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
Azliq's idea is an amendment. That means it would be a branch of the entire "constitution" of sorts. This thread cannot be closed on n amendment, per Andrew. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 19:05, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
We need to achieve some sort of consensus. Are we making the RSWP official if we enforce these new policies, or what? --
Water Wave icon.png
Captain Sciz
TalkEditsHiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=
19:07, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
I was under the impression it would become official Az's amendment came into effect. Soooooo... ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  22:46, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Hadn't I supported yet? OMG! Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 05:34, September 28, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Sounds good! Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 11:57, September 29, 2009 (UTC)

Support - I've read a few of the RSWP posts in the past, and I agree that the quality could definitely use some work. Az's proposal encourages authors to take more time to review and improve upon their writing before submitting it, so I'm all for it. --Quarenon  Talk 15:53, September 29, 2009 (UTC)

Support - The paper could use improvement and hopefully this will do it. - TehKittyCatTalk Wikian-Book 20:38, September 29, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Gives a better timeframe for people. Will improve on articles. ~MuzTalk 22:35, September 29, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Heh, don't know why it took me so long to post here. I look forward to seeing what the newspaper will be like in the future with a new editor in chief.  Tien  22:44, September 29, 2009 (UTC)

Finalising: new layout?

I just messed around with the layout of the RuneScape Wiki Post, and came up with this: User:Azliq7/RSWP.

I know it looks similar to the Main Page in Forum:Main page redesign - Take 3, but it needed a fresh look with the changes mentioned in the previous section. Several sections have been discontinued, such as "Activities" and "Comics and classifieds", while others have been merged: "Water Cooler" and "Editorials". The removed sections may be re-introduced later under the new "Other stuff" section, if there is quality content. New sections which I think might be useful have been added. Sections such as "Yew Grove", "Wiki development", "Statistics", etc. have been added at the right column.

I randomly chose the icons for the sections. This issue's theme is "Study", as the icons are items which can be built in the Study of a Player-owned house. We can decide to keep these icons, or change them every issue by selecting a new theme for each issue.

If this design is acceptable, then we can officially close this thread, and assume that the newspaper is no longer just a "proposal". Once this design is finalised, shall we move the newspaper to RuneScape:Wiki Post or RuneScape:RuneScape Wiki Post? (Personally, I prefer RuneScape:Wiki Post.)

As with the Main Page, I'm aiming to finalise Issue #7 by Hallowe'en, so please comment on this design. Thanks.   az talk   10:16, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: I forgot to mention that there won't be any pages for the sections "Editorials" and "Fan fiction". Links to individual articles are located here. It is easier to navigate this way, IMO.   az talk   10:19, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

Sort of support-ish - I just don't like the "yew grove" section. Could take up a lot of space. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 15:28, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

Only the titles of notable discussions will be included. We could perhaps limit it to 5 topics, if necessary. I got the idea of Avatar Wiki's newsletter, [[w:c:avatar:Avatar Wiki:The Ba Sing Se Times/Issues/11|The Ba Sing Se Times - Issue 11]].   az talk   14:24, October 14, 2009 (UTC)
Okay, now I understand. Looks good on that wiki. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 16:59, October 15, 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support - I love the new format. It is clean, simple, looks great, and the new features are usefull. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 17:24, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support - Per Stelercus. Clean-cut, stylish and lots of useful links. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  04:55, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Question - When/if the new format is implemented, will the old issues be transformed or left the same for historical purposes? ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  04:57, October 13, 2009 (UTC)
For now, I'm focussing only on the current issue. But eventually, I hope I can transform all of the past issues to follow the new format...   az talk   14:24, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support - Per Stelercus. --Farming.pngFarmer JackNewspaper.png 15:17, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Support - This layout is very easy to use (per everything Stelercus said) and the extra info on the side adds value to the RSWP. Also, RuneScape:Wiki Post looks like a good location, with RS:WP being a natural shortcut to it. --Quarenon  Talk 15:05, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support - Lol, you had me written as the editor in chief... Anyways, I really like the paper this way, as it gives editors insight into what is happening in the wiki with a clean cut, interesting way. It's also very easy to navigate. Also, I think we should shorten all article names to RuneScape:Wiki Post, as per Quarenon. --

Water Wave icon.png
Captain Sciz
TalkEditsHiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=

