Forum:Yet another Jagex thread
There is a project that Starieeena began a while ago now as a result of a discussion. This project has largely been neglected and put on hold, and a few weeks ago I noticed this and began making a table of known Jagex employees. I've scrapped that now, and I want to reinvent the project in a huge way and it revolves around our policy on granularity.
I am starting to compile a list of Jagex employees on User:JaydenKieran/Jagex. The employees listed there and information about them are in the public domain, and in most cases have been obtained from their known social media accounts or LinkedIn profiles. As you can see already, a lot of the employees on the list work in administrative roles.
There are things that I need to clear up and determine which course of action is right for writing about employees on the wiki. I'm going to split this into sections so that the poor closing admin can determine consensus a little easier.
- 1 Who should we create articles about?
- 2 If articles are to be made, what should the naming system be?
- 3 If articles are to be made, what infobox should we use?
- 4 Should we create articles for each "team" within Jagex?
- 5 How should former employees be handled?
- 6 Where will the results of this thread be implemented?
- 7 Other general discussion
Who should we create articles about?
- (a) All known employees
- (b) Content Developers only
- (c) Public-facing employees only (Content Developers, Community Management)
- (d) None
Support a - I don't see anything wrong with this, we have an article for each item in RuneScape so why we wouldn't be okay with having an article for each (known) employee is beyond me. jayden 21:36, July 8, 2017 (UTC)
Support a - That would make easier to categorize them into teams and stuff.21:49, July 8, 2017 (UTC)
AAAAAAA22:29, July 8, 2017 (UTC)
Oppose a, support some modification of c - I feel like we're going to end up with a lot of one-sentence articles like "Jack Doe was a Content Developer for Jagex from January 2000-February 2000." Just looking at Jayden's page, there is no way we know a lot about everyone on that list. I feel like a table on a central page (or even just copying the list there) would be a much better way to present the information. I'd support creating articles for notable (UCS to define, when in doubt err on the side of making the page) employees, maybe not just public facing ones, but for example ones where we know what they worked on or ones visible to the community. The rule of thumb I think should be, if we're going to make an article on this person, we should be able to say more than one sentence about him or her. --LiquidTalk 22:57, July 8, 2017 (UTC)
Oppose a, support d - This is a RuneScape wiki, not a Jagex wiki. We have a few articles for key people at the moment, and that suffices. Besides, majority of Jagex Staff are not public-facing people anyway, such as administration and managers. Lastly, comparing Jagex employees to in-game items is absolutely ridiculous. 5-x Talk 00:01, July 9, 2017 (UTC)
Response to Liquid & 5-x - Items are completely different to employees, but my comment isn't a comparison of what they are but more how we cover them. RS:G says "We encourage gathering information on even the minutest scale" - is this different for Jagex employees? I agree that we aren't a Jagex wiki, but it doesn't change the fact that the majority of these people work on the game. I can see what is being said about the admin staff though and I agree in that circumstance that only people with notable admin roles should get an article (CEO, COO, VP, Product Managers). Maybe we need more of an in-depth discussion about the criteria if there is consensus for a modified version of c. jayden 00:44, July 9, 2017 (UTC)
- My point wasn't that we shouldn't have the information. I agree that we should have the information, but presenting it in the form of a hundred 1-line articles is not the optimal method. --LiquidTalk 05:19, July 9, 2017 (UTC)
- The articles are mostly for the fact that they help us easily and dynamically create table lists on team pages, we have a fair few amount of pages on the wiki with little information (see music tracks, Psi’s new achievement pages etc) and this wouldn’t be much different. I agree that the administrative staff and people like translators should probably not get their own article unless they are notable, however other people on the list should, including animators and artists, with information about some of the work they have done if possible. jayden 10:07, July 9, 2017 (UTC)
- I've created a mockup of a change to our gran policy based on this thread as it stands, and with a paragraph about when an article should be made. Do you think you can get on board with this based on it being a modification to c, or did you have something else in mind? jayden 11:16, July 9, 2017 (UTC)
Oppose a, supportish c - Having articles for legal consultants or Brazilian translators that boil down to "Albus Dumbledore is a Jagex employee that exists." is not going to help anyone. We know relatively much about content developers (if only because of their list of projects) and CM people (because they interact with players a lot) as well as the big shots like Mark, MMG, David O etc. who already have their own articles. I don't want to restrict granularity to any particular 'class(es)' of employees (e.g. content devs), however, so apply UCS to create an article when sufficient information is available. Otherwise, just add it as a name to the list of employees. On a side note, while I've done my fair share of linkedin stalking to get full names, it might be prudent to ask the relevant JMod first if it's okay to use their name, if it was obtained from external sources (e.g. we know John Ayliff or Stephen Rowley from Lores & Histories).08:05, July 9, 2017 (UTC)
- To be honest, with the exception of administrative staff, a lot of the people on my page have been credited by full name in RuneScape related content too (e.g soundtracks, art, books), so I don’t think it’s a major issue. I think it’s a courtesy more than anything if we start asking. These people have publicly identified themselves as working for Jagex jayden 10:07, July 9, 2017 (UTC)
Support D - I agree with what 5x said. I don't see the reason why we need to create articles about all employees. I highly doubt anyone would search any mod name just to see what information they can gain and use it in the game. We have a few articles about some employees which I think are more than enough. While I know we aren't wikipedia, I feel like the employees should at least be notable to deserve an article, if this passes. I don't see why Mod xyz should deserve an article if he only created one minor piece of content before moving on to a different section and started focusing on OSRS or if Mod 123 was working on a quest, but was unable to complete it and was scrapped and now worked on management. Powers38 おはようヾ(´･ω･｀) 23:33, July 9, 2017 (UTC)
Support c-ish - make articles on anyone who is noteworthy enough to have a couple of sentences about them beyond "x is an employee at Jagex". I'm imagining this will mostly be people who develop content.15:54, July 11, 2017 (UTC)
Comment - I also assumed, by the way, that these criteria were in relation to RS3 staff only. I would oppose adding articles for Jagex staff not involved in RS3 at any point (think OSRS staff that never worked on RS3, Funorb, Chronicles, etc etc personnel). --LiquidTalk 22:35, July 12, 2017 (UTC)
Support C-Variant per Liquid - UCS to create articles of people who are noteworthy and just a list of the rest, kinda like it is done now with Content Developers and David Osborne. 07:19, July 13, 2017 (UTC)
If articles are to be made, what should the naming system be?
