Forum:Modifications to RS:NIP

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Modifications to RS:NIP
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 28 October 2010 by Cook Me Plox.

This proposal refers to our nonexistent item policy. There is a startling degree of ambiguity in points 1-4, where the phrases "may be created" or "are allowed to be created" are used, to the point where the policy has been disregarded on an RfD where it clearly applies. The whole point of the policy is to bar articles about items without those qualifications. So, I propose that we amend the policy to be a bit more clear. Specifically, I'd like to change the ambigious phrases to "if and only if". That way, there can be no ambiguity about the meaning of the policy. --LiquidTalk 12:15, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Strong support - As nominator. --LiquidTalk 12:15, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Well, I actually was thinking of creating a thread with the same name, but my proposal would be other way around. If that's done, then it'd mean we should go speedy delete the ones that don't have valid proof of being released. Now, according to RS:G, we are supposed to 'have information on even the minutest scale', which is what I strongly believe we should do. However, if we do what you are saying, then we will also delete articles like Granite boots (which currently is in a rfd process) that are much more notable than many items such as Red cog. For these reasons, I'm opposing this. bad_fetustalk 12:21, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

How notable the article is is completely irrelevent. Without this modification, people could create articles about things like "black hole creator" or something ridiculous like that. It has absolutely no proof of ever being created, and yet by your interpretation we are supposed to have it anyways. I find that appalling. --LiquidTalk 12:24, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
How notable is completely relevant and is the whole point. Black hole creator obviously is made up, however Granite boots already exist in the game, you can offer cash for them, are mentioned by a npc, and can be seen on the foot of the very same npc. That makes it very notable, and should be kept. bad_fetustalk 12:27, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
The point of this proposal is to lay down a hard line between what is allowed and what is not. How are you going to measure notability? Don't tell me you plan on making this a "go into the game and ask 100 people and if more than 50 have heard of it then it's allowed" thing. --LiquidTalk 12:29, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to use common sense. bad_fetustalk 12:30, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, well different people have different interpretations of use common sense. We are going to have a huge debate over anything like granite boots in the future unless we get some hard and fast rules down. --LiquidTalk 12:32, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
Agree, look at the more-than-a-mont-long discussion of the western lands. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 22:53, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
Then let's have debate over them. Nobody is forcing you to take part in them and waste your time. That actually was what I was going to propose, something like Requests for creation. bad_fetustalk 12:33, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
Please don't tell me you're serious. The whole point of the NIP is to ban items like the black hole creator. If some noob wants to come and waste our time with something like that, you're just going to let him? I cannot believe you sometimes. >.< --LiquidTalk 12:35, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
That'd waste our time as much as someone creating a rfd for coins which is possible to do right now. Requests for creation would be useful because than we could keep articles that are useful like Granite boots and Crystal halberd without worrying someone would go create Roddeck's shoes. bad_fetustalk 12:39, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
Granite boots and Crystal halberd are not useful... Just look at how many people have agreed with me on that issue. --LiquidTalk 12:43, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
People agreed with you because they thought it violated RS:NIP bad_fetustalk 12:46, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
So you are saying every page created should have a request for creation? Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 12:49, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
Lol no, that'd be pointless. I'm saying that items, monsters, locations etc. that shouldn't exist according to current policies could go through one and not violate any policies anymore. bad_fetustalk 12:52, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
So you want to abolish the policy basically? Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 13:08, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm saying that number one should be changed to something like: "Articles can be created without discussion if and only if they have valid proof they are going to be released. Articles that don't have valid proof should go through a Request for creation process." bad_fetustalk 13:12, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
So go through a rfd before being created pretty much?Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 13:26, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, something like that. The only difference with now is that people can't go like 'amg this violates rs:nip idc if its useful' bad_fetustalk 13:28, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
Yay another rfc Lol but I personally don't like the idea because how would you know if it is going to be a good article when it hasn't been created yet. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 13:36, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
Good point. The nominator could make a very simple version of it before nominating in their sandbox or in a subpage of rfc. While I can see why you don't like it, it should still be better than the current way we are handling things and if the article turns out to be stupid after being created, you can always nominate it for deletion. bad_fetustalk 13:57, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Some people are not seeing this policy as what it should be. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 12:46, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Items that are noteable should be kept, even if they do not exist at this time, and haven't been confirmed to exist. Sailing doesn't exist, yet we have an article about it, and they haven't confirmed it will exist. If someone makes a page for an item that isn't noteable, and doesn't have any sort of confirmation to ever exist should be removed. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 14:21, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Look at number 4 on the policy "Articles about notable urban legends are allowed to be created if the rumour has been recognised by many players." sailing is classified as that. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 14:23, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
