Forum:Modifications to RS:NOT...

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Modifications to RS:NOT...
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 9 October 2010 by Liquidhelium.

I suggest there should be made changes to RS:NOT#CRYSTAL, RS:NOT#TABLOID and RS:NOT#OTHER. Especially changes that make them clearer.

RS:NOT modifications

Crystal ball

I think there should be made changes to this:

There should be allowed absolutely no speculation allowed, also for things that already (partially) exist, foe example what clothes NPCs wear or anything. This is currently allowed, unless you use common sense that this isn't the place for that. I think there should be a mentioning about that.

Addition:summary: For what i read there is that articles are allowed to have speculation, but only not about future content. This should really change.


I really don't understand what this is about.

Information about players should always be reliable.

^about players or about npcs? i thought players don't deserve articles...

As the majority of visitors at RuneScape Wiki have an account in RuneScape, feelings can be hurt from false or questionable clauses about players.

^The most people have a rs account so can be hurt by speculation?

Additions that make questionable claims about others should be removed if no source is provided.

^Additions to articles that is about others should be deleted?

This should really be re-written if you ask me.

a source for other Jagex games(#OTHER)

I think the runescape wiki is also not the place for other non-runescape things like Betrayal at Falador and Armies of Gielinor should be deleted. I think a quick mentioning like on Sir Amik Varze or Spirit dagannoth is okay. this is a list of things only mentioned in Betrayal at Falador and this is a list of things only mentioned in Armies of Gielinor


Support changing Crystal, Tabloid and Other - As nominator JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 12:01, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose all 3 - I feel that Crystal ball at the moment is fine at doesn't need changing. About players in article it says

Players are only allowed to be mentioned in articles for a few reasons, all of which should be cited, if possible. The only reasons are that the player is:
  1. Highly notable, such as Durial321's involvement with the Falador Massacre
  2. Specifically mentioned by Jagex
  3. First to reach level 99 in a skill (or level 120 in the case of Dungeoneering)
  4. First to reach 200 million experience in a skill

So it is allowed and this just says that it has to be reliable. About the #other Since Betrayal at Falador is based and set in Runescape i think they should all be allowed there also everything about Armies of Gielinor should be banned as the links on the AOG page of that goes to the funorb wiki.Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 12:12, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

I think you confused what i said at crystal and tabloid with each other. At crystal i said it should also be forbidden to add speculation about already existing things. Also, at tabloid i said i didn't understand the whole thing, and it looked like articles about players, which is not allowed by RS:PDDA, only mentioning is allowed. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 12:34, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
I understand what you meant. I think Crystal is fine and doesn't need changing. Currently tabloid talks about referring to players in articles, not having articles about players. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 12:50, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Crystal Ball & Other, neutral Tabloid - (Conflict) I quote: "Started in April of 2005 by Merovingian, the RuneScape Wiki's goal is to become a vast, knowledgeable source for all things in RuneScape." As all AoG and BaF content is considered to be Canon in the world of RuneScape, and our goal is to become a knowledgeable source on all things RuneScape this is included. Except when Jagex mods deny it's Canon it's a different case. On Crystal Ball: Articles about speculation don't do harm IMO, so if we add a nice notice on top of it we should be good. Mark (talk) 12:37, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support crystal ball and other, neutral on tabloid - Speculation does not belong on the wiki. Period. I really don't care about the tabloid, as we have very few instances of players mentioned anyways. I don't like the fact that, as a wiki on all things RuneScape, we have articles about things that belong on other wikis. --LiquidTalk 14:07, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

AoG/BaF characters/locations = RuneScape. Mark (talk) 14:08, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
AoG/BaF characters/locations = Gielinor actually, so it could be taken either way. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 14:14, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Gielinor = Pretty much RuneScape. Those articles belong on the wiki about the history of RuneScape. I'd support other if it wasn't considered Canon by Jagex. Mark (talk) 14:15, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Note: Forum:Armies of Gielinor. Mark (talk) 14:19, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose crystal ball, support other jagex content - (EDITCONFLICT)Number 2 tabloids make my brain hurt. But I think that the things in AoG and BoF aren't notable enough and crystal ball is weak to begin with, speculation is probably in many cases all we have anyways. Achievements Coelacanth0794 Talk Contribs 14:16, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

