Forum:Non-existent items

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Non-existent items
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 27 May 2010 by Stelercus.

Note: In this context, items refers to things/aspects, not in-game, tradeable items

Ok, this is probably going to be a very two-sided argument that will never get consensus, but here goes. I think there needs to be changes on our leniency of what articles we allow on the wiki. What topics are notable enough to have their own article? Are we going to have articles on items to be included in future updates for the game? I'm sure a lot of us have seen this mess of a discussion. I think we need to be more specific on what articles we should have, and what we shouldn't. Specific policies that will be affected are as follows:

Just to let you guys know, Sailing is actually allowed per RS:NIP point three, if you call it a notable urban legend. I would. But there needs to be some clarification. A lot of us are for articles about aspects/items/things that are discussed a lot and bare significance (notable). Others are not. Our tagline says "the wiki devoted to all things RuneScape". We need to have broad coverage of everything that is strictly related to RuneScape. Which do you think is going to get more searches in Google? ??? mixture or Dragon warhammer? Arcenia root or Music cape? Red cog or Sailing? Wikipedia covers things that are notable. What do we cover? I know we're not Wikipedia, but doesn't mean we can't do some things that lead to their success. If someone heard Sailing being mentioned in game, they are going to look it up. If they know about the wiki, probably look it up here. What will they find, a small section on some page (if VfD is successful).

The other items are those that have been confirmed to be included in the future. I think there may be a little confusion, but the RS:NIP does not even say anything about items that are to be released in the future, only in the nutshell. But articles for future items should be created. Of course, we will not be speculative which is a violation of RS:NOT#CRYSTAL. There is nothing wrong with writing about content that will be created with in future, if we are not speculative. That's why we've got Template:Future.

Last thing is whether we are to cover items that are discovered through the Model Viewer. This will probably not be resolved until Forum:RuneScape Model Viewer = Against the rules reaches consensus. For now, policy says we do not cover any such items. An example is the Music cape.

Discuss. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 12:13, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

It's actually NIP point four that permits Sailing to have an article. The ordering was changed a bit somewhat recently. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 06:50, January 13, 2010 (UTC)


Comment I believe that while some things do fit, like sailing, Music cape does not. Why? Because all we would have is a page with a picture of what we think may be a music cape. That isn't an article, it's a picture. Basically, I'm saying that something should not be created based on how likely the term would be searched for on google, but by how much information the article would contain. Real, sourced information, with pictures, if possible. Yes, there's nothing wrong with writing about future content, but a page that says "The Music cape is an item that a mod has said will probably be released in the future, and this picture is what it might look like." How does that help anyone? All something like that would be is a placeholder, which is completely unecessary on a wiki. DVIXRABucket detail.pngrwojy 12:26, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Chicken, I think you kind of beat me to the punch on raising this issue, but this approach is going to be very difficult to come to a resolution in terms of consensus. I've been rather vocal on my opinion that this wiki should be much more inclusive on content than it has been in the past, and I do support even perhaps some article on the Music cape.... if we can get anything (and I mean just about anything at all) more to come from Jagex about that cape.

I would love to come up with a policy for this wiki that takes on the spirit and general philosophy of wikipedia:WP:NOTE. Such a policy doesn't have to be quite so elaborate, and I'm not expecting Wikipedia's standards for notability to always be followed as this is a game fan website and not a comprehensive encyclopedia. Still, I do think we could come to an agreement on some source of notable value that discuss upcoming items, events, locations, or quests that will likely be coming into the game. Jagex has a history of teasing its users with a little bit of trivia or a nugget of information about a soon to be released item or quest. Sometimes it is blatantly obvious like the developer journals, but it can sometimes be a bit more obscure. The icon for the Summoning skill was revealed by Jagex in the form of a puzzle before its formal release... to give another example.

Actually, that is such a fundamental aspect of Wikipedia that the link can even be made shorter: wikipedia:WP:N. Hello71 19:51, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

My argument for keeping sailing as an article is based upon notability, which I think ought to apply to things like the black party hat, the Music cape, and other articles about non-existent items. Even things like the Gravy Boat of Saradomin that is mentioned in-game could use a healthy notability guideline to help in determining if the article should remain or if it should be deleted. While it isn't a perfect guide and there are some problems with perhaps gray areas that lie on the border of notability (I think the Music cape is right there on the border), it can help to clean up some of the problems related to this and other similar issues. It would be useful to debate notability and even come up with a formal policy that would cover at least some obvious forms of notability within the Runescape community. --Robert Horning 13:44, December 7, 2009

