Forum:Player naming policy?

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Player naming policy?
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 2 March 2010 by Evil yanks.

I've noticed that it is a common practice for users to remove names of players from certain articles, much like moderators following the "no names" policy on many other fan forums. However, I've searched the editing policies and guidelines of this wiki and could not find any mention of naming players. Is there an official policy or guideline on naming other players? --Ixfd64 19:56, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

There is a policy which includes that a little. Players don't deserve articles. Although the policy specifically states about no articles on a specific player, sometimes a player being mentioned in an article may be acceptable, depending on the circumstances. But, as a general thing to state, don't mention players in articles unless there is specific proof that what is inserted is true and no cause for debate. ~MuzTalk 20:52, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, in an online game what is specific proof? Take for example the recent-ish solo of the Corporeal beast. People came out of the woodworks posting that said player was the first ever to solo it and also posting the link to his youtube video. But really, how is that proof? That's proof of nothing except that he was the first to post a video about it, and even then its only proof if you feel like sifting through every youtube video just in case someone uploaded one earlier but with a wonky name. Currently the accepted "first person to do it" is only the first person to make a lot of noise about it. As such, unless Jagex looks into their game logs and confirms that something was first (not bloody likely), then I don't think we can ever be sure of anything. That's why I think player names should stay out of articles. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 20:59, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

About the video, I don't think that is true, just as you said about the first to make the video. The biggest source of proof I know of are the highscores. When someone gains the level, it is recorded there. If they are the only player that has that level, then I believe that is able to prove the first 99. But, even that has flaws. Since it doesn't update while still logged in, but when the player logs out, someone might have gotten it before and not logged out yet. So, very few, if any, accurate sources about what is accomplished exist. ~MuzTalk 21:08, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Recently I noticed that Durial321's name was removed from the page about the Falador Massacre. Why? There is lots of proof that he did indeed participate (we even have a picture of him!) yet he remains anonymous? ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  20:59, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I believe players should only be named when it's important and totally relevant to the article in question. Durial and Cursed You should both be mentioned in the Falador Massacre article, for instance. Elvemage should be mentioned in the 14 hour riot article. However, players being "the first" to solo a monster or the first to complete a quest at a certain level shouldn't be mentioned. The first person to reach level 99...well, maybe we could rephrase that as "the first person to achieve a level of 99 on the hiscores"? Something like that, anyway. Any player in an article should be well verified and sourced by something so it doesn't look like we just put their name in the article on a whim. 20px‎ Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 21:09, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

Support Kudos' suggestion - Those criteria seem fair. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  21:11, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
'Support - Maybe "First person known to have reached 99"? Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 22:07, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

I agree that with certain historically known events the players name should be used in an article. But I can not think of a single "first to achieve" where it would possibly add to the article to know it. Good for that person, but it just makes us look like we are bragging up that persons achievements. --Degenret01 23:52, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

Well we do it for the first 99 skills but not the first cb solo and won Twig Talk 772kZGs.png 23:54, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
Yes agreed. The first solo or something like first to 99 untrimmed cape XYZ can't be proven, just that some people like to shout their accomplishments more than others. But I do think names should be mentioned in historical events such as Durial and Cursed You. There is more than enough proof for both of them. Bttb333 01:51, November 8, 2009 (UTC)
But what does it add to the article? Does a reader really understand and appreciate the event better knowing the names of the players? kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 02:04, November 8, 2009 (UTC)
i think it does as it makes the event seem more real if actual players are mentioned. this could also help the reader understand when they see people named after these famous players. this is just my opinion.Guthix's mage2 02:10, November 8, 2009 (UTC)
@Psycho: Yes, I think a reader does understand/appreciate an event knowing who was involved. As an example, take the assassination of John F. Kennedy. You would better understand it if John's name was included, instead of merely calling him "an American President", correct? ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  02:14, November 8, 2009 (UTC)
Nice example Telos, also if players are talking about the event in question there will be lots of names popping up, if a player who doesn't know anything about it, they would obviously go to a site with information on the event and find this wiki. They will not get any names and will still be confused as they were before. Names should be essential in (most) historical events. Bttb333 02:17, November 8, 2009 (UTC)
By the way, there's proof about the Durial321 thing here[1] and from comments made by JMods on the forums. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  03:16, November 8, 2009 (UTC)
Hate to break it to you, but Youtube videos aren't exactly reliable sources. Butterman62 (talk) 04:27, November 8, 2009 (UTC)
Also, Jagex would never name names like that. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 04:29, November 8, 2009 (UTC)
@Psycho: So?
@Butterman: True. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  05:27, November 8, 2009 (UTC)
I was just saying that in reply to "and from comments made by JMods on the forums" kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 05:36, November 8, 2009 (UTC)
Oh, okay. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  05:47, November 8, 2009 (UTC)
@Butterman62, I think it can be established that Cursed You and Durial321 where the main players involved. On the day the forums were flooded about Durial. The video is enough evidence IMO for this specific case.

