RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Archive 1

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current project page or contact an administrator for aid if no talk page exists.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was keep.Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 00:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sapphire

  • Delete. This can be covered in the crafting guide. --Richard1990 15:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. At the top of the page is a note saying that this wiki needs to be as granular as possible. If I'm interpreting that correctly, we should keep this page. Oddlyoko 16:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Oddlyoko and because this allows an easy reference point to everything that can be done with sapphires in one place. -- Ricky81682 05:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Make a gems entry and put all the gems in it Couchpotato99 06:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was delete.Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 01:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Raw chicken

  • Delete. This can be included in chicken. --Richard1990 15:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree. Oddlyoko 16:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I also agree. Lildogg747 16:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. All of the above =P --Death motor 02:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all. Hyenaste 22:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Agreed.--Curmudgeony 15:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If I don't get a keep vote within a week, i'll delete it. --Eucarya 00:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to chicken. --Ixfd64 21:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • This article is now a redirect to Chicken --Eucarya 08:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was keep.Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 01:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Fire Strike

  • Delete. This can be covered in the magic guide. --Richard1990 15:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I think that the seven or so articles in Category:Spells show that individual spells are starting to get their own articles. -- Ricky81682 05:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - all spells should have their own detailed articles. Shadowdancer 06:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I also think that all spells should have their own articles. I think the same for prayers, too. Couchpotato99 06:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was keep.Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 01:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Adamant kiteshield

  • Delete. This item does not need its own page. --Richard1990 15:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. At the top of the page is a note saying that this wiki needs to be as granular as possible. If I'm interpreting that correctly, we should keep this page. Oddlyoko 16:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Oddlyoko and given the volume of individual item articles, it is fine. -- Ricky81682 05:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was redirect.Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 02:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Zezima

Probably should be a protected deleted article. Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 07:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete - I do not believe we should allow articles about specific players. If RuneScape players want to sign up to the wiki they can have their own user page. Shadowdancer 23:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete - the poor guy gets enough attention as it is. As per Hyenaste, a protected deleted article. --Eucarya 08:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete - I'll delete and protect this one. This page would likely be a top vandal target unless it's deleted (and protected). Oddlyoko 20:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was delete.Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 02:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Basilisk/Basilisk Drop Log

What's the point of having seperate drop logs as their own article? Clogs up the wiki in my opinion. Shadowdancer 00:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

They're gone, they were mine and I was the only one in favour of keeping so I've got rid of them --Eucarya 08:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I wanted them in userspace, which defaulted to yes. Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 02:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was keep.Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 19:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Feather

Delete. This can be included in chicken. --Richard1990 15:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Feathers are also found in other places than just from chickens. It's involved in fishing in well, which the chicken article wouldn't explain that well. -- Ricky81682 05:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Feathers are used in the Fishing skill, and therefore warrant their own article. Shadowdancer 06:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 00:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was keep.Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 22:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Bones

  • Delete. This can be covered in the prayer guide.
  • Keep. This could be better used to list the types of bones there are with Item infoboxes for each.
  • Keep This is useful as a separate item from other types of bones (big bones for example). -- Ricky81682 05:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep granularity. Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 01:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • keep It should list types of bones and where to find them... but there is no need to delete it.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was rewrite. The article was rewritten at Goblin.. Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 17:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Goblin (2)

We don't have an article on goblins yet, but frankly Goblin (2) sucks and is useless as a redirect. Hyenaste 20:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, delete, I'm not a fan of 'stub only' articles either, i'd prefer them as Wanted pages or not there at all, or they tend to get lost. --Eucarya 00:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete - why a Goblin 2 article? Shadowdancer 01:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ultra mega stong delete Re write it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.254.64.16 (talk).

Keep. I'll rewrite right now. Lol, I like what it was.--Richard 22:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I have now rewritten it. Check it out. I still say keep.--Richard 23:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

keep Much nicer now that it is rewritten. Definite keep. --megalodon99

Ooooh pretty!  :) I say keep--Curmudgeony 01:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was delete.Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 17:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Subculture

Delete. I see no point in having this page. It doesn't seem helpful and I doubt it can really be expanded. --Richard1990 15:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete it's junk --Eucarya 23:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with both of you above. Oddlyoko 16:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep If the page gets into a little more depth I would vote for keeping. I think the Subculture category itself is significant enough to keep and expand. Curmudgeony 18:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, although it can use some polishing. Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 01:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - RuneScape has no "subculture". Shadowdancer 01:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Respectfully have to disagree about the game having no subculture. The fact that an in game slang has developed is proof enough. Further examples would be things like focused worlds such as the world 66/99 Law running worlds, or 78 being the void knight pest control minigame world. Even external things such as the price guide site or even this wiki itself, are all signs that there is organized social interaction between players beyond official channels. While not yet listed in this wiki, these are things that affect the game and need to be detailed. If we eliminate this subject and category, where shall we put such articles?--Curmudgeony 06:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Everything is (or will be) sufficiently categorized. Beyond the "Law Running" and "Pest Control" worlds, I see no examples that suitably demonstrate that there is a "subculture" to speak of. And no, calling someone a "noob" or any of its variants is not subculture. Shadowdancer 14:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleting in 24 hours if no substantial argument opposing such a move is presented.Shadowdancer 03:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was keep.Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 18:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Small net

