Forum:RS:G and Non-Interactive Scenery 2

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > RS:G and Non-Interactive Scenery 2
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 20 April 2012 by Urbancowgurl777.

In Forum:RS:G and Non-Interactive Scenery, there was a very rough consensus to do "something" with non-interactive scenery articles. Below are what I believe to be the main options presented by that discussion.

  1. Allow all non-interactive scenery to have an article.
  2. Loose restrictions on the types of non-interactive scenery allowed to have an article. In addition, please specify the guidelines you believe would be most suitable.
  3. Strict and specific restrictions on the types of non-interactive scenery allowed to have an article. In addition, please specify the guidelines you believe would be most suitable.
  4. Status quo - Continue to disallow articles on non-interactive scenery.

If you missed the link above, here it is again. Wink

Discuss, 222 talk 07:39, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

For reference: Runescape:Granularity


Status quo - As per the reasons I already mentioned cumulatively in the previous discussion. I fail to see why we can't just mention the scenary inside the article about the location it's found in, if it's really significant. For example, if there statue in the middle of Falador is so special, mention it in the Falador article (I haven't checked, but I wouldn't be surprised if it already is there). If you can't think of a reason to mention the tables on the page about the bar they're found in, perhaps they don't really need a page of their own. Hofmic Talk 08:17, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

Support 1 - If we are a wiki for all things RuneScape, we should have the capability of doing this. Hair 21:43, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

Support 1 - We're the wiki for everything RuneScape. We either change our tagline or allow this. Can't have both. ɳex undique 22:44, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I'm all for expanding our page base to include scenery, but if we're serious about this I think we'd best start with interactive scenery. ʞooɔ 23:08, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

This would probably be a better idea, test run with the interactive scenery before we move onto the non interactive What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 23:27, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

Support 2/3, Partially However, if you did that, there would be a lot of people who go created pages like, rocks, bushes, hanging painting, the amount of non-interactive scenery that I'm assuming you mean with examines, would probably double the pages of what we already have.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cire04 (talk) on 17:13, February 21, 2012.

Support 3 - If it's significant or unique, then add it. As such, the likes of bushes or tables wouldn't get an article, but the likes of Beefy Bill's trailer, being unique as in it is only in 1 location and is used only by Bill, would What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 23:19, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

Support 4 - Per Andorin in the last thread. I am still not convinced that it's good resource management to do this until I see we have information on things like interactive scenery. --LiquidTalk 02:48, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

Support 1/2 - Let's do as much as possible, but not overdo it. Overdoing it is Bush (Lumbridge 1), Bush (Lumbridge 2), Bush (Falador east), Bush (Falador north), etc. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 14:27, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

That would still be disallowed per RS:G, as that would be the same as creating an article for each dose of a potion. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 16:37, February 22, 2012 (UTC)
Thank Zaros. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 06:36, February 27, 2012 (UTC)

Support 4 - Let's make interactive scenery articles first, like cook said, and if that works out, start thinking about non-interactive. For common scenery such as rocks or bushes, I think we should use common sense and create those anyway, as those are quite important, but for almost all other non-interactive scenery parts, I think we should make those articles when we're about complete on interactive ones. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 16:37, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

Support 1 - I don't see any reason not to have information on scenery. Also, I disagree that it's "horrible resource management". I'd say this is more important than "OMG THIS IMAGE HAS ONLY 2X AA I SHOULD SPEND 2 HOURS TO MAKE A NEWER ONE" bad_fetustalk 16:38, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

Question - Would pelicans and Estrith be considered non-interactive scenery?  Tien  15:15, February 23, 2012 (UTC)

I think that should be determined based on whether jagex classifies them as scenery or not. If their right-click text is blue, they should be considered scenery whereas they should be considered NPCs if their right-click text is yellow. That said, we could also try using common sense to determine whether something is scenery or not. However, considering the vast amount of 'scenery' present in-game, that would just lead to pointless discussions in many cases. Just my two cents. bad_fetustalk 19:21, February 23, 2012 (UTC)
Those are non-interactive NPCs, which are allowed to have articles about. (I'm sure we have more articles about non-interactive NPCs, but I couldn't think of any) JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 08:15, February 24, 2012 (UTC)
Shady Character, Jeremy Clerksin, Puffin, Category:Non-interactive characters... Lol User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 06:36, February 27, 2012 (UTC)