Comment - What about we do this:


  • (99 levels)
  • Untrimmed skillcapes
  • Basically, anything that we cannot prove


  • 200M xp (can be proven)
  • Notable players like Durial and Elvemage
  • The old updates where Jagex announced the marriage/death of certain players.
  • First 99 if proven

I like it. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 15:10, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: I put the first 99s in the keep section if they can be proven. Most people seem to think it best (and I can't really disagree with them). Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 09:10, November 22, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - First 99's should be kept. bad_fetustalk 15:12, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

I second that.   az talk   17:35, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
I like it a lot. But how do we distinguish notable players? We'll need a definition for it. Bttb333 21:09, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
Support Oli's suggestion, but keep the first 99's. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  04:51, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Support All of Oli's suggestions. How can you prove who was first to reach level 99? kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 04:53, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

@Psycho We obviously can't prove a skill like first to 99 attack but we can prove the newer skills by monitoring the high scores.

Comment - I think first 99's should only be kept if they can be proven. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 06:43, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Just because it cannot be proven, it doesn't mean it is not a fact. When we have templates such as {{fact}}, I believe we allow unconfirmed facts to exist in this wiki even if we don't have the "proof" to back it up. If we looked hard enough, we could come up with hard evidence just like the one found in [[Talk:Level 99 skills#99 Dates|Talk:Level 99 skills]]. Diligent users have been monitoring the hiscores to come up with any information whenever something eventful occurs, so we should not brush off their efforts just because they did not document their efforts.   az talk   07:15, November 10, 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm... I suppose you have a point. I'd like to see what others think about 99s. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 19:48, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Though first 99s should be kept if proven, as there's some pretty hard evidence on Talk:Level 99 skills. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 21:22, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Support - As Gaz said, first 99s should be kept if proven, and now there are adventurer's logs, they can prove a player got a certain level even if they're still online. Quest point cape detail.png Brux Talk 22:07, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Support - First 99's should be kept on record, and players such as Cursed You and Durial321 are so relevant to the Falador Massacre, it would be kind of pointless and insulting to the memory of Cursed You to leave him out.--Cheers, Off-hand ascension crossbow.pngYodaAscension crossbow.png 03:59, November 22, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I wouldn't call it insulting... pointless, however, I agree with. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  11:46, November 22, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Compare this and this. The latter is obviously better, as it refers to Durial321 as "Durial321" and Cursed You as "Cursed You", instead of calling them "bug abuser" or "the player", which is dumb in my opinion. Since we know their names, why can't we add it into the article? --Nup(T) 13:55, November 22, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I agree with NuparuMahnika, the current revision of the article is quite different and, in many ways, worse than the latter one. I think names that important should be kept.--Cheers, Off-hand ascension crossbow.pngYodaAscension crossbow.png 16:04, November 22, 2009 (UTC)

Support - It is quite ridiculous that we have to pretend that we do not know which banned players were responsible for the Falador Massacre glitch, when one of the players' names redirects to that article.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) on 23:18, 23 November 2009.