- (a) Real name (e.g Andrew Gower), using Mod name when this is unknown
- (b) Mod name (e.g "Mod Shauny")
Support a - As long as a redirect is created with their Mod prefix (i.e Mod Ash redirect to Ashleign Bridges).21:49, July 8, 2017 (UTC)
AAAAAAAAAAAA22:29, July 8, 2017 (UTC)
Support a - encyclopædic teehee :).08:16, July 9, 2017 (UTC)
Support a - so long as there are redirects, as I feel like mod names are what players will actually know and search for articles by.15:54, July 11, 2017 (UTC)
Support a - And also include the mod names as redirect per Manpaint, Galian Prist, and Isobel.07:19, July 13, 2017 (UTC)
If articles are to be made, what infobox should we use?
- (a) Create a new infobox specifically for employees
- (b) Use
Support b - I think if we needed we could easily edit the template, for Jmods information, I don't personally see the need for A. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manpaint55 (talk) on 21:49, July 8, 2017.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAA22:29, July 8, 2017 (UTC)
I don't mind - a might be a good idea but then there is little point in b's existence (I think??) so might as well just add extra parameters to ab.08:16, July 9, 2017 (UTC)
B - Just modifyif needed. 07:19, July 13, 2017 (UTC)
Should we create articles for each "team" within Jagex?
(e.g "Content Developers", not sub-teams like "The Watch")
Yes, all team even sub-ones - This information is trivial, there is many teams such as MTX team, technical, guardians, the watch, ninja, translation team and supossedly a QA one, they really deserves articles.21:49, July 8, 2017 (UTC)
YAAAAAAAAA22:29, July 8, 2017 (UTC)
Aye - But sub-teams ain't gonna happen because they change name and members frequently (at least annually, but people switch teams every few months). Fairly permanent teams such as Ninja can have articles, however.08:16, July 9, 2017 (UTC)
Support - main teams with a description of what sub-teams are within that, and history of sub-teams changing etc.15:54, July 11, 2017 (UTC)
Support - Also per Fussy, notable subteams which are permanent, like Ninja's, should get an article as well. However there could possibly be list of known subteams and of course they could be mentioned on the individual jmods pages/sections if they were part of them.07:19, July 13, 2017 (UTC)
How should former employees be handled?
There are too many possibilities for potential answers here really, so I'm just going to leave this question up for general discussion. There was previously a discussion about this last month, however being bold (as-is the consensus for that thread) isn't really an option anymore given that this could turn into a large project.
Create/keep articles on them, list them on their team's page - This is probably the easiest. We could have a column in a table indicating if they have left Jagex or not and sort the table accordingly. jayden 21:36, July 8, 2017 (UTC)
Treat as existing employees for the purposes of granularity. I.e. if there's sufficient information, go ahead.08:16, July 9, 2017 (UTC)
Comment - keep information on former employees. With dedicated pages for each employee it will make documenting people changing teams much easier as this information can be detailed on their page, and the mod's page simply linked in team pages.15:54, July 11, 2017 (UTC)
Create/keep them - Per the above.07:19, July 13, 2017 (UTC)
Where will the results of this thread be implemented?
- (a) Added to RS:G, our policy on granularity
- (b) Create a new policy
AAAAAAAAAAAAA22:29, July 8, 2017 (UTC)
a&b - Add a subsection to RS:G I suppose.08:16, July 9, 2017 (UTC)
Support a -15:54, July 11, 2017 (UTC)
Support a -07:19, July 13, 2017 (UTC)
Other general discussion
COMMENT - I LIKE SCREAMING22:29, July 8, 2017 (UTC)
- I take offense to your implication that Mi-Gor is deserving to be placed with the generals along with Tafani. She is a surgeon general. Mi-Gor is a general surgeon. Surgeon generals are actually generals (the US Surgeon General even gets a nifty military uniform to wear). General surgeons are surgeons - general is an adjective. Your misuse of general is highly offensive to some people and I demand it be immediately changed! --LiquidTalk 13:38, July 10, 2017 (UTC)
- And what do you have against the Sea Troll General? --LiquidTalk 13:39, July 10, 2017 (UTC)
- That's the joke, 'innit? But for you, he's now a captain in Jack's undead fleet, which can be considered the navy equivalent of a general, since Jack is neither admiral nor commodore. I have nothing against the sea troll general but his lack of a chathead. Seeing how you take offence to the misinterpretation of the word general, even if deliberate, and your spelling offence with an s; to quote the barrelchest, mark two, prepare yerself! 17:36, July 10, 2017 (UTC)
Closed - There is clear consensus that we need another discussion on what qualifies as a general.
Going through the sections:
- Articles will be created for notable employees.
- A new template can be created. There is talk about modifying an existing template, but at the end of the day I don't see how modifying an existing template is substantially different from just making a new one. Ultimately, this can be deferred to the person making the articles.
- Articles should be created under the real names of the mods, with their mod names as redirects.
- Teams can have their own articles.
- Former employees should have their own articles if they would have qualified for an article when they still worked for Jagex.
- This thread will be added to RS:G.