Forum:Nonexistence, granularity and postbags

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Nonexistence, granularity and postbags
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 19 October 2010 by Liquidhelium.

With the recent successful merging of the Granite boots page, I think it's time for a discussion on what deserves a page or not. Some people would like to delete (or merge) all pages that don't have concrete proof of future release. Because of the precedent set by the RfD mentioned above, we should set some basics about pages on nonexistent things (not just items, which is why RS:NIP doesn't fully apply.) There are some groupings of pages I'd like to show:

All of these pages listed above have very little chance of future creation, and by the precedent from Granite boots (and likely Lucien's daughter) can be deleted. My question is, what do we do about pages like the above? There are plenty more pages like these that are mentioned only in passing.

There's no proposal attached to this; just a discussion about where we draw the line on Nonexistence and granularity. ʞooɔ 08:50, September 9, 2010 (UTC)


Comment - As a wiki we provide knowledge. Since most of the listed things are mentioned in some way, we need a place for viewers to go to learn a little about what it is the are looking up. "What is 'Gravy Boat of Saradomin' I hear about... Nothing on or RuneHQ... or anyof the others... OH the wiki has something about it.............. oh, it's mentioned from the 2009 thanksgiving event... cool." Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 08:57, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment/Proposal - Some a few people have thrown around is that every item mentioned should but put in a table on the Nonexistence page with who and where they were mentioned, this way we don't have 500 2 line pages. All the exceptions mentioned in RS:NIP should exist with non-items and should therefore probably be renamed RuneScape:Non-existence policy. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 09:03, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - First of all, the precedent from Granite Boots and Lucien's Daughter doesn't apply here, as that only deals with NPC's mentioned in the chatbox. Second of all, I would support merging them all onto a single page, as they certainly don't deserve articles of their own. --LiquidTalk 12:18, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

I would say it applies, if not more. The Postbag in some cases isn't even considered canon in comparison to what's found in game. Also, can you please explain what's wrong with having pages on things like what I mentioned above? And why merging them into one page would be the right thing to do? ʞooɔ 16:15, September 9, 2010 (UTC)
Those pages are incredibly short, so merging them onto one page would be more aesthetically pleasing. Furthermore, most of those were briefly mentioned by a Jagex moderator who made it up on a whim (remember, each postbag reply is written by the Jagex employee that has worked with the subject a lot), and would have little to no chance of actually making it into the game. So, I don't believe they deserve articles. Centralizing it is a bit of a compromise from my original position. --LiquidTalk 16:56, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Things like Underwater city and Lucien's daughter are never actually mentioned by name. In the case of Underwater City, Guthix is just vaguely talking about a city that was underwater. It has no name. Likewise, Lucien just mentions his hypothetical "daughter". As such there is no concrete thing for people to search. Lucien's Daughter is kind of straightforward, but people could still search "daughter of lucien", "lucien's children", "children of lucien" and a hundred different combinations. Underwater city is even worse, guthix never even says "underwater city". I believe he said "city under the waves" but with this instance, there are thousands of different things people could search, since they are never told any specific name. "Underwater city". "City beneath the waves". "City under the waves". City beneath the sea. Undersea city. It goes on and on. These two articles are emblematic of an entire set of articles. Articles made about concepts rather than concrete people, places, or items. As such they have no definite name. Any name they are given, either via a redirect or an article, is an arbitrary name chosen by whoever thought they should be created. This includes lineages as well. King Roald I is never mentioned in game. People assume that he exists, and that he ruled over Varrock, but that is pure speculation. He could have been a wealthy dignitary whose son became king while he never actually served. Honestly if we allow articles like this to be created, we should allow things like "Wise old mans' dad". I don't think these articles should be created at all, even with a redirect, since their very creation is speculation about what the name is.

Then we go to the second set of these articles, those who are mentioned by name. I believe that things mentioned by name should get their own article if there is enough of a story for them. A prime example would be Gentleman Mallard and Iestin Edern. NPCs which have only a name attached to them should be redirected somewhere, either a logical existing article (Calsidiu for instance could be merged to an article about myreque, the organization), or a list of unreleased NPCs mentioned by name. "Lucien's daugher" could be mentioned here, I don't really care. There are items, such as Granite boots, that have information about them, but all of the information is related to Dondakan. All that can be said about granite boots themselves is that they are boots made of granite. The rest of information avaliable about them are information which relates to how Dondakan interacts with them. Dondakan owns a pair. Dondakan says he would never sell them. Dondakan will accept offers on them. Likewise, with the crystal halbered, all we know about it is that its a halberd made of crystal. The only other information is about how Eifleen is ineracting with it. She is trying to make it. She cant' get the notes right. There are also items mentioned by name with absolutely no information whatsoever. These should be redirected to whatever NPC mentions them. This includes the Gravy boat of Saradomin.

