Forum:Page clean up and maintenance
- standardization so the same information in different pages look, are writen, and many other things will be the same.
- Removial and prevention of unneeded, common knowlage, little use, or many other things.
- removing pictures unless they are very important.
- shortening pages and preventing overly worded explanations.
- prevent restating the same thing across the same page
- Also i think we shuld vote and add/subtract things to vote on so this can be more incluseive to new idea that people have!
- Hey Aaron, it sounds like you have some ideas on how to improve articles here on the wiki. That's great. Your talk about standardizing information, trimming overly wordy explanations sound like a good thing. I am not sure what exactly you mean though, so I think before we just start making changes, I would like to see some examples. Can you let me know what pages you're talking about and what changes you'd like to make? That would help people decide whether or not they support or oppose your suggestions. Thanks. 01:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
comment "burying bones will allow you to also train for free" come on what an eye sore! then can i call it non-usefull information and delete it then. we all know the level of over explaining is on the order of stupifying dont make me add the template for uncomfterably long to this wiki, which i just learned about from the main one while looking up "migrains". if you want we can change the rule so you like the over all idea better. and like i said we will vote for what we will remove and not remove case by case. Aaroncampf 02:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
One page is monkfish another page is slayer training and melee they are very inconsistent insde the page iyts self and with each other. monkfish states the same thing many times. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aaroncampf (talk).
Strong support - Just to clarify, Aaron is looking to clean up and organize all of the training guides. I talked this plan over with him in IRC, and he has some fabulous ideas. I know the RS wiki is often criticized for its cryptic and inconsistent guides, so I think this is a great initiative.01:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment - I think you should kind of give us a summary of what happened and why did you create this. (Even though I know since I was there when you said you will create it) Also, ".....add whatever you want to vote on or whatever lol this is a free for all!" Seems kind of "unprofessional." Also, try to check your spelling such as "graet" "explinations" or "removeing." I'll fix it for you. ;) Powers38 おはようヾ(´･ω･｀) 01:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose (Sort of) - You say remove common knowledge but lets say a person just became a member. They want to train hunter so they check our guides. It may have originally said that hunting imps is bad xp. But since it was removed because it is 'common knowledge' (Who would this be decided by? Nothing is common knowledge to a person starting Runescape) they would not know. And deleting images just because it lags your computer (As shown here) when the image add to the article. (They show what your going to kill which could have a factor in killing them.) Plus shortening articles just take away the details which many people want to know. 01:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
comment first off you would. and that is not common knowlage somthing like, "pick up your arrows to save money" is and if you dont like that part we can take it outAaroncampf 01:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Each person's opinion of 'common knowledge' is different and taking something out you think is common would be biased towards you. So I think leave it be. 01:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Confused/Mixed Oppose Although I do think that shortening alot of pages because of restated ideas and facts is a fantastic idea, the "common knowledge" gets me. I would like to express that nothing is common knowledge. Literally nothing can be common knowledge, and if what I think your trying to say is that things you already know should be deleted then this wiki would have very few pages. I answer questoons daily to players who ask about different things such as quick money or quick experiance. This is common knowledge to me and thus would be deleted if this were to happen. I know a handful of players do in fact use the guides here for advice on money making and whats the best for what activity. I think that you should reword what you said to something that would clarify "common knowledge". until then I can't agree with that, but I do agree with sprucing up articles as alot of them are very repetitive. Floppyc5 03:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
What if we could also vote to lock information such as
What is considered the best fish to fish at what levels or what is the fastest way to get to a bank. if we do this and leave no restrictions for new information, we could leave sections of many pages "complete" as far as information is considered. this way we can insure that our guides, and other advice is both "effective" and isnt being eddited in awys that we would just undo.
if this is even possable we could consider it. just say what you feel about it or how this would even work! Aaroncampf forgot to sign this comment.
- I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but if you mean that you want to "lock" sections that need no further information, I don't think that'd be a good idea. Who knows that is no further information? Users are discovering new methods of training all the time. I recently found a new, more active method of catching chinchompas that is faster than the traditional "X-setup and wait" method. Users should not be prevented from adding potentially useful information to articles. Undoing/reverting an edit is a simple matter of clicking a button. 12:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
What i mean is that information in an artical is locked. This is one way i would want it to work: you would have a guide page, such as P2P fishing, in which we as a group desided that there are currently 3 paths to level 99, fly fishign barbarien fishing and monkfish fishing. this way we can limit the guides to the more usefull methiods.
