Forum:RS:G and Non-Interactive Scenery

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > RS:G and Non-Interactive Scenery
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 21 February 2012 by Thebrains222.

See Forum:Non-interactive scenery for a previous small discussion

We have articles on absolutely everything related to RuneScape. Whether it be a one-time quest item that probably nobody will ever see or incredibly popular content that all of our users have probably read at one point. The only things that we're missing are articles on non-interactive scenery.

The main point against it seems to be: "It's not notable enough to warrant an article. Why would we spend the time making it if no one will ever need to use it?"

Well, we have an article on the Egg-painting machine which I'm quite confident couldn't have been viewed more than 50 times. We also have an article on Gaffit Malore which I'm sure players would never look up. In fact, I'm sure more than half of them forget about the Varrock Census the second that the required quest is over. But we still have them because we're the "wiki for all things RuneScape". They are related to RuneScape in one way or another and, even though they're not even slightly integral to the game, they're still considered notable and therefore deserving of an article.

So why shouldn't non-interactive scenery be considered notable as well? If anything, they're more notable than someone like Boyce Khael. Someone like Boyce is referenced once and then forgotten forever, while non-interactive scenery is everywhere and integral to a player's experience.

I think that non-interactive scenery would be a great addition to our near 20,000 articles and I'm a little surprised that this hasn't been formally brought up in 3 years.

Discussion

Support - As nominator. ɳex undique 02:22, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I've thought about doing this before -- check out this page as my old prototype. While I don't like the argument "some of our articles are unpopular/non-notable so notability isn't important", in a perfect world this would be a great proposal. However, there are some hurdles besides notability:

  • Having enough information to be worth making a page for. As you can tell from my sandbox, there's not all that much information to include.
  • Each one of these scenery objects would most likely require a high-quality picture. It's easy to create a bunch of text pages with release date, examine, location and a couple sentences, but most of the time related to this would be spent taking pictures.
  • There are over 5,000 differently named scenery objects in the game. Do we really have the manpower and the commitment to do something like this?
  • Besides the different names of the scenery, so many of them share the same name. Look around RuneScape, how many "Statue"s will you find? We would have to disambiguate them like crazy.
  • How many people would actually view these articles? Is it worth investing so much time into something that would be useless to most readers?

This is a potentially enormous project that if we ran with it would give us a leg up on every other fansite, although how much I couldn't say. Realistically this would probably mean 6,000+ new articles, but very few of them would have more than a sentence or two of content besides an infobox.

By the way, Don't be so sure that pages aren't popular. ʞooɔ 02:54, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

  • I know that there's not much information, but any info is good info. We don't have much information for music tracks either, but they're still a valued part of our wiki.
  • I think we do have the manpower to make them all. But even if it would take a lot of time to make them all, I think getting consensus to do so is very important. The time it takes to make them shouldn't be an issue, they will eventually get done. I'm not asking that this be a huge project with everybody's time devoted to finishing this as fast as possible. We can take our time making these articles, we're in no rush.
  • Maybe we wouldn't need to disambiguate all of them. We could just have an article on "Large table" and just include all of the large tables on that page.
  • I also think that this would be time well spent. I'm sure that they are players out there that would be interested in seeing stuff like this. If 700 people have seen the egg-painting machine (I still can't believe that =P), people will see these. ɳex undique 03:08, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Support- It doesn't matter if we don't have enough "man power", just think, in the past 6 years, 58,474 articles have been made. That is a lot. I have little doubt that different Non-interactive things can easily be made in to articles in a month to three months. Hair 03:32 UTC, 3,505 days ago

