Forum:Take Rotten Potato off of blacklist

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Take Rotten Potato off of blacklist
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 13 August 2011 by Suppa chuppa.

RE: Rotten potato

Mod Seven verified its existence at qfc 74-75-790-63078029.Shrugstah 04:29, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

No - It's no different than Jmod boss. It's an item players cannot have, and it can only be found through cheating/runefest videos. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 04:32, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

Support redirect to Nonexistence and protecting - Per Suppa, Coel, and common sense. This is just skimming the line of gathering information from IDs (which the J-mods will mute you for if you talk about them on the forums) and cheating. It doesn't deserve its own article, just a small mention and maybe one picture somewhere. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 19:20, August 8, 2011 (UTC)
Well, it could also be seen on RuneFest, so could be found out about legally. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 09:15, August 9, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I'd support redirecting it to nonexistence and fully protecting. Suppa chuppa Talk 04:34, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

Agree, I was just fixing to do that too, but couldn't decide. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 04:35, August 8, 2011 (UTC)
The problem with that is that it has existed, albeit briefly. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 04:37, August 8, 2011 (UTC)
That's why I couldn't decide. But what it comes down to, for me - players can never have it and never will. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 04:38, August 8, 2011 (UTC)
And nor can players use it. Suppa chuppa Talk 04:39, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - The page has been recreated. It's existence has been verified and the fact that players are not able to obtain it anymore is irrelevant to the existence of a page on the topic. HaloTalk 06:37, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

Reopened - Now, now, let's actually give people some time to discuss the issue. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 18:31, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

Support redirecting to Nonexistence and protecting - As what Suppa suggested, it may not matter if it stopped existing, it has no relevance (not an easter egg or quest item) and as such should be removed altogether. Achievements Coelacanth0794 Talk Contribs 18:36, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Okay, if you wanna do this. People will search for this, as shown by repetitive creation. We exist to help people right? Is that the goal, or is it bureaucracy? People are going to search for this, Jagex locks everything relating to it. Other fansites don't have anything. We are the wiki for "EVERYTHING RUNESCAPE". It's not abusive content or anything. So could someone please give me a legitimate reason why we shouldn't have information on it? HaloTalk 00:58, August 9, 2011 (UTC)

Um.. *points up* we just did. It's not an item players can ever have, they couldn't even interact with it when they did for the few seconds they had it. It doesn't exist. I think it'd be better left on an already-existing article than one by itself. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 01:36, August 9, 2011 (UTC)
I don't see anything up. That's the shittiest excuse for a reason I've ever seen. HaloTalk 01:37, August 9, 2011 (UTC)
Support redirect to Nonexistence and protecting
User:Urbancowgurl777
The thing you have searched for has never existed in RuneScape.
Nonexistence

So let's lie to people while being unhelpful? HaloTalk 01:41, August 9, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Halo. It's caused enough of a stir for people to want to look for it. It probably shouldn't have but it has. Regardless, we have information on it and it has appeared in game. Its perfectly possible to make it clear that it's unobtainable to your normal Joe Bloggs player. If we have the information why not present it? PS. Argh double conflict and all that --Henneyj 01:43, August 9, 2011 (UTC)
Mkay, I stand by what I said though. It's not a player-obtained item and was never meant to be. Again, mentioning it somewhere, maybe on the Jmod article, would suffice completely. (: sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 01:47, August 9, 2011 (UTC)
Seconded. We can have the info on the site, but that doesn't mean it needs its own article. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 01:50, August 9, 2011 (UTC)
After reading the above, I agree and would suggest to redirect rotten potato to Jagex Moderator, or more specifically, the section with the mention of the rotten potato item. Achievements Coelacanth0794 Talk Contribs 01:54, August 9, 2011 (UTC)
It's not like it's a stub. It has TONS more information than most pages in Category:Stubs. HaloTalk 01:55, August 9, 2011 (UTC)
Such as? it's a hacked item that jagex mods use to do jagex mod stuff. Achievements Coelacanth0794 Talk Contribs 01:57, August 9, 2011 (UTC)
Read the page maybe? HaloTalk 02:06, August 9, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I'm with Urban on this, it's an item that deserves no more than a mention in the leaks/glitches/mistakes or more suitable section of the wiki. It's like the pink partyhat, which was then changed into the purple partyhat... We no longer have the pink partyhat page available. RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 02:02, August 9, 2011 (UTC)