That makes it even more stupid. Even something nonexistent is allowed, but something that is mentioned by Npc's isnt? bad_fetustalk 14:24, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
There is a big difference between Sailing which was commonly discussed by almost everyone on rs and a Crystal halberd, which i had actually never heard of till the rfd. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 14:27, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there is a big difference. Crystal halberd is mentioned ingame when sailing isn't. The only thing that could make Sailing have an article when Crystal hally doesn't is notability, which was my exact point above. bad_fetustalk 14:29, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
What's your point if it's not notable or it is notable it's the same? Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 14:34, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
Again, I'm failing to understand what you are trying to say :o bad_fetustalk 14:37, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
I'm tired and can't think straight. I was trying to ask what your point was. I'll check back in the mornin. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 14:41, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
Oh. My point is that, if we are going to keep articles like that, we need a way of deciding if they are worth creating an article or not, and that's why we need Requests for creation. bad_fetustalk 14:45, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we need that either. I think the RS:NIP should be taken more as an guideline, not a policy. That way we can create whatever articles we think is noteable, but still have some guidelines on what we should and shouldn't. If someone then believes the item or subject isn't noteworthy we can have a Request for Deletion, and discuss it. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 01:01, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
@chess i meant whats your point that the more notable it is the more likely a page will be allowed. @zamorak How is something that is mentioned once notable? Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 02:36, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
It's notable because Jagex has mentioned it inside the game of RuneScape, and since we are a Wiki about the game we should have info about. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 02:50, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
Well then why don't we make a page about everything ever mentioned in the game? I'm sure there would be hundreds of new stubs then. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 02:54, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
As long as we use common sense. Also, in the game guide is says "While Ilfeen continues to fine-tune her skills, she has yet to master the enchantment of seeds into crystal halberds", which seems to say that there is a chance of them coming out, since they put it in their game guide. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 02:59, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
Not everything they say in the game guide will come into the game. If this was going to be made it would have already been made, it doesn't take 5 years to make an item. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 03:07, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
You are missing the point. We aren't saying "amg they'll release crystal halberd in a [email protected]@@@@". We are just giving information on it, not necessarily as a possible future update, but more as something notable that was mentioned in-game. bad_fetustalk 09:46, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
But how is it notable? It is mentioned once by one NPC and in the game guide as a joke, unless about 30% of people know about it, it is hardly notable. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 09:50, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
The amount of people knowing it is irrelevant. Do you think that 30% of runescape players know Red cog? I'd be shocked if they did. Being mentioned in-game should be enough for being notable. If not, use common sense, or just go with rfc idea, although I like what Zamorak O_o said more. bad_fetustalk 09:58, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
More people would know about red cog than crystal halberd because it actually exists. If more people know about it it would be notable and would and should be allowed to be created. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 10:04, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
Again, the amount of people knowing it is irrelevant, and I'd be shocked if there is more people knowing about red cog rather than granite boots. Also, Crystal halberd etc. does exist. Not as an item, but in information, and it'd be utterly stupid to not have that information. bad_fetustalk 10:10, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
As i've said before if we had a page for everything mentioned in the game we would create 100's of new pages of which 98% will be stubs most likely. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 10:21, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
I highly doubt we will have 100s of pages, however, even if we do, having a stub is better than having no page at all. Also, you can't know if they are going to be stubs without actually creating them. bad_fetustalk 10:24, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
Your right having lots of pages saying "item is mentioned by NPC name when asked about something", it's defiantly good and will help clog up the stub category which some pages there can be expanded where as a lot of these will have no way of being expanded. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 10:30, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
Pages that have no way of being expanded aren't stubs, they are short articles. Also, again, you can always use common sense to decide which ones should be created. bad_fetustalk 10:36, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
First how is a 1 line article usefull? Second if one is made than people will say there is nothing different about them so they should all be made, it's just like if you can have a dollar everyone should have a dollar and everyone will want a dollar otherwise it wouldn't be fair. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 10:45, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