Strong support 1 - Resource management is a joke... We ain't a sort of factory are we??? People come on here to edit whatever they want freely... If someones feels that the statue in lumbridge requires a article, let them write it. There's no harm in doing that what so ever... Chess has pretty much said it himself; Currently, there is so little to do, that we're worried about AA on some pictures, it's not as if the wiki will fall apart because of this. RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 14:07, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

Support 3 (or maybe 2) - I think that some scenery deserve articles, and some deserve to just be shoved on a page that lists all the scenery, categorised by 'type'. I was supportive at first, but now I think this will just become a mess unless monitored and will take a lot of effort for minimal return. Chicken7 >talk 23:12, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

Support 1 - Per Nex. Telos 11:19, February 26, 2012 (UTC)

Support 3 - If we allow all scenery to get articles, the stubs category will get spammed with pages. I'll change my stance if someone manages to write an article on for example, a rock that isn't 2 sentances long.. Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 17:12, February 26, 2012 (UTC)

[[w:Scratchpad:Rocks_(RuneScape)|I ''did'' try]]. Hofmic Talk 02:32, February 27, 2012 (UTC)
That's a pretty sorry attempt. I admit you won't be able to write much, but you can get more than just: a rock. ɳex undique 22:50, February 27, 2012 (UTC)
Of course if you're writing about something like a rock you won't be able to write much. Should that decide the fate of all the scenery in RS? I could easily write a few sentences on the statue in Lumbridge or the display case of a certain carpet. ɳex undique 22:50, February 27, 2012 (UTC)
Of course my "rock" is a joke. It's just pointing out that proposal 1 is kind of ridiculous. And I'm not against mentioning non-interactive scenery of note (such as statues; who is it of?), but I don't think they need their own article. The few lines tops about the statue in Lumbridge could easily go in the Lumbridge article. The display case of that special carpet could be mentioned in the Al Kharid palace article, and could then link to the article about the incident. Hofmic Talk 06:33, February 28, 2012 (UTC)
Who says that they're so insignificant? Should we get rid of all non-interactive NPCs and interactive scenery? What about all of the "insignificant" articles that we have on NPCs? All of them could very easily be explained on other articles, but we find them important enough to merit their own. If the developers took time and effort to create and release (and when necessary, update) scenery, I don't see how it should be any less important.ɳex undique 21:34, February 28, 2012 (UTC)

Support 3, for now - A "soft start" with only scenery which is non-interactive by normal means but can be interacted with some other way (tables, the statue of a king from Lumbridge, fountains, the air obelisk) and scenery with some sort of significance to the in-game story (statues, ritual stone, possibly certain graves) feels like a good first stage. After that, I might support anything which has a name that appears when right-cicking, depending on how heavy a task that will turn out to be. -Hourglass (2011 Hallowe'en event) detail.png I Am Me Talk III The Spark.png- 19:46, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

Support 4 - See no reason to saturate decent content with frivolous articles. --Henneyj 18:19, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

Question - Does anyone else want to say anything? It seems people are leaning towards #1 or having common-sense-restrictions right now. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 21:10, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

Make a few big pages containing a bunch of objects in them - That should equate to less stub pages on the wiki being made. Smuff [cite your sources or die] 19:53, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Support 3/4 - As it has been said before, Rule 5: Stick to the Status Quo! We need to expand on other topics before this is even a plausible idea. --クールネシトーク 23:27, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

{{RfC|No discussion for 3 weeks}}cqm talk 14:06, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - RS:UCS should be practiced here - we don't need to go make a bunch of useless stubs all at once, and we don't need to go make Lumbridge bush (1), Lumbridge bush (2) and so on. #1, allowing all non-interactive scenery, will be implemented. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 19:32, April 20, 2012 (UTC)