the next way this could work is to have the pages for like the monkfish page to have a standerized methiod for information, and for no addition or removial of information, but with changeing how a page looks being ok. this is an attempt to stop random eddits adding randod information requireing us to maintain pages.
this is just general idea that i am sure we will want to mold this into a slightly different final idea. Aaroncampf 14:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- By limiting the ability of a user to edit, you are kinda going against the nature of the wiki. We're supposed to be open for any person to edit at any time, which is why we're different from other fansites like Rune HQ or Sal's Realm. 15:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
i know but its just an idea we can change it or trash it. just wanted to point it out in addition to the main part. anyone else have any better additions to the main point of the page then. anyways please vote on the top section of the page so we can get started on a claen up Aaroncampf 15:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- <edit conflict> If you mean protecting the page, then I don't think thats a good idea. It both goes against the protection policy, and would not be good for regular users who wish to edit/update it. It would also be hard to protect individual sections (you'd have to move the section to another page, protect it (with an admin's help if needed) and transclude on to the page it's needed on). If the new page is to be used on one page only, this is a bit unnecessary. Also, as Tien said, by limiting editing abilities you're going against the wiki's 'goal'. An alternative would be to add a "complete" template to the top/bottom of the page/section (like an opposite to Template:Incomplete or Template:Construction). As for your points, then yes I agree with them, but some clear guidelines need to be drawn up about what is 'needed' and what is 'not'.
- <in response to new comment> Also, surely describing other methods should be done, as to show their advantages and disadvantages. For your example of fishing: lobsters - not that fast experience nor money, but can be used to break up the monotony; sharks - slower experience than monkfish, but the highest profit per unit produced; and so on. You can remove/limit options too much. 15:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Listing how bad somthing is takes up ALOT of space! you could have more information on what not to do then what you should do! and i dont want to protect a page i want to make it so lots of small eddits do not slowly stray the page away from its intended goal, thus requireing us to undo them or other maintance. what i was also saying that if all the general information is complete, i mean how much is there to say about fishing after all, we prevent people from adding new sections or other random additions when we are happy not listing why we dont fish lobsters or do fishing minigames.Aaroncampf 22:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Unless your computer is very, very old it should have no problem showing lots of text and tables. And if you don't list other method users will come to edit the pages to add them. Also, listing 'bad' methods is good as then players will know what not to train on. And there are more factors than speed - profitability (no one would cut magic trees for experience, but they're good money), fun (with a good team, the fishing trawler is fun, but grinding at a fly-fishing spot is not) and level (its no good just listing "hunt chinchompas" - what do you hunt before that level?). This is kind of a grey area, since it varies greatly with opinions, especially the 'fun' factor (exp and profit can be measured as a rate, but still this varies). NPOV will be hard to maintain here, as with all guides. 16:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I have 3 problems with that. 1 its hard on the server. 2 runescape + wiki + whatever = hard on comp. 3 mores stuff = more loading (quicker is better) and more for you to read/deal with to get the wanted information. as a side bar easyer to maintain smaller pages! Aaroncampf 01:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- A page this size, which is basically a huge block of text, should be fine with most if not all browers and OS's. This page is massive (32KiB), and if you can view it you should be fine with a slightly longer training guide, and Wikia have rather large servers. Players want to know what not to do as well as what to do. Maintain? I'm gathering from your attitude that you want to revert any edits to the guides. I disagree with that. You can't stop somebody from editing, both in the technical sense and in the sense that is a wiki, so anybody can edit. If someone adds something to the article, then so long as its good, let it stay (if its badly worded/explained - reword it! Don't just remove it). And in regards to vandalism, a simple undo/rollback will suffice. 14:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Aaron, it sounds like you want a guide that is short, quick to read, and only talks about the absolute fastest way to get xp at each level. I think some editors would want to read this guide and I this it is useful. It sounds like it is a different guide than the one we have. What do people think about making seperate pages to do like. Like a normal guide, and a "guide lite"? I don't think we would want to lock the page, but somehow be clear, that only the fastest methods belong on this page. What do people think?19:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
i do want more then the "absolute fastest" but there are a but a few ways to 99 such as theiveing there are basicly 2 ways fast and hard easy and slower, but there is a moneymakeing methiod that is in the money making guide. this "worse" alternitive methiod is exeptable, due to the minimal extra stuff on the page and the fact tons of people do it!Aaroncampf 22:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hm... Sal's Realm has a similar set-up on their quest guides. They have the long, detailed walkthrough, and then a short list of the basic steps at the bottom of the page. We could possibly implement that on the wiki's training guides. 20:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)