Have you considered just how much non-interactive scenery there is in the game? I wager that if we were to create articles for every possible bit of non-interactive scenery, we'd suddenly add thousands of articles to the wiki, most of which with <1 KB of content. That sounds like a nightmare for creation & maintenance. Why don't we focus on the things we should already be doing, like fixing existing pages and images that suck? --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 04:24, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that we can get some info to add to their articles. Unfortunately, yes, there will be some who have incredibly short articles, but we shouldn't oppose creating any just for this. ɳex undique 13:52, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - [[w:Scratchpad:Rocks (RuneScape)|I tried]]. Hofmic Talk 04:58, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and the reasoning I suspect behind the page views for things like that egg-painting machine is Special:Random. I used to often try and find random pages for an interesting read or to find articles to improve, but I stopped doing that because I kept ending up on useless pages like egg-painting machine. Hofmic Talk 05:08, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
We have a while before we need to decide the format for articles. There is always room for improvement. ɳex undique 13:52, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
I believe the high pages views was because the main Easter page would have got a lot of views during/after the Easter Event, and people may have just clicked on it out of curiosity. Chicken7 >talk 15:02, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

Support - It's not like we have to make all 6000 scenery articles right this instant. At the most this proposal could allow the creation of scenery articles. Can't tell you how many times I've deleted an article/image about random flowers around RuneScape that are non-interactive scenery. If we're going to keep freaking music track articles, not having enough information is not a valid excuse. People on the RSOF compliment us due to the plethora of random information we provide. Non-interactive scenery would fall into that category - I recall helping Cook make the non-interactive scenery infobox and I was honestly interested in the Great Carpet Crash of '76. Not only is it a cool display case of a magic carpet, but it also has Al Kharid lore behind it. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 05:03, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Music track pages have a use: Where do I find this piece of music? But an article about 'reeds'... Hofmic Talk 05:08, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
A collapsible table of music tracks would serve the "where do I find this" purpose, but people insist on keeping them regardless. We don't have to make articles about stupid things like Heather or Reeds. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 05:10, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
How can you just so flippantly decide what is 'stupid' and what is article worthy? The way i see it is its got to be either none or all. Zaros symbol.png KDanger Talk 13:40, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
Since it'd be impossible to quantify, I'd say UCS. Rather have a few useful non-interactive scenery articles than none. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 22:41, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
Bring on the bureaucratic nightmare. Watch as peoples' attention is diverted from adding missing information to articles, updating old images, and resolving neutrality disputes to arguing over whether the fountain at the GE or the tables at the Blue Moon Inn are noteworthy enough for their own articles. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 05:46, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
I can't wait :D sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 05:49, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Why don't we start out by making articles for all interactive scenery first, before starting with the non-interactive scenery? Important stuff like balance logs, bank booths and trapdoors don't even have their seperate articles. We didn't even have a redirect on balance log before now, which shows we haven't really got much information on all interactive scenery yet. I think we should start out making interactive scenery articles first, and then start considering non-interactive scenery, so I oppose making non-interactive scenery's articles for now. My opinion may change if we get articles for all interactive scenery first. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 09:28, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

You're opposing because it's not a high enough priority, but then we'll never be able to do it because we'll always find something that could be more important. We don't need to focus 100% of our manpower on this, we can take it slow. ɳex undique 13:52, December 22, 2011 (UTC)
The rule that scenery shouldn't have articles was originally made because otherwise people might create articles about those things that are so incredibly minor they don't need an article, while you could much better spend your time on more useful things as the item database which wasn't complete by then. Now we have articles about all NPCs and all items, so we can move to the next level of importance, interactive scenery. I agree stuff like statues, rocks and bushes are so incredibly common they deserve an article, but most of the non-interactive scenery is not important enough to get an article for now. As soon as we're (almost) as complete on interactive scenery as how complete we are on NPCs and items now, I think we should have a look at non-interactive scenery again. We can only do one thing at a time, and for now, I think that thing should be interactive scenery. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 21:11, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Support - I think most people are more interested in a tree or a bush or a statue than Keldagrim key mould 4, Guard (Goutweed) or even things of great historical importance such as Garak. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 17:49, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Conditional Support - While i agree we should have articles on SOME pieces of non-interactive scenery. I would estimate that there is over 30000 pieces of non interactive scenery in the game. So we would definitely have to limit ourselves. We should have articles for things such as:

  • Table
  • Ritual Marker
  • Statue (It could have a nice gallery of all the various statues, such as statues of Saradomin, Guthix, and Zamorak)
  • Ruins (Those floating things in the Wilderness Volcano)
  • Pillar (Nobody can deny that these things are notable!)
  • Ancient Pillar
  • Slab (The thing you chip fragments off of)

But we should not have articles for things like:

  • Rock (Seriously, all the information there is to be known about rocks can be seen by just looking at one.. and they are so common that pretty much everyone will have.)
  • Bush
  • Hanging Tapestry
  • Stool

Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 17:37, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Cook said above "There are over 5,000 differently named scenery objects in the game." Your estimation is a bit off. Also, I think it is best not to make a list with everything that gets an article, but just make an article for things that are common, and for things that are notable (so indeed the ritual marker, but also bushes and rocks, those are the most common things in runescape). If you would just use some common sense, we would have articles about notable and common stuff, as long as it actually deserves an article. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 20:05, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand your logic over what gets an article and what does not. ʞooɔ 20:53, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
Well things such as the Ritual Marker, Tables (You can put items on them!) and the Ancient Pillar actually have things that you can talk about. All the information there is to be gained from an article on a Bush can be found out by simply visiting Lumbridge Castle! Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 09:13, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
um... isn't this wiki the place you go to if you don't want to go to runescape itself? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 12:04, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
We either have articles on all the scenery or none. That means, if this were to pass, yes, we would have articles on hanging tapestries and rocks and the like. ɳex undique 14:29, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Partially in reply to Battleben above, but deserving of its own post: what makes "hanging tapestry" not notable? Surely there are multiple types of hanging tapestry, so we can have images of the varieties, as well as descriptions of them and and their locations. Similar arguments can generally be held for many things - surely there are more unique-looking tables that we can cover (the round table in Camelot, for example, though that could get its own article). We can have an article on a generic rock, with information on more interesting ones (e.g. the rock formations north of Falador) on the same page if the info about that one formation does not qualify for its own article. And we can also consider clue scrolls - e.g. the article on picnic tables can mention that the tables near the Legends' Guild feature on a hard map clue, and so on. (This probably could count as a support, but I'm not really addressing whether or not to have the pages, more on what could go on them if they were approved. Also I didn't check any of the names ingame so don't hold that against me, I' just giving examples.) Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 22:28, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

What would you put on an article for hanging tapestry? It's just a bit of scenery in Lumbridge castle. We already have an article for the Standing stones near Falador. Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 09:13, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I already answered that. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 15:19, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

Support - But be sensible. We don't need a different article for every different kind of statue in the game, just one article that might have the images.-- Quest Icon Crest.png Guthix1110 Quest Icon Crest.png 23:41, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Support - However, as per Dragon Kin above, some items just dont warrant an article. Raglough 11:07, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

Weak support - A particular non-interactive scenery used to drive me mad when I was a more newbie player. It was called "will-o-wisp" or something, and it was these random lights that flew around. I never knew what they were, or what they represented, and the wiki never helped me in that regard. To this day, the conundrum of the will-o-wisp continues to bug me. Also, I agree that all the statues can just go under one article named "Statue". Likewise for everything similar. And we don't necessarily need pictures of ALL of them. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 15:02, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

That's just a lack of necessary redirects. The actual name is Will o' the wisp. Wink JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 15:06, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
Hahah, thanks. We somehow categorised that one under NPCs, but that is definitely scenery. It doesn't talk, it doesn't interact. There are heaps of them in random, different places and they all are exactly the same. It's scenery. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 15:10, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
It moves, and when you right click it, its name is in yellow text. Therefor it is an NPC. Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 16:07, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
Changed to Weak Oppose below - Chicken7 >talk 05:59, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral - I thought of his before, and while I do belive it could improve the wiki in some way, I doubt it's worth it. Sure, yes, more information is always better, but I don't even know what those articles would show apart from an image, an examine text, and a name (and possibly locations, although that'd just be ridiculous on most cases). More importantly, I don't see why anyone'd want to read any article on objects. Anyways, as there are no cons to this apart from the time spent, I'm neutral. bad_fetustalk 17:16, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

