Forum:Players don't deserve articles explanation

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Players don't deserve articles explanation
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 14 March 2011 by Cook Me Plox.

After spending a lot of time thinking up of a new reasoning that can explain why the policy at RuneScape:Players don't deserve articles is in place (that is fair), I've come up with one. Please voice you agreement or disagreement.

"Every player is equal, and no player is more deserving than another to have an article. However, it is completely unreasonable to have articles on the over 156 million registered accounts[1] of RuneScape. Therefore, players don't deserve their own articles."

I hope this will stop unfair reasoning from being added to the policy article, such as "players come and go" etc.

Update: I'm proposing one minor tweak in the above. Instead of every player is equal, I think it should say every player is created equal, to avoid misinterpretation. Smithing 23:05, March 1, 2011 (UTC)


Support - as nominator. Smithing 04:31, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Makes sense to have that as the reason versus the "players come and go" idea. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 04:33, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Great reasoning, and an end to the edit war :) Ajraddatz 04:46, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Is this really necessary? The policy already says not to create articles about players, and explains when and how players are allowed to be mentioned in articles. The entire reasoning is common sense, and I don't see how it really matters in the first place. The policy is clear: don't create articles about players. No one is going to misunderstand that. Andrew talk 04:49, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees with the policy, see RuneScape talk:Players don't deserve articles. This explanation is needed to give the policy weight, and hopefully avoid some more needless discussion on this topic. Smithing 04:58, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
If someone doesn't agree with a policy, adding an explanation isn't going to stop them from discussing it. People will always disagree and discuss. If I were a congressman and I didn't agree with a bill that was being voted on, explaining it more wouldn't make me suddenly change my vote to yes. Andrew talk 22:02, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
It's true it won't stop discussion. However, there will still be less discussion, as people will better understand why this policy is still in effect here, while other sites such as Wikipedia do not have this policy. Adding an explanation reveals to users from other sites and this one the reasoning behind it. For example, if I was trying to change a law, I can't just expect to say "the law is to be changed" and expect to get anything out of it. Rather, reasoning has to be provided as well. I've heard all of the arguments for this player policy, and this one seems to be the only one that is fair to me to be quite honest. However, what it all boils down to is: Would adding this reasoning be useful or not useful?, not whether or not it is necessary. And in this case it would be useful, so there's no reason not to add it.Smithing 03:33, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
Clearly you've brushed aside what I said and declared that this amendment is 100% undeniably useful, no matter what anyone else says, so it's pointless to oppose. I am not going to waste my time debating with someone that claims to be all-knowing and have the ability to decide what is and isn't "beneficial" to this wiki on behalf of everyone else. Andrew talk 21:12, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
I'm just trying to use common sense, I realize not everyone will agree with me and now that I look back at it, I shouldn't have took part in the edit conflict (wasn't thinking straight due to stress, nothing such as that will be happening again, I assure you). I also do not believe I'm all-knowing, and believe consensus rules, and it really angers me you're making assumptions about me that are not true (may I ask you to remove that last sentence, please). Now let's get back on topic. I don't think necessity is a good reason because it is far too harsh. For example, it is not necessary to have legs or hands in order to live, nor playing sports for that matter. That doesn't mean it's not useful to have real hands and legs, instead of prosthetic ones. Therefore, I think usefulness should be considered, not necessity. Smithing 22:03, March 1, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not removing anything. My "assumptions" are all based solely off of what you've said in this discussion. Your comment right above this is fine. You've explained why you don't agree with my reasoning and what your opinion is. Before you were basically coming across as saying, "Your argument is invalid; therefore, you have no reason to oppose," and I don't take too kindly to that. Andrew talk 03:50, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me how I can improve my interactions with people. However, I definitely do not like the fact you are making assumptions about me that are false; please don't be inconsiderate. Instead of making worthless assumptions (seemingly to get back at me), I suggest you offer suggestions on how I can improve. Smithing 21:04, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Does it have to be so specific? What it has now if fine. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 23:01, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

Specificity never, ever hurts... Ajraddatz 23:27, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
I also wouldn't say that it's "fine" right now. I personally don't like the wording of the entire policy and think it really needs a rewrite. Suppa chuppa Talk 23:30, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
The source for that number is 2 years old and has probably changed. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 00:41, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
There is a source from 1 month ago that says RuneScape has around 150 million registered accounts (this can be changed to tens of millions if appropriate),[2] but the point still remains. As Ajraddatz said specificity doesn't hurt, rather, it helps make the point the point much clearer. The inclusion of this material only helps; it's not useful not to include this info. And I completely agree with you, Suppa chuppa. Smithing 03:33, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
I tried to say specificity and got hurt in the process... Henneyj 05:54, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
Apologies. Smithing 21:04, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Sounds better. Suppa chuppa Talk 23:30, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Edit waring should hopefully stop with this. There doesn't seem to be a reason to prevent adding this information. Ryan PM 00:29, March 1, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - As I said above, unnecessary. Andrew talk 02:21, March 1, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think necessity is a good argument. I think the real question is whether or not this is useful and beneficial to this Wikia. Approval of this will put a definite stop to an edit conflict, and give the policy weight, so it's definitely useful. Smithing 03:33, March 1, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Yeh, that's a good reason. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 07:41, March 1, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Not all players are equal. It's obvious that Zezima is more important than some noob fresh off Tutorial Island. How equal players are does not matter - it's whether people would actually care about reading an article about them. (To be honest, I don't think this rule should exist at all, but the current explanation for it is better than the proposed one.) White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 22:19, March 1, 2011 (UTC)