Support - Sounds good. I assume that players like The Old Nite belong in the category of "marriage/death of certain players"?  Tien  22:43, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

I personally would say no, since there was no mainpage announcement about their death. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 20:55, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
Uh, have there been players whose deaths have been announced on the main page?  Tien  16:16, November 26, 2009 (UTC)
Yes, a long time ago... Hello71 02:53, November 27, 2009 (UTC)
Marriages: Update:In low HP, and in health, Update:Wedding bells at Jagex! (he was a Jmod though), Update:Runescape romance turns real.
Death: Siw39.
So there were updates telling us (well, people playing back then) about marriages and deaths of people. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 09:50, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Support per all. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 19:54, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I think we should include the #1 user in the hiscores for a specific skill on the skill pages. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 19:54, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

The number 1 is usually the first to reach 200 million xp, so that is pretty much already covered in the Keep section. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 21:53, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - This post is essentially a "bump", as I feel this is an important topic and I wish to see the issue resolved. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  02:14, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - If it contains any superlative (PROBABLY NOT first,PROBABLY best,PROBABLY hardest, etc) then it's subjective, meaning don't use it. Otherwise, feel free to name a player. --Fruit.Smoothie 04:10, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

How is 'first' subjective? If I say that Zezima was the first to get 99 slayer (he was), how is that an opinion? Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 10:40, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
because in statistics there's something called probability. there's always a probability that he wasn't the 1st. but it's probable that he was. therefore, i am probably wrong when i say first is a superlative. thereafter, you are probably right. i probably will stop writing right now. probably. Fruit.Smoothie 00:56, December 28, 2009 (UTC)
It can be proven with images... They're all around the Internet. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 17:31, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per Oli Swiz Talk Review Me 22:44, December 26, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per Oli, but I also think that "first solo'ed by:" should also be mentioned Makxtrl Talk 19:16, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

I strongly think that it should not, because it cannot definitively be proven. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 22:34, January 2, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, you are right... I thought that a simple video would make it... but, we have no way to know if someone has already solo'ed it without even uploading a video Makxtrl Talk 04:24, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 16:33, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support - per Oli Fishing.png NnK Oliver (600613) talk 04:19, January 3, 2010 (UTC)

strong support - per oli, and there is many who know which users did what and we should name them. Smithing Supawilko 12:25, January 3, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Show:

  • Instances where there is players who are well known for something IE "Slayerbelle is generally accepted as the first person to achieve an untrimmed Slayer cape"
  • Players who are famous (Cursed_You, Sixfeetunder, Durial321, etc)
  • First 99s, etc
  • Jagex mentions

No show:

  • Anything not falling under those

Davidyang201 21:00, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

What is 'famous'? There are many definitions of it. I personally don't know ANY of the famous people you mentioned. scoot4.pngscooties 23:55, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
If you're a regular user of the wiki, you should know who all of those players are. However, if you're new to both the wiki and the game, then I suppose you couldn't have known. Lol Take a look at the Falador massacre and Party hat duplication glitch articles. You learn something new every day!  Tien  00:11, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
Bleh, I forgot that the Falador massacre article doesn't name any players. Both Cursed_You and Durial321 were involved in it.  Tien  00:17, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
Cursed You was also a very well known duel arena staker. I THINK he used to stake things like Santa Hats. But if this new policy happens, we won't be able to say that, right? Swiz Talk Review Me 09:09, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
Where would there be the need in an article to call Cursed you a suscessful staker?? Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 09:26, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not saying we need one, but with this policy we wouldn't be able to create it Swiz Talk Review Me 11:04, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

(Resetting indent) If it is a widely accepted fact by the community and it's at least 95% certain it's fine. They has to be at least some level of certainty if there is no solid proof (pictures or stuff jagex says). scoot4.pngscooties 20:37, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