Lolwut? Then why exactly do we have a policy named 'use common sense'? Also, if what you said was true, we'd already have several thousands of made up articles due to the Sailing article, since Sailing itself is made up. bad_fetustalk 10:57, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
How Sailing has the clause in number 4 in the policy because it is a notable urban legend, there are hardly any of these, sailing and the Western Lands are the only ones that i can think of that are recognised by many players. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 11:01, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
Who decides if something is an urban legend? I just made up a god called aııasodjoasd and I told my friends about it, so I should be able to go create one. Why can't I just go do that? Because we have this policy. The same thing would apply with this. bad_fetustalk 11:05, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
Whats your point in that exactly? is crystal halberd or granite boots an urban legend? Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 11:10, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
The definition of an urban legend according to these guys is "a story that appears mysteriously and spreads spontaneously in various forms and is usually false", this would mean the crystal halberd and granite boots are not urban legends. Since they did not appear mysteriously, they appeared because Jagex wanted them to. Since Jagex wanted them to appear, we should have whatever information is available on them. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 22:25, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
What are you trying to say? Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 05:37, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
Since Jagex knowingly put them into the game, we should have whatever information is available, which should include some articles that would not meet the requirements to exist if we change the policy. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 14:51, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
(sorry i had to reset Frown)As i have said before if we added everything jagex put into the game we would need to create 100's of new pages that have 2 lines and no way of being expanded. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 07:36, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
I think we could of kept going... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TyA (talk) on 07:36, August 30, 2010 (UTC). (this is added because the above used to have no resets, which has changed)(that's why there is RS:DDD, because there will be confusion when a part of the discussion has been deleted. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 22:53, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
We could then do a Rfd and discuss it then on an item per item basis. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 22:19, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
But they wouldn't be deleted because without the policy what would be the reason to delete them, plus we would clog up the already big RS:RFD page. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 06:10, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
That'd only happen if we blindly followed policies instead of using common sense. bad_fetustalk 06:20, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
But what would a reason to delete it be? Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 06:36, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
You can use the exact reasons you used here in the rfd. If you can't find any reason, than it's not meant to be deleted anyways. bad_fetustalk 08:11, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
Yes there is already a list of items mentioned and therefore there is no need to have a page on each one of them. I would support having a list of all items and who mentioned it on the Nonexistence page, that gets rid of the need for 100 1 line useless pages. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 08:19, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
Again, you are assuming that we would follow the policy blindly if it was changed to this. We obviously aren't going to create an article just to write one line, we will use common sense (<- and stop ignoring that). There is absolutely no way that this wouldn't work. bad_fetustalk 08:22, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not ignoring that i'm just saying that without the policy being fixed we would most likely have more of these pages being created when we could just create a table on the page and say the item and who mentioned it or where is was mentioned. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 08:29, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
You are still ignoring that, and have not answered why we can not just use common sense. bad_fetustalk 08:31, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
The table on the non-existent page can be used for some smaller things, but there is still some items and information that would deserve it's own article because it contains so much information. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 21:26, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
Okay then, we use common sense what do we do when an ip/new user comes along and creates a page which doesn't break the policy and has more information than the table, but thats just a picture or one line of information, what do we do there? Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 01:45, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
That really depends on whoever finds it, they could either try to expand the article, or if it's maybe a little thing, add it to the table. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 04:11, September 4, 2010 (UTC)
When we use common sense above rs:nip, the articles like crystal halberd, gran boots, lucien's daughter and western lands would have been deleted much earlier. This is because using common sense you would know that one mentioning is not enough to base an article on, and also it is not enough when you have one mentioning ingame and one in the worst rshelpsite: the game guide. This is just not enough when you use common sense. Also when using common sense, you would know that there are too few facts in the articles, so with that it should also be deleted.
Did i mention "use common sense" enough?
So chess, could you stop telling people to use common sense, because that would result in the opposite of what you want to happen.
And when using common sense about rs:nip you would know it needs a big cleanup, because it's a mess, and too unclear to have things be based on sometimes.