Do you want to maybe rephrase that first part, where you say players are not equal? I think what you are referring to is notability, which is a whole different issue, and members of this wiki can not agree upon. And yes, I don't agree on the rule myself, just find this explanation makes more sense than players come and go (which isn't useful, as there are many articles on skills that came and went on this wiki, and no-one believes they should be deleted). Smithing 22:42, March 1, 2011 (UTC)
Jagex banned Cursed You for real world trading and he had 99 construction. Although both Cursed You and a new user have different stats, they both stand in the same plain when it comes to equality in-game. Smuff [kthnxbai] 21:53, March 3, 2011 (UTC)
First of all, Cursed You isn't at all equal to a new player. Why is everyone thinking that RS:AEAE applies in the game world? Cursed You has a higher total level; ask any RS player, I'm sure they'd agree that someone with a 99 level is better, gaming-wise, than someone fresh from Tutorial Island. Second of all, even if Cursed You was equal to some random new player, this rule is not about total levels, player equality, or anything similar. It's about notability. Would you want articles on every single player that has ever joined RuneScape? Of course not. Does that mean you wouldn't enjoy reading a few articles about some of the more important players to RS history, such as Cursed You, Zezima, Durial321, and others? Nope. I know I may sound like I'm trying to protest the policy, but my point is that the reason for the current policy should not be this silly idea. With your logic, we should either include an article for every JMod or delete all of the ones that currently exist. We should also abolish every single exception from RS:G and include articles on every single miscellaneous, examine-only object in the game. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 01:40, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Per everyone else. Also, to the opposers: If Zezima gets an article, Nooblet4579 gets one too. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 05:58, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Why? There's no reason why we should make an article about a no-name player, same reason why Wikipedia doesn't have articles on every single person that ever existed. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 20:52, March 3, 2011 (UTC)
Your definition of no-name is different than mine. I personally don't give a rip about players like Zezima, he's just some random dude in my book. However, players who I really look up to are ones who you've never even heard of. It's all subjective. (: sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 20:57, March 3, 2011 (UTC)
I don't particularly care if we have player articles or not, however, I'd argue that "I don't care about famous players" argument is invalid. For example, I don't care about Justin Bieber, but he still has a wikipedia page. The same thing could apply here. bad_fetustalk 20:59, March 3, 2011 (UTC)
Then why bother having this conversation at all? sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 21:02, March 3, 2011 (UTC)
Justin Bieber has a mass amount reputable sources for information on his page. Aside from the hiscores, no RS player has that (with the exception of Zezima and his BaF quote, but if we were to strictly follow the no unsourced info rule, he would only have that on the page). Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 21:11, March 3, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Because players, like editors are equal Korasi's sword.png Archmage Elune  TalkHS Void knight deflector.png fetus is my son and I love him. 07:38, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

That policy changed. It doesn't apply here. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 16:45, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Nothing wrong with the current version. bad_fetustalk 15:06, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Support-ish - Are characters created by honest players equal to characters created with the sole purpose of botting, scamming, or auto-typing? I think the "All players are equal/created equal" part should be removed, since it is controversial. The rest of the explanation is good.

If anything, you should remove the "However" in the second sentence and replace it with something more appropriate ("In addition" or something), as nothing in the second sentence is being contrasted with the first.  Tien  15:38, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

I agree for the most part. I'll use you ideas to make a later update to the explanation. Smithing 21:04, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Current version is fine. HaloTalk 23:44, March 3, 2011 (UTC)

Support - If inserted in current version. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 17:25, March 5, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - people may enjoy reading articles such as these, it's always nice to obtain information whenever you can. besides, we have such a large userbase patrolling the recent changes at any given time, that it's quite obvious when an article about a player will go noticed or not. nothing wrong with trivial information, the wiki is about that isn't it? one day we're going to have to transition to articles about players anyways, although it likely won't be happening, but who knows? can't be anachronistic. Fruit.Smoothie 17:15, March 12, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I'm neutral as long as policy is kept to rule out personal pages. Imdill3 21:01, March 12, 2011 (UTC)

The personal images actually come under RS:NOT#HOST rather than the players policy. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 22:52, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

Closed No consensus. ʞooɔ 22:29, March 14, 2011 (UTC)