No. Just no. How is it in any way useful, relevant and most importantly provable that they were a staker? They're famous (infamous?) for causing the Falador Massacre, not for that! Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 21:47, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, he was not famous for being a staker, but it is still an interesting fact and I think stuff like that should be included - provided it can be proven. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  07:15, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
Where would you put it? On the staking article? That would be out of place. But what other articles do we have about Cursed You? Only Falador Massacre, and it would be even more out of place there. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 08:17, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I meant if an article about Cursed You existed. Since it doesn't, maybe put in brackets that he was also well known for high staking? I don't know. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  08:26, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
I like your idea (it would make our articles even more complete), but I just don't think that it would be possible to do this. There isn't any article where it wouldn't be out of place. And what about the other stakers? People would just put "he's a famous staker/videomaker/singer/whatever" on articles that have something to do with those players. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 08:31, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
The biggest problem with creating player articles or mentioning players is that users will go "But X player is also famous!", regardless of whether they're ACTUALLY famous. I personally believe we should be able to create player articles, but we'd first need some strong guidelines on who classifies as "famous". ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  08:48, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
The main reason we don't make articles about players is that those people might not want pages about them to be created. How would you like if somone made an article about you and put things on it that you want to keep to yourself? Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 17:56, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
That is a good point. Yes, I would feel violated. However, do we happen to actually know any information about these famous/infamous players that they want to keep to themselves? ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  21:12, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
I was paraphrasing a sentence from RS:PDDA - because we're a free-to-edit wiki, people could just edit information that could be true, but which isn't very nice and could be untrue. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 21:20, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
So remove any information that is not common knowledge or cannot be confirmed. If some random user/IP adds that "Zezima lives in Germany" we can delete it because there is no way to prove this. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  10:49, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
But how do we decide who is famous enough to have an article, and who isn't? Exactly - we cannot do so objectively. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 17:40, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
Maybe run a poll (e.g. Have you heard of X player)? If over half of the users vote "yes", we make an article. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  09:58, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
I really think that making articles about players is a bad idea. I think that we don't morally have the right to write whatever we want about them, without their permission. And if they write about themselves, it will hardly be NPOV. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 11:14, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
That's fair enough, and you're entitled to your opinion. However, I still think we should abolish RS:PDDA and allow articles on particularly famous players. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  11:34, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
Polls shouldn't be used for this sort of thing. Anyone could change the vote in their favour if they wanted to by creating sockpuppeting. C.ChiamTalk 11:37, January 10, 2010 (UTC)
Wut he sed. I fully agree with what RS:PDDA says; I think that creating player articles would be immoral. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 19:49, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

I believe particularly well-known players should be allowed to be mentioned in articles relating to them, but articles specifically about the player themselves should not be allowed. --Kkpl0x 03:10, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - No articles on players. We know too little about the players and it's a big deal defining who's notable and who's not. Players should be mentioned in articles if they are notable for that subject, and, as I said a while ago, they must be adequately sourced so it doesn't seem like we put them in the article on a whim. 20px‎ Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 00:15, January 16, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - It seems the consensus is to add Durial and Cursed You's names back into Falador Massacre, but not create articles about them. If there is no further opposition I'll go ahead and do this. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  01:24, January 16, 2010 (UTC)

Comment- I'm new to this discussion, but I would like to share my opinion on the whole making articles about players and abolishing the RS:PDDA rule. I think we can all agree that there are certain players in this community that have established a title for themselves, such as Zezima. I am 100% sure that if you go and ask any player in Runescape (maybe not newcomers) that they would know who Zezima is. However, if we do add Zezima, than I'm guessing that everyone would start the debate about whether or not lesser known players should be added (Old Nite, Gertjaars, etc....), which would in turn start a debate about players creating pages about themselves.

My stance is that we should create a new organization within the Runescape Wiki System, A Supreme Court, if you will. Don't ask me how we shall elect members, the rules, and all those other questions, cause I don't know. This is just an idea and I'm asking for your opinion on it.Red Dog31 23:33, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

The biggest problem with that is that it violates our All Editors Are Equal policy, so some people might feel unfairly excluded. He has knocked four times. 23:36, January 19, 2010 (UTC)
A Supreme Court? What would it do? Community discussion is very important, and making a Supreme Court would, as Sir Revan said, violate RS:AEAE and make it seem that some editors are more important than others. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 22:28, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I'd actually support the abolishment of PDDA - I've never agreed with it. If creating articles on famous players violates AEAE, then so does mentioning them in articles. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 16:27, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I believe this discussing was caused by me. Some months ago, I tried to remove the name because no players can be named here on wiki. Soon after that, a moderator reverted the edit back to original, not even giving a reason why (this is common).