That leaves, I believe, one final category unaddressed. Those are things mentioned in player submissions, including God Letters and Post Bags. I think there should be an article for content mentioned in these venues where there is no other logical place to put them. This includes underwater city, and guzzila birds (I'm too lazy to look up to see how its spelled). While postbags can be considered cannon, and logically some content can (and should) be merged to other articles based on criteria I laid out above, I think there should also be an article that lists all unrelased content mentioned in postbags and godleters. This is gives players a logical place to start searchign if they locate content in the postbags that they can't search for normally. For example the godzilla birds should probably be mentioned in the bird (race) article, the make-over-mage article, the yin yang amulet article, and the "list of unrelased content from postabgs and godleters" article (whatever it winds up being called). kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 20:06, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - This thread is in need of discussion. The RfDs are continuing, but there doesn't seem to be any rule or policy for either side to fall back on. It's time we come up with a rule about how we approach these things. ʞooɔ 00:14, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose a rule - There is nothing wrong with handling each case individually, because the cases are too unique to lump under a single rule. Dealing with each page individually is the best way to go. --LiquidTalk 00:23, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Not a single rule. A policy or something. There are way too many pages that you think are delete-able for us to take them on a case-by-case basis. If we could have guidelines for the things I mentioned above, that would help immensely. ʞooɔ 00:27, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
Cook did say there were no opposes or supports in this thread... 222 talk 00:31, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
A policy would be extremely beneficial; if one side could ever argue their way through a granite boots + crystal halberd X 100 sized discussion. 222 talk 00:31, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - My thoughts on this, people/creatures that we know existed previously because they have to should be kept, meaning articles about previous kings, etc. will remain, simply because we know that they must have existed for the current sovereign to exist. Articles about non-existent items/entities will be deleted or redirected if they do not contain substantial information that is factual, accurate and not speculation. 222 talk 00:28, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I do think we need to establish some type of rough policy on this sort of thing. I agree with Liquidhelium that we should deal with each page on an individual basis, but at the same type I think we need to have a very basic rule to go on. Based purely on policy, it's unclear whether articles about unseen game elements are even allowed on the Wiki at this point. That, at the very least, needs to be settled, so that if nothing else we have a point of reference to work with. Quest.png Morian Smith Saradomin crozier.png 00:30, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Coment - if we're going to delete pages on historical characters, deceased characters or characters not yet released to the game, then I might as well leave this wiki, as I have little to no interest in item pages and pages on strategies for the God Wars Dungeon. I'm a sucker for RuneScape History, and if we go with people who want to delete pages like Gentleman Mallard for the reason that he's not in the game then we might as well go one further and delete Lord Drakan, which, I think everyone will agree, is one of the best, if not THE best article on the Wiki. Granularity is there for a reason - everything of note gets an article. That includes things mentioned by people, things not yet released and yes, things which will never be released, such as the God Wars. These articles are what separate the RuneScape Wiki from other wikis. RuneScape has an amazing storyline, and if we're getting rid of that storyline, there is no point in my being here.

Silver sickle.png Asparagoose

00:35, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Note about RS:G - FFS, stop citing it like it has any bearing on this matter! What the policy deals with is what articles should be split or merged. It only deals with items or articles that are known to exist (based on the criteria that it gives). Therefore, it has nothing to do with the current situation, which deals with unconfirmed articles. --LiquidTalk 00:47, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - What exactly do you mean by "unconfirmed articles"? Quest.png Morian Smith Saradomin crozier.png 00:56, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
Well WHY is it only about items and articles that only exist in the game? That's not all we do! RuneScape has novels now, and there's a lot of lore which isn't in the game and is only mentioned in the histories which does have a lot to do with the stories. This wiki isn't only for articles. Deleting of pages should be done about pages which don't serve a purpose or have no information at all. All these pages do. I think Evil1888 has the right idea. If someone hears about something and wants to know what it's from we should give them that opportunity. To quote Koushiro "Izzy" Izumi from the popular anime Digimon; "What could possibly be wrong with gaining knowledge and information?". If we're going to delete things that don't happen ingame then let's go onto pages that character's backstories are on and blank half the information on the page because the backstory didn't happen ingame. 00:58, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Notability. That's what is truly based on whether it should be kept or not. I know RS:NOT#WIKIPEDIA, but I believe notability is very important. RS:G, however, makes a few necessary exceptions, so I think that no changes should be made to NIP, G, etc. Also, Liquid helm's point about individually challenging each article is a good idea. --Coolnesse 01:13, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Just keep all - There is nothing wrong with having information. By the way, a very similar discussion is going on at Forum:Modifications to RS:NIP bad_fetustalk 14:38, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

{{closure|Discussion is dead}} svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 00:36, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - These will continue to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. --LiquidTalk 23:20, October 19, 2010 (UTC)