So, please stop talking about common, sense or both of them because you dig your own grave, like i explained at the bottom. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 22:53, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
What you are saying is not common sense. It's opinion. I'm saying that common sense stops us from creating articles like asasfasf which you claim that it's the same with these. Read what I said before responding to me. bad_fetustalk 18:41, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Support - He's asking for the policy to be clearer. I don't see how you can oppose that. HaloTalk 05:41, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support - What Halo said. I don't think the people who indented 3/4 of the page understood. He's trying to clear up and grey areas about what can or cannot be created, he isn't asking that granite boots and whatever else be deleted. 222 talk 05:56, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

If what he said is done the action that will be taken will be the deletion of articles like granite boots, so you are the one that has no idea what you are talking about. bad_fetustalk 14:03, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I do know what I am talking about. What liquid initially suggested was to clarify the policy. What he said later was an argument, an example. Unless he puts it that articles like granite boots will be deleted above the line I will remain supportive. I cannot see how some clarification will change the rules. 222 talk 06:40, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
He is saying to remove the gray areas, "Specifically, I'd like to change the ambigious phrases to "if and only if"", this would then remove any ground for articles such as granite boots have to exist. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 22:19, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. We are opposing the way he is removing the gray areas. bad_fetustalk 08:23, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
Granite boots aren't an issue here. The RfD reached a merge consensus. --LiquidTalk 17:55, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
That's because people were like 'amg it violates nip' >_> bad_fetustalk 06:40, September 8, 2010 (UTC)
Chess, could you please stop thinking like "It has been mentioned, so will once exist. This means there has to be an article about it." and start thinking like "It has only been mentioned once, and isn't talked about at any other point, so has an extremely small chance of existing, so an article should not be made." This is a view enceclopedia makers also have, because they aren't going to add something about a "teleportation device" or "time machine" as those things are not going to exist in the next 250 years. It might once be made by someone, but the chance is so ridiculously small, it won't be placed in an enceclopedia. As the runescape wiki is an enceclopedia, the content(that is the mainspace articles) should be like one, and not full of speculation, which is very non-enceclopedia like. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 00:08, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
You have completely changed what I said. I never said those were going to be released, and in fact, I said that it being released or not was completely irrelevant somewhere. It already exists as information. bad_fetustalk 16:06, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
It is relevant the thing is going to be released or not:RS:NOT#CRYSTAL. Also, teleportation also exists as information and speculation in real world right now. people say there will once be an ability to teleport, or travel through time, although it has a small chance it will actually be made. Because of this, those things aren't in enceclopedias because it is nonsense. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 21:36, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
How is RS:NOT#CRYSTAL even relevant here? The article isn't saying "It's going to be released someday". Also, those aren't even close to being nonsense, and you might want to re-check. bad_fetustalk 15:24, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
shigh...
You should read articles before telling me they exist. That is all because of science fiction, not about reality, so it is indeed nonsense.(you could consider wikipedia as an enythingceclopedia, not an enceclopedia, so i wasn't talking about wikipedia when i said that bout time travel and teleportation.
RS:NOT#CRYSTAL is relevant here because it has speculation. the policy isn't about that articles are not allowed to say it is going to exist, it is about that articles neet to have facts it is going to exist, which should also be mentioned. So "The article isn't saying "It's going to be released someday"." That's the whole problem then. If i would do what you say, i would be allowed to make an article about anything, only if i wouldn't mention it would be made sometime. This is NOT the case.
But back to RS:NIP modification discussion.
i'll try to respond to "That's because people were like 'amg it violates nip'.>_>" again:
That's what policies are for in the end, and what's wrong with mentioning a policy? are policies there for decoration, so this wiki looks cool? no. They are to make this wiki organised, and without bs articles. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 22:53, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
I just checked a few serious non-online encyclopedias, and they indeed do have teleporting. Also, if you are saying teleporting is nonsense, you have no idea what you are talking about, but that shouldn't be the discussion here, so I'll skip that. Now, you either haven't read, or haven't understood my point here. Granite boots already exists. Something that you can offer does exist. It doesn't have to be an item to have an article. This makes RS:NOT#CRYSTAL irrelevant. For the last part; I'm not saying mentioning a policy is wrong. I'm saying blindly following one is wrong. And I'm saying that current version of RS:NIP hurts the wiki, and I'm saying the article wouldn't get deleted if RS:NIP wasn't like that, which is why it should be changed. bad_fetustalk 13:26, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
let's forget about teleporting etc, as that's going nowhere. You mean with "Something that you can offer does exist." you can bid on it at Dondakan? If so, i wanna say something. Stankers has granite boots. That doesn't mean there should be an article about it. You can bid on it, which hints it will exist so an article should be made about it. You have no way to buy it, and it is just a joke of jagex. As it didn't appear as an item, there should not made an article about it. when you see those 3 things, there are 2 reasons against, and 1 reason for making the article. This means, there should be a notification, but not an article. This is also exactly what happened after the rfd. And of course it doesn't have to be an item to exist, but if it is a joke it does have to be notable, and have some evidence of being made once per RS:NOT#CRYSTAL. If you use common sense, you will think there will once be granite boots, but if the time is there, or there is more evidence, then the article should be made, as that is also using common sense. An article of speculation is not an article which is rswikia-like, and against the RS:NOT#CRYSTAL policy. You can of course list the evidence, but that is so few, it could better be placed on Dondakan. And if you think there should be change, why do you oppose it at the top? I totally agree with you about that it should be changed. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:42, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
And why exactly we shouldn't have an article on things that aren't items? That's just stupid. For the 2-1 reasons thing; just because we don't count votes doesn't mean we count reasons. RS:NOT#CRYSTAL is irrelevant here since it already exists. You can bid on it, which means interaction. Also, that's not speculation. Does Granite bootsexist? Yes. But not as an item. Also, I don't think you have read the whole page. I (and Zamorak o_O) are opposing the way the policy is being changed. bad_fetustalk 14:14, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
I launched Forum:Modifications to RS:NOT... for discussion about rs:crystal(and 2 other rs:not... things) for discussion about that, so we can focus on rs:nip on this thread. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 12:06, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Strong support - Good to see that this is being cleared up, once and for all. --Coolnesse 12:57, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I suggest one change should be "There has to be notable evidence the item will once be created for the article to be made.

