Forum:Trivia policy update

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Trivia policy update
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 9 April 2011 by Cook Me Plox.

I've been noticing for a month or so that there is a lot of to-ing and fro-ing with the addition and subsequent removal of items from trivia sections in articles (mostly the more recent updates). It led me to find that there is in fact a trivia policy at RS:TRIVIA which in my time of activity here as a more casual editor I've never noticed. I've been editing in the styles I've seen other people doing, and it was to some surprise I realised that: (a) Several of the things I've been doing were against the trivia policy, and (b) The to-ing and fro-ing happens in a lot of the grey areas, particularly with respect to bugs and glitches.

I've had a go at adapting the trivia policy on my sandbox page (User:Magma2050/Sandbox - Please ignore my header) to make all the do's and don't a bit clearer, and added in a few examples to clarify them (where I could think of a real example, I've substituted it in for "dummy" drivia). I'm still not happy with the bugs and glitches section, specifically about how to define what constitutes a "significant" bug for inclusion, and I'm not at all happy going all gung-ho editing official policies on my own initiative so I'd like to throw this out there for comments and consensus.

Obsidian charm.png Magma2050 T C E Obsidian charm.png 14:35, April 2, 2011 (UTC)


Comment - Yes, i agree that there needs to be a change or amendment to the trivia policy to make it more comprehensive and and allow it to better cover certain situations. Im not quite sure of exactly how to phrase these changes however... - Also, hahaha Suppa got ninja'd :P - [Pharos] 14:42, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

Comment Actually, the policy was never 'officially' er, opened I guess. In a thread I made(the name escapes me) there was consensus to make said page a policy, but it got pushed to the side due to other things, and i never really had a chance to make an actual policy. Most of the stuff there now is from Chiafriend12's original proposal which didn't pass. I only added one thing, about the bugs(which in retrospect was a mistake) and never got around to changing things/making it into a real policy. As such, there effectively is no policy until it is made, basically. Pretty much the whole page would have to be changed, yours is sorta nice but a quick once-over shows some things I would disagree with. QXHYPBucket detail.pngrwojy 15:41, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

Wtf - Per Pharos; I was planning on making this thread today. I've additionally made my own rewrite of the policy here. Suppa chuppa Talk 17:20, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so I have been removing bad trivia entries for the last several weeks, and this may possibly be what Magma is referring to. I've noticed that the majority of entries are highly irrelevant and for the most part stupid. Rwojy originally made a thread here which proposed that the trivia policy be made official. I was originally going to create a thread that proposed that the policy be replaced by my rewrite (changed as seen fit, of course) but it seems that I have been beaten to the punch. Suppa chuppa Talk 17:37, April 2, 2011 (UTC)
It shouldn't just be replaced because he was first, we need to agree on things. RLXBucket detail.pngrwojy 17:46, April 2, 2011 (UTC)\
I guess a compromise of some sorts would need to be reached. Suppa chuppa Talk 21:12, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

Comment Basically we need to agree on a format and the base do/do nots.

  • Trivia goes in main article if it fits/trivia goes to trivia section if not
  • Only notable bugs/glitches for the specfic item/npc/etc
  • References suck, anyone using them will be executed unless extremely obvious or verified by jagex, any references that jagex says aren't true die
  1. bukkits are good
  • Too much trivia is bad <-- should be somewhere or at least implied
  • Comments on how the item/npc/etc look should not be used unless it is extremely unusual/new/notable
  • Comments based on value, e.g. It would take x of item y to make z gold, or any variation of, should die
  • Comments based on which played did what first, unless notable AND provable (no 'this user was the first to kill a rat')
  • merching/price changes unless extremely notable and recognized
  • misspellings in the game guide should go in article or be omitted completely
  • secondary references, like 'Dungeoneering is one of the only four skills not used in Stealing Creation, the others being Firemaking, Farming, and Slayer.' That kind of thing would go in Stealing creation, and a brief mention in each article
  • things like the 'curiosities' section ion dungeonneering have no purpose. If it's notable, in the trivia section, else kill it.
  • Also, trivia should not be split into multiple sections in most cases. As a rule of thumb, if it needs to be split, then there is too much of it.
  • another dung example 'The first place Dungeoneering was ever mentioned was a Behind the Scenes from March 31 2004, where Mod Mark mentioned that he wanted to create randomly generated scenarios, where you and your friends can go on new adventures every time.' That is a concept idea, no specfic mention was ever made, so it really shouldnt be there.