While I suppose not all scenery is interesting, I suppose there'd be some articles that would attract readers. Since there is no significant harm done, I'm changing to support. bad_fetustalk 06:22, December 26, 2011 (UTC)

Support - There's no harm in doing this RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 18:09, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

Support - I've always been a big supporter of Granularity and I sometimes feel frustrated on other wikis when items are collapsed into long lists (Unofficial Elder Scrolls Pages, for example). None of the other RuneScape fansites have this information, do they? ~ Telos 12:50, December 25, 2011 (UTC)

Support - We already have a splendid article on the humble door, which for some reason or other found its way into my followed pages list many months ago. I wouldn't expect us to harbour a 6.5K byte article for every form of inanimate object/thing, but better to be looking at it than looking for it. Whatever we can collect we should use. As for the granularity aspect, I genuinely feel that it won't be much of an issue. Although I'm sure people are tired of hearing it, if we can UCS, this could be a massive success for the wiki's comprehensive reputation in the future. Ronan Talk 19:19, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

Support - If they can have an article that is more than 1 sentence and an infobox on one of these, then of course they should have an article. If they are just going to be one sentence pages, then they shouldn't have their own article. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 06:42, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose. This looks like it will be an enormous waste of manpower. Creating trivial articles about things people don't care about? The effort could be much better spent improving our existing pages, and believe me, there are a lot of pages that need improvement. Some need spelling and grammar fixes; for example, "the player" is still abundant in our text, as well as random and inappropriate capitalization. Some articles are obsolete and need revising due to one of several recent updates. Still others need complete overhauls in order to be considered acceptably encyclopedic. Oh, and there's plenty of work for you image specialists, too. Obsolete files, images that need transparency, you name it. Seriously, if you're looking for something to do, it's not hard to find something.

However strongly I might hate this proposal, it appears that many of you see merit in it where I do not. Therefore, if it's going to be done, I want it to be done right. I want the criteria that determines the notability of a piece of non-interactive scenery to be hella strict. I absolutely, positively do not want to see hundreds of articles containing an infobox, an image, and one or two lines of text. However, if it can be determined that there are a handful of non-interactive scenery items that are actually worth mentioning, and if we create detailed and genuinely interesting and informative articles about them, then I suppose this could work. But for Pete's sake, be discriminatory. Be very discriminatory. Most of the non-interactive scenery in RuneScape is just not interesting. Don't waste time with it. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 07:20, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

Very weak support in some very narrow cases. Namely (and perhaps this will define the policy that this thread is going to make a bit better):

  • Scenery items that allow interesting expected or unexpected actions to be done; for example, when a rock allows drops from monsters to be taken from it by standing one square away, despite not being walkable, or the fact that a bush allows Hunter to be done by tracking around it.
  • Scenery items that should allow expected actions to happen but don't; for example, when a butterfly around Lumbridge cannot be hunted and other types of butterflies can.
  • Scenery items that are, or have, or have had, glitches. There are already articles on some of them, such as Nothing and null and a section in Door on glitches.
  • A minor mention for scenery items that form the essential content of a quest. For example, the balconies in Defender of Varrock, and the statue of Saradomin in Falador that is part of Garden of Tranquillity.
 a proofreader ▸ 