Comment Rwojy what you might be missing is even if it doesn't exist people will search the net for info on it. If we have what information there is, and we have that in a nice article that details what is speculation vs what is real, then we will be doing them a service just as we do with all our other articles. I would be like to see what we could with things that are heavily discussed/rumored where we might have some thing to offer in the article. Not every single silly rumor that pops up, but as Robert says, consider the notability.--Degenret01 17:08, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - *cough* It seems this might pass on a basis of "rough consensus". Lol Chicken7 >talk 14:59, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Why not move all the Non-existant items to one page? Swiz Talk Review Me 23:04, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
Because me and many other users want them on separate pages ^_^ Chicken7 >talk 05:56, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
But what if they don't come? We'll be left with pages like Sailing that has no use. Swiz Talk Review Me 11:07, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
We know that some will come, like the dragon kite. They deserve articles. I'm not sure about others - if we're not sure whether they'll come, what would we write? Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 11:09, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
We write it is a possibility. If they never come, so be it, we should still document it. Let's say Music cape article is created. Jagex keep throwing around the possibility or releasing it, but then they have an update, say it is not coming, and remove it from the cache. We should still have an article, showing the image, and stating the fact that Jagex added the image to the cache, but removed it and announced they scrapped the plans. Isn't that interesting information that we should keep, if that was the case? Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 13:49, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
Yeeaah..That's intresting. Swiz Talk Review Me 14:27, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
But which items would be notable enough to make an article about, and which wouldn't? Music cape deserves an article imo, but Dragon throwing knife? Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 19:41, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
Only items with proof. Jagex has said that they will finish off the Dragon (metal) weapons, but I still don't think we should have a dragon throwing knife article, yet. RSMV images are proof, official announcements are proof, and leaks can be proof, in my honest opinion. Chicken7 >talk 00:08, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
I think RSMV images aren't proof, just evidence. Roddeck's pipe was in there, but it was never released. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 08:16, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
Roddeck's pipe << and it seems we have an article on it. I should've rephrased my above statement better. The RSMV images aren't proof, but they are still items/models. As I said above, it is interesting to document about something that might've been released but wasn't. The RSMV images are not proof, but as you said, evidence. They are still worth writing an article about, IMHO. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 10:15, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know there was an article about that. But a Jmod (I think it was Mark H, but I'm not sure) said on the forums that it was going to be the reward, so that was a bad example. But I still think that an article shouldn't be made just because of an RSMV image. How would you know the name of the model? When the Nomad's new model was first shown on YouTube, most people thought it was going to be a slayer master of some sort. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 11:31, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking that and hoping you wouldn't say it {{>.>}} Maybe we should only write articles on models that are obvious (music cape), or else models that we can link to announcements, I don't know. Lol Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 11:49, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
When I first saw the image of the music cape, I thought it would be something completely different (I did not at all associate the icon with music), so it isn't that obvious. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 17:10, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
I guess it truly just comes down to how every person looks at something. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 23:33, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. The problem with such subjective matters is that it's hard to find out what is really true, because of course opinions are rarely 'true', but usually just make more sense than others, because they're not facts and stuff. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 20:40, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
Maybe an article where we put all the RSMV images that are not in the game? No need to give names, just the model numbers? Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 02:03, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
If those are allowed, then I think that would be the best place to put them, on an 'RSMV' article or something. Of course there should be a big note on top that says 'only put the model numbers here, not what you think they look like' or something. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 08:20, January 13, 2010 (UTC)
Yes. ^_^ What about redirects like Music cape; will there be any mention of the MV image of the "so-called in my eyes, Music Cape"? If someone is looking for a RSMV image, I don't think their gonna search "Cache image #97162", unless they for some reason wish to see it on the wiki rather than in the viewer. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 13:19, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Resetting indent Of course someone would look for 'Music Cape'. But if we decide to put that there? Then should we also put those suspected names as descriptions for other images? But where do we draw the line of being too speculative? Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 17:16, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Support - But only items that can be properly cited. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 19:05, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Yes, I fully agree with you Chicken. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  06:15, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

{{Rfc}} C.ChiamTalk 08:20, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per C Teng. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 20:35, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Notice of Intent - Unless more definitive support or opposition appears in the next few days, this will be closed. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 22:38, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

With what result? There is a lot of discussion, a few supports and no opposes. Plus, I don't know what I'd implement, really. Chicken7 >talk 05:52, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - Any official leak or teaser, like "Acolyte Until," should have an article, per above. However, no RSMV policy should be drafted yet. Leftiness 20:42, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

Request for closure Ajraddatz Talk 19:40, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - No consensus. Also see Chicken's most recent comment. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 19:43, May 27, 2010 (UTC)