It is not speculation. They are an important part of the history of RuneScape. Why should we delete those articles? People might be looking for them? Articles don't do any harm! They have a freaking huge notice on top of it that it's part of AoG/BaF. Mark (talk) 14:19, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Those articles belong on something like the FunOrb wiki or the RuneScape Canon Wiki (if one exists). But not here. --LiquidTalk 14:23, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Why not? They're part of the RuneScape history. RS:ABOUT: "the RuneScape Wiki's goal is to become a vast, knowledgeable source for all things in RuneScape." Hope that makes it clear Lol. Mark (talk) 14:25, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
The canon and history of Runescape should go on the runescape wiki. God Wars, First age ect are all canon, should we get rid of them? especially since one is good enough to be a featured article. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 14:28, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
They are NOT part of RuneScape's history. They're characters or items or events or whatever's created for OTHER games. Unless you can find some kind of statement from a Jagex moderator or employee that states explicitly that those things actually happened or existed in the RuneScape world, they don't belong here. As for God Wars and First Age, there were references to those in-game. I'm sure you can find something called the God Wars Dungeon in-game, and the whole point of Meeting History was to explore the first age. --LiquidTalk 14:30, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Arn't there references through rs about BaF characters and such? Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 14:32, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
(Conflict) You do know what Canon is? And you have seen this (cite at the Canon page)?

I quote User:Morian Smith: Mark (talk) 14:32, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

We've been basing what we know about RuneScape from many other Jagex-provided sources (Postbags, God Letters, the Betrayal at Falador novel, lores, Jagex messages, etc.) for years. We've even used non-Armies of Gielinor-related information from FunOrb in the past; the symbols of Seren and Tumeken, for instance, were taken from a background found on the website. Why should we handle this any differently, especially when it has been explicitely stated by Jagex as canon?
Morian Smith
Alright, I must admit that I don't remember that quote. Then again, it's been almost five months since I closed that forum. And yes, I had a rough idea of what canon was. I didn't see any reference to canon in the FunOrb forum, so I have to dispute the validity of that (I'll re-read it though; I was skimming). @Sentra, if there were, I couldn't find any in-game. The characters mentioned in the book make no reference to the events in the book. --LiquidTalk 14:36, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
A lot of the characters in the book are in-game. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 14:38, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
I know they're in-game. My point is that under the new policy, the book-related stuff will be removed from their articles, leaving only the content that is found in the game. --LiquidTalk 14:38, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Search for "canon" in that thread. I'm looking for the canonicity forum page on BaF right now, can't find it :P. Mark (talk) 14:42, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Proof on canonicity of BaF: [1] [2]. Mark (talk) 16:46, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, those don't say it is full canon, and as we don't know what parts are canon and what parts are "individual characters opinions & interpretations of the truth" that is speculation.
PS: Could the person who accesses the twitter PLEASE ask wether they have plans about Western lands? Thanks! JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 18:00, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose all - For RS:NOT#OTHER, I believe we should be a wiki on RuneScape universe, instead of just the game. For RS:NOT#TABLOID just fits RS:PDDA, and you are basically not changing anything on RS:NOT#CRYSTAL. bad_fetustalk 18:37, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

So you are neutral about crystal? as i think i do change something at crystal. For what i read there is that articles are allowed to have speculation, but only not about future content. This should change. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 20:51, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
"Future content should not be discussed in the article namespace, unless it has been explicitly mentioned on the official Jagex or RuneScape sites." is pretty clear about what should be allowed. What you suggest isn't very explicit (hence a bad policy). Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 20:56, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose tabloid and other, oppose crystal - I believe what the policy is currently for the tabloid and other is pretty clear. If a significant player has achieved "Goal X" first, then some source should be used to verify it, otherwise a unverified claim is worthless. Per Chess on tabloid. Though there has been some discussion about the grey area of what's allowed, generally we don't need to be creating a bunch of pages of speculation. I honestly think if you took the time to reread the policies over again, they would make more sense. If you have doubts to what a policy is trying to say, it might be best to ask an admin to clarify instead of creating a yew grove because you don't understand the policy. My two cents. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 20:43, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose all - There is nothing wrong with the current policy, per all. 222 talk 06:31, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose all - I think it's fine now. HaloTalk 18:07, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

{{closure|Discussion has died}} svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 01:04, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - RS:NOT will not be changed. --LiquidTalk 21:31, October 9, 2010 (UTC)