Q:What is classified as noable evidence?
A: Notable evidence is not an NPC saying it once, or the fact it is in an examine option. It has to be clear that the item will actually be created."

The first statement i said there is actuatlly summarising a lot of problems in one rule. That is much easeier than a lot of rules.
This prevents any pages like Wesern lands, Crystal halberd, Lucien's daughter and go on will be created, before any notable evidence is given I also think Category:Future content should be scanned for these articles, and should be nominated for deletion. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 00:08, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Would something mentioned in the game guide count? I know this isn't about the crystal hally, but I wonder how you would classify something like that. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 00:45, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
I think in cases of doubt, the article should be made, and immediately rfd'd, that is a kind of rfc like chess said, but this way it doesn't need an apart page. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 08:57, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
You might make a tamplate:rfc which might look something like this:
JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:20, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
And, i also think there should be something a reason to keep/make the article is NOT "It doesn't hurt anyone" because that's not what it is about. An article about sadlkj saying "This thing will never be created {{Stub}}" doesn't hurt anyone either, but should not be made. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 19:01, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
That doesn't hurt anyone? That wastes time. Enough reason. This doesn't. Also, I'm sick of linking to this, use common sense. bad_fetustalk 15:24, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't hurt anyone more than pages like granite boots, western lands, lucien's daughter etc. Also, we know about rs:ucs. You can stop linkin to it, as we are(or atleast i am) doing this already. I was just showing that making an article about something without any confirmed facts is also not using common sense. The using common sense is:
  1. The policy really needs a cleanup to be stricter and clearer
  2. If you use common sense, do you still think something ridiculous like Western lands will exist? really, when you link people(like you did with the time machine example above) you should have read it carefully, and for rs:ucs: act like it yourself too.
Also, with rs:ucs it is that when using common sense, nobody would like to know about some bs a lunatic spirit said once, without capitalized letters, so this is even more waste of time than that sadlkj page would, because western lands is a longer page full of the same kind of thing.
I might dislike you (though i hope we can keep a kinda peace) because you are acting so "keep anything like it is now" with rs:d(almost never delete pages) and rs:fimg(don't add any images, but also don't delete any), but i still like the fact you are trying to win a discussion on your own against half of the wikia contributors, and dig the holes for yourself by giving arguments that help me give a better argument back(like your RS:UCS obsession. Thanks for digging your own grave.Ok) JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 22:53, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
I think you(chess) are giving many reasons that could be used against your opinion very easily. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 12:50, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
Stop your disruptive editing please, UTP and DBAD. --Coolnesse 01:25, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
kk, was just angry to chess because of what he said on RS:FIMG. sorry... JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 12:50, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
First of all, please stop taking everything personal. Now, saying that creating an article like 'sakflfjk' is obviously not using common sense. That's not even close to common sense.
"If you use common sense, do you still think something ridiculous like Western lands will exist?" - I think this is the 5th time I'm saying this. That does not matter since the article obviously is not going to say that it's going to be created or not which makes it completely irrelevant. bad_fetustalk 13:07, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
relax... well, it should have evidence the thing is going to be created, per RS:NOT#CRYSTAL, so it Does matter actually... JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 08:45, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
Have you even read the policy you are referring to? RS:NOT#CRYSTAL only says that we shouldn't have speculation, and since I'm not saying we should have one, that is irrelevant. bad_fetustalk 14:14, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
"Not saying we should have one"- one what? if it is "one speculation page" i would like to ask you to read the following very good.