17:01, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion - I think we should ditch the Navbox idea and just make another column for links to past articles. Thoughts? --
Water Wave icon.png
Captain Sciz
TalkEditsHiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=
17:09, October 14, 2009 (UTC)
What navbox? Currently, the links to past articles are located at the bottom of each section, below the image. Only the links to past issues will be located in the navbox, along with other important links such as "Style guide", "Newspaper team", etc. Having a separate column for past articles will make the column too long, IMO.   az talk   17:29, October 14, 2009 (UTC)
This navbox. It doesn't really fit in with the nice new look of the Paper, so maybe we should, I dunno, make a box but using something like the Foreward is contained in. Also, this needs a link to Robert's Economic's section. After thinking about it, I don't think he should be in Editorials, but instead in his own section, next ot interviews and Crypto Challenge. I also think this new look would make it a lot easier to work for the paper to shine.
Water Wave icon.png
Captain Sciz
TalkEditsHiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=
17:32, October 15, 2009 (UTC)

Support—It looks great. Readers will be able to see a lot of information quickly and easily. And I like the column of information on the right-hand side a lot: The paper is a perfect place to be presenting RS Wiki stats and info. Horsehead Talk 16:28, October 16, 2009 (UTC)


Is this about ready to wrap up? I think we've achieved rough consensus, and Az's proposals have been supported almost unanimously. So, assuming Az's changes are implemented, will the RSWP become "official"? ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  20:20, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Support Some Proposals - I support Az's Amendment only as a proposal, as I do not support the proposal is it attached to. I also support the layout Az put together. I do not support the idea by Tienjt. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 20:58, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - From what I understand, this is the list of changes we are making:

  1. The RSWP will be official if the following conditions are approved:
    1. The Comics, Classifieds, and Activities sections will be discontinued
    2. The Water Cooler and Editorial sections will be merged.
    3. The overall quality must improve.
  2. Also, we will implement these changes as well:
    1. The RSWP will no longer be released by a monthly schedule.
    2. The Appearance will be made to match the test by Azliq.
    3. There will not be an article cap, but all articles must be approved by <number> editors.
    4. More editors will be recruited to assist in the RSWP.

If I missed anything, let me know. Anyways, I support all the changes listed above. --

Water Wave icon.png
Captain Sciz
TalkEditsHiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=

17:01, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

I support the above too (obviously). ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  19:48, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

support Per Telos --Farming.pngFarmer JackNewspaper.png 14:35, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Oh, yeah, also, I think we are moving all the RSWP pages to a new location: RuneScape:Wiki Post, with RS:WP as a shortcut. Support that also. --

Water Wave icon.png
Captain Sciz
TalkEditsHiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=

14:46, October 23, 2009 (UTC) Finishing up - Okay, let's get it done with. The new layout of the RSWP has been implemented, and we've removed the disliked sections. Will the RSWP be official? --

Water Wave icon.png
Captain Sciz
TalkEditsHiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=

14:35, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

Support GO RUNESCAPE WIKIA! Unkarais 01:04, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

Request closure - Being bold, I have created Issue #7 at RuneScape:Wiki Post (shortcut: RS:WP/RSWP), and changed all the redirects to point to the new location. I think this thread has run its course, and frankly, for far too long. Some of the concerns mentioned earlier have been addressed, and if you feel this issue can be improved, please post your suggestions/concerns in my talk page, or at "RuneScape talk:Wiki Post". I think I'll also add the link to the newspaper at MediaWiki:Sidebar and [[MediaWiki:Monaco-sidebar]].

If you disagree with these actions, please consider giving the newspaper (and its team) a couple of months, and we'll discuss this again if necessary.   az talk   17:39, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.   az talk   17:39, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

Support closure - Sounds good. Smile ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  18:36, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

Support I want it official. It's growing every month. Youdead00 18:13, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even gonna write support on this page again, you all know my intentions. Besides this page is already 57Kb. Anyhow, I'm helping Az by organizing the links to past articles. Request for closure. --

Water Wave icon.png
Captain Sciz
TalkEditsHiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=

20:18, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

Closed - The RSWP is now official. If any future content is questionable in terms of quality, then this may be brought up again.  Tien  20:43, October 30, 2009 (UTC)