07:30, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Andorin. I just don't think this is going to be good resource management. --LiquidTalk 13:26, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Again, per Andorin. We had difficulty making the new portal pages work, and that was less than 100 articles. So many of our popular articles are in great need to rewrites and improvement, and our efforts should be focused there. --Aburnett(Talk) 03:38, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what the harm of at least getting consensus is. If need be, I'll even do all of these. I'm not really involved in rewrites or many improvements so it wouldn't be poor resource management. Also, as I said before, we will always have to do rewrites and improvements on existing articles, that won't stop. This seems to be the main argument against it, but I don't really understand why it's such a big deal.ɳex undique 18:50, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
What on earth kind of an argument is that?? "We have better things to do" - that's ridiculous. Tell that to the image editors that only update images that already look good instead of those in the SD category, or to the three people working on portal pages. We all work on different parts of the wiki, and I'd be glad to help make scenery pages. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 23:56, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
@Nex; there's no harm in getting consensus, I simply do not support the proposal. @Urban; The argument that we have better things to do is not at all ridiculous. These articles will add almost nothing of value to the site while requiring work that could be used elsewhere (should editors choose too, no one is being forced to clean up articles). In other words, we have better things to do then make new pages about rocks. However, let me recast my argument. While there's nothing wrong with people working on different parts of our wiki, it seems like a poor idea to add more work with a limited payout. What information will these pages really provide? "A Rock is a piece of scenery found around RuneScape. They look like this." No kidding. How is an article like this valuable to someone visiting our wiki? Although articles like Varrock Census may not be particularly notable, players who do stumble across them are likely to learn something because the feature is so unknown, and because the article arguably has more information then is immediately available in game. How many of these proposed articles will contain more information than what is common knowledge? As far as I can tell, not enough to be worth their addition. --Aburnett(Talk) 01:04, January 12, 2012 (UTC)
And for the record, I do think the music articles should be gone. --Aburnett(Talk) 01:07, January 12, 2012 (UTC)
I think the payout is fine: people learn stuff about the game. We have info on everything else (literally), I don't see why scenery wouldn't be a good addition. Plus, I'm pretty sure we could add more than that (and before it's said, this would be easier to write on than music). ɳex undique 01:10, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. Can you provide any examples about how these articles would provide any information past what people must already know? What else would the articles contain? --Aburnett(Talk) 01:19, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
That shouldn't be a factor. We're a fansite for everything RS related. I'm sure a player could learn all about a spider in literally 5 seconds, but we still have an article on it. We don't need to always present new information, just information in general is good (although I'm sure that some viewers will learn something). Articles could contain pictures, locations, the purpose it serves, etc. ɳex undique 05:32, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
Even though it may take only 5 seconds, a visitor to the spider article is likely to learn something. Information on training, location, drops, and related species is not purely common knowledge. Articles on scenery will not provide any new or unique information and are therefore not a valuable addition. --Aburnett(Talk) 16:43, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - All or nothing is the important factor here, thank you very much. We can't have only some things, that would just be completely incomplete. --クールネシトーク 20:56, January 11, 2012 (UTC)

So let's have all Wink ɳex undique 00:27, January 12, 2012 (UTC)
Now that's preposterously ridicuous, it's simply too much. --クールネシトーク 14:49, January 12, 2012 (UTC)
How is it too much? ɳex undique 01:10, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose per Andorin 16px‎AtlandyBeer.png 16:51, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

Support collectively merged pages - It's a waste of time making individual pages for every single named object in the game, what can you write about a table? However, having around one hundred and something larger pages with collapsible headings (such as Ma-Mo for example) and then a bunch of redirects should make it easier to keep a grip on things. Smuff [kthnxbai] 17:27, January 16, 2012 (UTC)

There are many articles that don't have a lot of content. I think we'll be able to find a way to make these articles well enough so that we don't need collapsed pages. ɳex undique 20:47, February 8, 2012 (UTC)

Weak Oppose (or support collectively merged pages) - I've changed my stance. Although I've traditionally supported the wiki expanding its scope and having more articles, I believe this may be a step too far. This will just create a mess in so many ways. It will be messy trying to be complete and having an article for every scenery piece. It'll be messy with all the extra Requests for deletion, undeletion and merge we will have, as users dispute over what is necessary. It will be messy as our categories, search and navigation will take a huge toll with the large influx of articles that will be hard to categorise. This just won't work very well, and I can't see a huge number of individuals being very interested. Chicken7 >talk 05:59, January 17, 2012 (UTC)

We can add a section on RS:G that states what is necessary to avoid extra RfDs and stuff, and I don't see how categories will be an issue. ɳex undique 20:47, February 8, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - There is a rough consensus to consider allowing non-interactive scenery articles. Discussion on specifics here. 222 talk 07:39, February 21, 2012 (UTC)