Um, I've also found a major glitch (106 with dds, weapon change) myself, which i can prove. Even so, my name can't be here on the wiki either - so why should durial's? because hes a glitcher? because hes first to find this one particular glitch? it's still against policies and none of glitches found and listed on the wiki have player names on them. 08:38, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Because Durial is infamous. Also, could you add a link to the policy you´re referring to? Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 18:31, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - @Oli, okay, you know what, scratch that supreme court bullshit I said. It was retarded and would've been too complex to do. But can I ask you this. Can we put Durial's name back in the article since we seem to be arguing about something else?Red Dog31 19:29, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

When this passes, yes. Btw, the supreme court idea wasn't "retarded" Wink Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 19:36, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

Request for Closure - The proposal seems to have unanimous support, the discussion about any further improvements on it seems to have died down. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 19:36, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support closure - Per above. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  20:04, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support closure - Per aboveRed Dog31 22:08, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

Well, it looks like this discussion has reached its conclusion, therefore Sentry Telos, you may add Durial's name back to the article.Red Dog31 01:46, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

It's up to an admin or bureaucrat to decide whether this should be closed or not, so not yet. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 06:30, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion - Whenever a notable player event happens, like Durial or 200m xp, then there are notmally quiet a few threads on the subject on the forums. One possibility would be to webcite maybe 3 of the threads which were made around the time that the event happened as some kind of source showing that that was how it happened. While it doesn't prove it as true, some evidence is better then no evidence. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 08:34, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

That might work, but three forum threads isn't that much. When something big happens, there's usually about 10 new threads every minute, so instead of 3 it should be at least 25. Also, if there are 5 threads, which would you cite? Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 21:24, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
Do you really want this: Evil yanks managed to be the first player to reach 200mxp in all skills on 14 January 2014 [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] This was achieved through abusing the now infamous "Quiche bug". Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 05:59, February 10, 2010 (UTC)
No, not at all, but what I meant was that, really big, notable things have more than 3 topics. However, citing all those tens of sources would also be too much. *dilemma* Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 21:06, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

Dude, Oliburggraa, we've been waiting for like a week now. I don't see any administrator coming.Red Dog31 20:57, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Evil yanks is an admin. Personally, I can see some conversation still happening so I'd rather not close it at this time. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 21:36, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
I'd have to agree. Somehow, the request for closure sparked more discussion. But discussion is always good Smile Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 21:40, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
I actually came here to close it since there are few admins left who have not given their opinion on this thread and I have never closed a YG thread before. If it wasn't for the request for closure thing, I probably wouldn't have bothered to post on the thread Lol Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 05:55, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - This seems to me really as being a case by case thing. One should just use their best judgment on whether there is enough proof to be mentioned or not. scoot4.pngscooties 04:50, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Discussion is still going on, yes. However, everyone seems to agree that Durial321 and Cursed You should be added back into the Falador Massacre article, so per my comment above (the one about being bold) I will now add their names back. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  06:08, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Going through the history, users keep reverting users who add the names back. Going by the three revert rule, I'll leave it for now, until approval is given. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  06:11, February 10, 2010 (UTC)
This appears to be over.

Request for closure - Construction-icon.png Matt is Me / Harmonising / Lvl 3 skils3 Talk Cooking cape (t).png 08:28, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

Evil Yanks, could u please end this discussion?Red Dog31 16:13, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Request for closure (2) - While I don't really like doing one again, this time discussion has really died down, and I personally think that we've reached consensus. Let's get this job done. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 18:53, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - I was hoping that someone else would do this, I have never archived a YG thread before and this requires policy writing which I am crap at. I added a paragraph on naming player in articles to RuneScape:Players don't deserve articles. Someone who is good at writing should probably rewrite what I wrote. I hope I do this right. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 05:14, March 2, 2010 (UTC)