Forum:Removal of phrase

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Removal of phrase
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 14 April 2011 by Degenret01.

This page concerns the addition of the phrase "The information contained within this article should not be considered fully accurate until the article contributor(s) have removed this tag" on Template:Under Construction. I have removed the inaccurate and redundant phrase once, but my removal has been reverted.


1. It is made useless by RuneScape:General disclaimer. There, it says: "No information can be taken as definitive just because it appears on this website." The disclaimer already warns people that information on this Wiki is not fully accurate just because it appears on this Wiki (regardless of the article or circumstance). Mentioning that the article under construction should not be considered fully accurate is useless because users are already warned that information on this Wiki is not definite nor necessarily accurate (due to vandalism etc.).

As Hyenaste interpreted the template's usage: "My interpretation of the UC template is that the information on a listed article is not guaranteed to be accurate."[1] This is exactly what the disclaimer is for.

2. All pages on this Wiki are edited by the community, including the pages under construction, regardless as to whether its under construction or not, and they all may be inaccurate because of this (which is implied in the General disclaimer). I mean, you don't see articles that are rarely edited with a template that warns that the info contained within that article should not be considered fully accurate, and it would be unsuitable to create one to warn users of this. This further shows the phrase's uselessness.

3. Finally, the phrase is inaccurate. This phrase says that an article should be considered accurate if the tag itself is removed, which is not always the case. If an article was vandalized, for example, it definitely should not be considered accurate. No article that contains obviously inaccurate info (such as "everyone sucks cock") should even be though of as being accurate (obviously, LOL), let alone considered.

My suggestion is that the mentioned phrase be rewritten so it is not inaccurate and useless or removed. And just a note, please do not discuss the template's usefulness or whether or not it should be deleted on this forum, discuss it elsewhere. Thank you, Smithing 23:50, March 30, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion[edit source]

Strongly oppose - Being a wiki, of course there are times when pages might be vandalized and have incorrect information. Everyone coming here knows that up front, and seeing "obvious vandalism" the reader will know it not to be correct. A new major article is a different breed entirely. As we proceed with these new quests we discover things that work and things that do not, but sometimes things work that were not supposed to, or we miss a step or 3 or 5. We are obligated to alert our reader that this article is not what we consider a mostly finished work, and to proceed with caution. This phrase is very important in doing so. If you would read the change by change by change of a new quest, you will see how this is so. Ignoring the vandalism (which is rampant on these new articles), information is expanded and fixed at an incredible rate. This phrase has been in use for some time and does a good job of helping our readers I believe. Note that we do not use this tag on simple item pages or NPCs, only large works. It is relevant and necessary.--Degenret01 00:19, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. All information should be attained from reliable sources. If they are attained from reliable sources, the info on an article would not be factually inaccurate, even if it is later found not to be true (factual inaccuracy means an article contains info which is wrong according to reliable sources). You also ignore my point 3, which says this phrase itself is inaccurate (due to vandalism etc., which you also seem to ignore). No information on articles should be speculation, they should be based on sources such as SalsRealm etc. Smithing 03:15, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
Sals is not a source. Only what we learn in-game, or obtain from the game guide, is a source. And the game guide is not always accurate either. I ignore points not worth responding too.--Degenret01 03:32, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
On a slightly unrelated point, is information that sites receive from being on Jagex's gold/plat fansite list counted as factual information or still just speculation? - [Pharos] 03:39, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
I fail to see how a claim that says that the phrase itself is inaccurate with evidence should be ignored (usually when someone ignores a claim they don't have anything to argue against it). And it doesn't matter as long as the info is obtained from reliable sources. SalsRealm is a reliable source, and can be used (for facts likely to be disputed etc., as it has good editorial oversight). And FYI, a new quest can have the current tag placed on them, to warn users that info may change as more info on the quest is learned. And missing a step 3 or 5 would only make the article incomplete, not inaccurate. And as I said in point 2, every article including those that are under construction are edited by users, so every article has a chance of having inaccurate phrases or words (and not all articles under UC have been created recently, some are very old). But we don't put these warning on every article, it's already taken care of in the general disclaimer. 13:12, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
Sals is not a source in the same way that we and wikipedia are not sources - they're collections of information from elsewhere presented nicely. That's also ignoring that its woefully out-of-date (almost a year since the biggest update to RuneScape for years, and they have nothing on it? Yeah, amazing source). The sources for the wiki are official Jagex outlets - the newsposts, dev blogs, game guide, twitter, facebook, etc. Other fansites are only going to repeat that, possibly in a more readable way. Yes, Jagex are wrong sometimes, but that doesn't imply that any fansite is right. They have the final say in everything. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 13:42, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
Yea it is, as it has good editorial oversight, regardless. An no, Jagex doesn't have the final say. If every source (The New york times etc.) disagrees with what Jagex posted, then we don't listen to Jagex, but what every other source is saying, as Jagex would most definitely be wrong in that case (say there were 1000 that said otherwise, it would be completely foolish to listen to Jagex over 1000 reliable sources). Smithing 13:48, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
Barely. I could probably go find missing or incorrect info for you if you like. The main thing is that the reliable sources that Wikipedia may use - such as the NYT - are irrelevant here. There are no other sources for RuneScape outside of Jagex outlets. Other fansites are not a source. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 14:01, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
No, sources not from Jagex are used, or referred to, just see the RuneScape article. Not allowing sources from other websites limits the info this wiki can hold, as it doesn't allow topics such as the reception to be added, which is useful. Smithing 14:07, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
Let's assume the writer of a book knows best what's in his own book, and the fans only know what they have read in the book. Then doesn't the writer of RuneScape (so Jagex) know best what's in their own game, and the fans only know what they have seen in the game. So Sals knows as much as, or probably even less, than we know about things in-game. And I don't care if Sals, the New York Times, BBC, Zybez,, RHQ, Wikipedia, the president, and whoever more all say a Rune scimitar has lower stats than a Bronze scimitar, I assume that if Jagex goes against all those reliable resources (with the president as exception Wink) Jagex is still right because they know best what's in their own game. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 14:37, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
You never know. A rune scimmy might get lower stats someday. But in your example the work itself would be unreliable, and should not be cited, as it's clearly not true. A reliable source is one that can be trusted (Jagex is one example), and the source can't be trusted if it states something like that (just like Jagex can't be trusted if it contains obviously false info). It is for editors to decide what is reliable based on editorial oversight of the source in question etc. (Sals barely fits that criteria) But I personally think that obvious stuff doesn't need to be cited such as a bronze scimmy having lower stats than a rune scimmy, only stuff that is questionable. I get what you mean, however. Smithing 15:00, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
This is completely off-topic from the template conversation, but I believe there are (rare) times in which citing a non-wiki fansite such as Sal's would be a good idea. When there's nothing else, it's better than citing nothing at all (very common yet often ignored), or worse, citing another RuneScape Wiki article, which, unfortunately, I see all the time. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 00:11, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Degen nailed it - [Pharos] iPhone Edit 00:42, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Do you expect every visitor to read the general disclaimer? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 01:14, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