I'm sure there are a lot more things i missed, and also i'm sure there is contention with several points, so discuss awayawayawy ILUVBucket detail.pngrwojy 17:45, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I support making the trivia a real policy, and I support Suppa's version of the policy. It's covers more ground and provides more examples than yours does. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 17:46, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't support just one version or the other, it should be a discussion about what belongs. Just replacing a policy page like this means that his ideas automatically become policy, whether or not there was meaningful discussion about them. QBMRBucket detail.pngrwojy 17:49, April 2, 2011 (UTC)
And I think Suppa's version covered everything nicely, therefore I support everything in his version and I am open to discuss everything contained in it. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 17:51, April 2, 2011 (UTC)
/me tries to not start argument completely irrelevant to this thread. CKMCCVLBucket detail.pngrwojy 17:52, April 2, 2011 (UTC)
Is there an issue? I helped write a bit of it so of course I'd like to see that implemented. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 18:01, April 2, 2011 (UTC)
No, just i have a penchant for arguing about pointless things that are only tangentially related (woo spelled that without spellcheck) XRQQEEBucket detail.pngrwojy 18:07, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Yes, I agree that we need to mention somewhere that "too much trivia is bad" and that the trivia section should not be split. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 21:52, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

Support suppa's proposal - It appears to be the more comprehensive of the two. 222 talk 23:53, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I agree Suppa's proposal does cover things more thoroughly than mine, and if one is used to make a base template, it should be that one. I think it still could do with a mention of how to cite and reference proof, such as using WebCite, and that bugs should never be noted if they can currently be used to gain an unfair advantage. I assume from Suppa's proposal he suggests we allow bugs and glitches to coexist within the trivia section rather than the current policy of separating them (which nobody seemed to do anyway). The Bugs section could do with a few more examples to define what is notable. It's late and I have a short memory for these sorts of things, so I'm going to have to refer to the most recent quest, A Clockwork Syringe, which I still remember the posts from.

  • Some players were able to get into the "quest" POH and claim the zombie head without even starting the prerequisite Cabin Fever quest.
  • Some players were able to bring friends into the "quest" POH and use them to fight Barrelchest Mk II.

Those, I'd say, are not trivial bugs as they allow players to gain an unfair advantage by bypassing quest and combat skill requirements. However I would not say they were as prevalent as say, the ROW sigil abuse. The question is, do these have enough merit to be included as notable bugs or not? Just to be clear on this, I was of the opinion that they were, while Suppa was of the opinion that they weren't. That's one of the reasons I put this forward - not to figure out who is right, as I suspect there's equal merit to both sides. I just want to make sure that there are guidelines set down that can help ensure my editing is of a quality that is internally consistent to my other edits, and externally consistent to the edits of others. I know it's impossible to rank every bug on its notability and mark the cutoff precisely, but a few more close-call examples on either side of the line (not necessarily the examples I gave above) would be a good thing, I think. Obsidian charm.png Magma2050 T C E Obsidian charm.png 00:36, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

The examples you supported said "were" in them, so they can no longer be used to gain an unfair advantage, therefore making that point invalid. By the time someone adds a glitch like that to wiki, it's already been fixed by Jagex. Whether it's notable enough or not, that's just for the editor to decide. Imo, if someone has to ask "is this useful enough to be put on the article?", then it should not be used. (: sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 00:52, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely, they are past issues. If they were current glitches that could allow a player to gain an unfair advantage, we wouldn't be publishing them here until they were past issues anyway! I hope you meant "notable" rather than "useful" because by definition trivia is of no practical use whatsoever. It helps you understand the mindset of the developers and the "metagame" (elements of the game that lie outside the expected events that a player can reasonably expect to experience). Regarding your comment on it being for the editor to decide, that's where I heve the issue. Unless we have a consensus guide that better defines how a player should work out whether something is notable or not, we will continue having, on a regular basis, people who post any old bit of information thinking it relevant, followed by people who delete practically all trivia because they think it is irrelevant. Case in point, I notice today someone has re-added the information about the Baron's max hit on Barrelchests in A Clockwork Syringe being 1337, thus referencing leetspeek. The same information in different forms has been deleted from the trivia at least twice before but it keeps coming back. Personally, I think it should remain as I find it has that "Oh, that's interesting" appeal that all good trivia should. But my opinion =/= other people's opinion. If we don't tie down what "notable" means is some semi-quantifiable way, we will continue getting unnecessary edits as information gets put back and removed repeatedly, with everybody involved thinking they are within policy for doing it. Obsidian charm.png Magma2050 T C E Obsidian charm.png 11:54, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
Oh, good point. I should probably address the issue about bugs that allow users to gain an unfair advantage. Suppa chuppa Talk 01:51, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Support changing trivia policy - I think trivia should not be mentioned if it has already been mentioned earlier in the article, something that's not notable, anything that violates policies like RS:PDDA, RS:NOT#CRYSTAL or policies like that, just another stretch glitch, or something else that's mentioned in wojwoj's list or Suppa's proposal. We should note that we should keep funny trivia, or interesting ones, even though they may not be completely accepted with the policy. People like trivia as one of the best things of the wiki, so we should also keep that up. It would be a shame to lose visitors just because we clean up our trivia. Clean it up, but don't clear it out. Keep things readers will enjoy. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 20:50, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

Support Suppa's - Looks good. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 21:46, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

Support Suppa - it's comprehensive and I am very much aligned with its aim of removing the chaff (of which there is a lot) from trivia sections. Ardougne cloak 4.png Raging Bull Talk 22:38, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Might want to also address trivia on smaller articles. I've seen a few with a ==Trivia== header added when the article is small enough to contain the text as a normal paragraph. Maybe, say, do not add a separate trivia section when there are no other headed sections. Henneyj 18:44, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - Suppa's policy will be made official. ʞooɔ 21:12, April 9, 2011 (UTC)