This page has a significantly more information than that. It has a small section at the bottom of purple partyhats, which is fine for that. It is less suitable in the case of rotten potatoes being place on the Jagex Moderator page. HaloTalk 02:06, August 9, 2011 (UTC)
Alright then, make sure you make another 200 or so pages for all the other minor glitches/breaks in this game, if this potato deserves an article of it's own, surely all those do too. RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 02:09, August 9, 2011 (UTC)
I would hardly call it a minor glitch. And I'd say take it on a case-by-case basis. HaloTalk 02:22, August 9, 2011 (UTC)
By the way, it is not a glitch that the item exists. It has been seen on RuneFest, which would not have happened if it was a glitch or bug. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 09:15, August 9, 2011 (UTC)

Support Creating A Page -- Per RS:G -- the item exists, and while it may not be obtainable, it's still there, is still known about, and is still searched. Players want information, not some "it doesn't exist" crap story which isn't true. The simple fact that this topic is created, because the page has been created MULTIPLE TIMES shows that information about it is wanted. Grim reaper hood.png Ben RyfosTalk 02:33, August 9, 2011 (UTC)

There really isn't much of a difference in terms of info between putting the info on the jagex moderator page compared to what we have now. I just don't think it really needs an entire page. We can redirect it to the jmod article; the infobox doesn't have much info, and the amount that it has isn't very informative. Also, as far as I know, the two release dates that have existed on the article are incorrect. It's just that I really feel that this doesn't deserve its own article. Oh, and in case I didn't clarify, I do support redirecting to the jagex moderator article. Suppa chuppa Talk 03:27, August 9, 2011 (UTC)

Just leave it - RS:G - It's an item, nearly unobtainable and from now on definitely unobtainable, and some accounts have it, which all happen to be J-mods. Only a few accounts have partyhats due to the price and most account will never have one yet we have an article. J-mods are accounts too (with some added hoobery-joobery to their membership). The item exists. It must have an article, especially with people searching it right now. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 06:21, August 9, 2011 (UTC)

I can see value in both arguments. However, I see no valid reason to not have an article. Yes, the item was obtained via a glitch, but it's not like it's existence was a glitch. Yes, the item cannot be utilised by the everyday account, but there are some accounts that can. It exists in the world of RuneScape. Yes, the item is completely irrelevant and serves 0 use to a player, but the thing is that it does exist.

We encourage gathering information on even the minutest scale. All items, non-player characters (NPCs), quests, whatever, are worthy of their own article...
RS:G

Matt (t) 07:35, August 9, 2011 (UTC)

Support Creating A Page - I completely agree with the RS:G policy. I don't think that this item's info would be stated sufficient enough in the observation section of Jagex Moderator. Seeing as it is an item, has a video made for it, and referenced to a jmod response on rs forums, it would be more sensible for it to have its own page. RSHelp (talk) 07:49, August 9, 2011 (UTC)

Create page - Per Halo and RS:G (especially matthew's quote). This item is a hot topic atm, and a lot of people will want information about it. Also, there is actually quite much you can say about it (read the article for that) and I don't think all that info would really fit on the JMod article. Indeed, we don't have the examine and weight of it, but the rest of the infobox is complete. I think this article is worthy enough of being kept seperate. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 09:15, August 9, 2011 (UTC)

Create page - Comparable to Truffle, Thingy, Ingredients, Left-handed Chisel, Blood tithe pouch, etc. --クールネシトーク 12:39, August 9, 2011 (UTC)

Support - In my opinion, we have to ask ourselves one thing here: Has this item ever existed within the realm of Runescape? Since the answer does seem to be yes, than it has to have an article. This reminds me of the War ship, and although that's still technically available in the classic version, it's not in what we would call Runescape today. Besides, it's one article. We throw known info on there, someone adds silly trivia, we all move on and wait for new stuff to arrive. I'm surprised this thread is honestly this long, to be honest. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 13:23, August 9, 2011 (UTC)

Strong keep - Since when do we only create pages for items that are obtainable by players? We have quite a lot of pages for nonexisting items, there is no reason to delete this one. Moreover, it is utterly pointless to delete it when we know that people actually want to read about it, proven by the fact that it has been created multiple times. Let's make some sense here. bad_fetustalk 14:08, August 9, 2011 (UTC)

Do not delete - At the very least, don't redirect it to a section of a page or Nonexistence -- that's just useless. We can either have the information or we don't, but the information is notable regardless of what we think; based on my logging there were 600 searches for "Rotten potato" in 24 hours a bit earlier, making it the most popular search on the wiki. Seeing as mentioning it is no longer taboo and we have an abundance of information about the item, there's no reason not to keep it. ʞooɔ 20:33, August 9, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I, frankly, don't care where it goes, but I do think it would be better to keep it on the wiki. Adam SavageTalk 20:39, August 9, 2011 (UTC)

Keep the page - The article looks nice, and if we have the information to make an article for it why not have it? svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 00:48, August 10, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - No point in keeping this open any more. The page stays. Suppa chuppa Talk 15:21, August 13, 2011 (UTC)