I've had an account for what? 3 years? And i still haven't read it :D - [Pharos] 01:33, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
Just an FYI, not reading something important is a pathetic excuse for anything. In fact, it isn't an excuse at all. Do you expect every visitor to read every single one of our policies? No, but that doesn't mean we don't take action against them when they violate them. Do you expect anyone to read Wikia's terms and conditions before creating an account? No, but that doesn't mean they aren't automatically agreeing to them and required to abide by them when they create that account. Andrew talk 01:36, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
This is not about violating anything. This is about the fact people should not believe everything they see on the wiki. I don't really see what actions should be taken against people believing everything they see on the wiki. And even if this would be about violating, shouldn't we try to be as user friendly as possible? If we are going to let visitors read all those pages, that doesn't really make us user friendly. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 01:57, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
.....please show me where I said that this is about violating anything. That was clearly a mere example to show that not reading something isn't an excuse. Nothing more, nothing less. Andrew talk 02:01, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but in line with your example, is there any harm in increasing awareness of a policy? We're just assuming everyone has read it, but keeping those lines in just to make sure :) - [Pharos] 02:04, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
I'm neither supporting nor opposing this proposal right now. I'm simply pointing out why not reading something isn't an excuse. You can find other reasons to justify keeping those lines in, as Degen has done. Andrew talk 02:10, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

I am somewhat insulted Ghosty likened Smithing's writing abilities to my own, because they are not. Nevertheless, his ultimate point is valid: The information contained within this article should not be considered fully accurate is poor phrasing—information here should not ever be considered fully accurate, tagged or otherwise. Further, the general response in this thread references new articles, but this template isn't really for new articles: we have {{Current}} for that. This template seems to be for use on pages which are being udpated but are not pages discussing newly introduced content. For my money, this template is stupid and needless: sandboxes exist for a reason and misinformation should never be inserted during a large revision. We should deprecate this template and instead add language to the effect of "be wary of the information on this page even more than usual" to {{Current}}. (wszx) 00:30, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

I don't feel that Current should replace Under Construction, because the scope of use for the templates do not overlap. The Current template is mainly used to indicate that an event is live, and re-occuring events like BXPW wouldn't necessarily be tagged Under Construction every time the event occured. Old Smithy 19:44, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
My point is that they should be merged because there is no legitimate reason to use this template. (wszx) 23:07, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Support I don't aggree with removing the line completely, but I fell that the line should be re-written so that it doesn't look like it's in conflict with RuneScape:General disclaimer. Old Smithy 19:44, April 4, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Per Pharos, Degen, and the rest. I think some looking over might be due for the notice, but it is still serving it's purpose, It might help a user realize that we don't have the full details, or the quest guide is still being made, etc. Because a large numbers of users in my clan just log on the wiki to just look at one articles, not check out the main page, policies, etc. Spamnub 16:12, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not stating that this template should be removed, only the phrase should be reworded or removed (and stating per the rest is not a valid one, as some people agree that it should be removed/rewritten). I, myself, agree that this template should stay as well. Smithing 19:52, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

Remove "until this tag has been removed" - Removing this will still effectively say the same thing, without implying that it will be accurate when removed. --Henneyj 18:53, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

I would be satisfied with that change, as it would make the statement accurate. Smithing 19:52, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - The line "..until this tag has been removed.." has been removed, the Template will otherwise remain.--Degenret01 03:12, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

Since some people seem to be getting their knickers in a knot over this, I likewise support the closing of this with that course of action, and will do it if people continue to wet themselves over degen doing it. ajr 03:31, April 14, 2011 (UTC)