Pages like western lands, crystal hally, luciens daughter and go on, are mostly based on speculation. For these cases RS:NOT#CRYSTAL is relevant. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 18:35, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
How exactly is saying "Crystal hally is mentioned by blah blah, and it also is in the game guide. and blah blah blah" and stuff like that speculation? That might be true for the current versions of the pages, but we should just remove the speculation instead of deleting the pages. bad_fetustalk 19:35, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
Forum:Dialogue pages? --Coolnesse 19:41, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused. How's that related? bad_fetustalk 20:06, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
My bad. --Coolnesse 21:25, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, i totally agree all speculation should be removed. The thing is, the article will be very small. As the thing is about something that has a small chance of existing once(not for all cases, crystal hally and gran boots have a bit better chance, i know that) you should use common sense there, and say "it has a small chance of existing once, and it is not a big urban legend, so it's a bit useless making an entire article about it." This is especially for Lucien's Daughter, Gravy Boat of Saradomin, Western Lands, and other things based on one mentioning. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 22:10, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
And what's wrong about having small articles? Nothing. Also, that's obviously not common sense, and these aren't urban legends. Urban legends are made up. You think these are made up? bad_fetustalk 18:38, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
Yep. That's what i'm trying to say: they are urban legends, as there is no proof for it. They are however not notable, so should not exist. (Sailing is notable, so should exist) JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 20:44, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
Crystal hali is not an urban legend. Have you done the quest? Talked to the girl? She mentions it, theres no debating it. Nobodies saying, as far as I know, that it will be release. Nor does that matter. Same for Lucien's daughter, athough I would say she is less likely to exist seeing as she isn't on the list of mahjarrat from Curse of Arrav. The Gravy Boat of Saradomin is obviously not real and just a joke, and should be merged with the event. There is no proof that western lands isn't already know. I would delete it, but a strong case can be made for its continued existance also. Third age robe top.png 3rd age farcaster Third age druidic robe top.png 22:53, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
Joey, please go look up what speculation, and urban legend means. bad_fetustalk 13:26, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Request for Sticky - This thread is about changing a policy, which is quite important, so i suggest this thread would be a sticky. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:26, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Denied - It's only changing the wording, the fundamentals of the policy will remain the same. Therefore, it's not incredibly significant. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 01:29, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
Teh ultimate oppose - Per chess Per Steler. 222 talk 06:29, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
I suppose you are opposing the stickying, as you already voted support above... If not, you should delete one of the votes, and remove the : before your above vote (go to source mode if using richtext editor) JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 08:47, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
Obviously I'm opposing the sticky... -.- 222 talk 08:51, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
Then thers one thing i don't understand... What did chess say to be "per"red? He didn't say anything about the stickying... JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:42, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
Idk. I'd actually support stickying, and Steler is wrong about what I'm trying to get changed. bad_fetustalk 14:14, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
Hey, er wut? I only wrote chess cos 3AF did, I think I just got pwned. 222 talk 00:10, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I think 3AF was meant to be opposing the proposal, not the sticking... what a nub am I 222 talk 00:12, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
Lolz, blindly following 3af...Smile JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 20:37, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

strong oppose (the idea, not the stickying) - per chess Third age robe top.png 3rd age farcaster Third age druidic robe top.png 21:21, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Re-organized it, so 222's comment is below the stickying and 3af's post is without : before it and not just below stickying JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 12:06, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support modification - Surely all policies should be clear of ambiguities. Also, could we add something along the lines of "If an unreleased item or land with no definite confirmation of being released in the future but is mentioned or seen ingame by a particular NPC, include any relevent information on the page of said NPC."? That should clear up the issue that caused this problem in the first place I believe.Ciphrius Kane 19:52, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Why can't these have pages when something useless like golden tinderbox can? bad_fetustalk 10:20, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
That point is moot. Why haven't you understood that "unreleased" really was never part of RuneScape, just concept? --Coolnesse 12:41, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
That's obviously not the case here, you can't call something that is mentioned in-game just concept, and even if that was the case, concept also is a part of the game. bad_fetustalk 16:03, September 25, 2010 (UTC)


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

svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 21:56, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus in either direction for this proposal. There seems to be a want by all to clear up ambiguity, but neither of the proposals mentioned garnered enough support. ʞooɔ 09:15, October 28, 2010 (UTC)