Delete. This can be covered in the fishing guide. --Richard1990 15:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. At the top of the page is a note saying that this wiki needs to be as granular as possible. If I'm interpreting that correctly, we should keep this page. Oddlyoko 16:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
    • That "note" is just an opinion voiced by Ace of Risk, isn't it? (If so, I think it should be more clearly separated from the introduction text.) --Paania 21:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think this page should be kept, because details like where to find each single item (which people will always try to add) don't need to fill up the entire guide. -- Ricky81682 05:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Oddlyoko. Hyenaste 22:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was keep.Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 15:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Silver

  • Delete. This can be covered in the mining guide, in the smithing guide, and in the crafting guide. --Richard1990 15:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This can be used to cover both the ore and bar forms, with Item infoboxes for each. Oddlyoko 16:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Oddlyoko. -- Ricky81682 05:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 01:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It is a valuable metal and other specific by-products of skills have articles on them too (see lobbies, swordies, chaos runes, and deaths for examples)--Death motor 04:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The other two Silver pages (Silver ore and Silver Bar) should be merged with this page or made into Item infoboxes as Oddlyoko said. -- Chaoticar 09:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was modify/move to game updates.Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 17:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Current events

  • Delete. It's pointless to post news here when it can be read on the RuneScape website, and no one seems to want to update this page anyway. --X1011 19:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I dare you to see what happens to the left navigation menu when you remove Current events. (And I've stated enough times, I'm going to do it!) Oddlyoko 20:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I thought it was more for changes at RuneScapeWiki and may be useful for major RuneScape changes. -- Ricky81682 05:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete There's nothing there... Couchpotato99 06:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is useful for things that may have happened, but might have not been listed in the Current Events page at the RuneScape main page. Huanghe63 03:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Revamp - Why not make Current Events for the wiki-only, such as article-building drives and such? Shadowdancer 01:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Modify content per Shadowdancer. Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 01:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Ricky. Lildogg747 06:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • delete This page is totally out of date --- megalodon99 ---
  • Keep and revise. If you guys mean adding every single news item to this wiki, I can do that.--Richard 18:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • So we aren't going to use it for the Wiki-only?
  • Change It certainly could do with some work. Although it is a good article with lots of potential in its own right.--Death motor 04:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    Comment. I've added every single news item to the page, now I'll just copy the info to them. I guess it's saved. We can also use the page for wiki updates as well.--Richard 16:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Shadowdancer 19:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was keep.Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 20:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Dragon Long Sword

Extending to Dragon Dagger, Dragon Mace, Dragon Axe, Dragon Halberd

These are all redirects to other articles, because usually only the first word of an item's entry is capitalized. They usued to be neccesarry because the Dragon weapons article had the names spelled that way. Couchpotato99 19:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep. These are used for the search box. If someone types in "Dragon Dagger", it should redirect to "Dragon dagger", not give them an empty page. This prevents sub-standard versions of already complete pages from being created. Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 19:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
If someone types in "Dragon Dagger" and clicks "Go" and no article with that name is found, it brings up the search page. And on the search page, the first article would be "Draggon dagger." I don't think its a problem to not have the exact article cause it's not that hard to find. Couchpotato99 20:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Why should we have the middle step of finding the appropriate page in a list? The redirect is there for convenience: when someone types in "Dragon Dagger", they want "Dragon dagger", not a page of slightly related links. Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 20:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep While redirect pages add to the size of the wiki, they also aid in searching. To paraphrase the 4th rule of library science, Always save the time of the reader.--Curmudgeony 06:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was delete.Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 03:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC).

Getting Started

  • Delete. The information on this page could be put on the main page. --Richard1990 15:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, but include it in a tutorial island article.
  • Delete. If it's not a disambiguation page, it shouldn't be just links. Hyenaste 18:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll get rid of it as soon as someone folds this article and inventory into Tutorial Island, which seems to be the proper place for it. --Eucarya 08:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I looked at the history, and it's intent was to help people start editing the wiki. That's a good idea, but all of the information it had is covered on RuneScape:Help. Then someone added articles about how to start playing RuneScape, and it's now just some random links. It had good intent but all of the information it was meant to contain is currently in Help. -- Couchpotato99 (talk) (contribs) 02:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was keep. 06:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Guides

OK, so I've been on a couple of other MMO-related Wikis to see if they needed any help. These would be Wikis like MapleWiki and such, but they are by no means any kind of good compared to this one. Indeed, the ENTIRETY of MapleWiki is nothing...but GUIDES! POORLY-WORDED, PLAYER-MADE GUIDES! I do not think that THESE guides are contributing to the whole of this wiki, so I'm suggesting we delete them, except for a few. Examples of why the rest should go are:

  1. Extreme un-NPOV (money-making guide)
  2. Outdated (merchanting guide, Cheats and Scams)
  3. Incorrect info to BEGIN with (never saw a iron dagger in the Lumbridge Hut after the Trade Updates; Lumbridge Beginner guide needs to go)

The guides which I would like to stay are:

  • Abyss (isn't a guide per se)
  • Bars and Inns (part of Barcrawl, can go on that article)
  • Barbarian Assault (actually article covers it)
  • Music (isn't a guide per se)
  • Puzzle box guide (can be merged into a subarticle on the Treasure Trails article)
  • Rules of Conduct (needed!!)
  • Skills (pretty much a given)
  • Treasure Trails (the one with "guide" in its name can be merged)

As you can see, that still leaves 18-19 guides (may have miscounted a bit) that are of no use to the wiki. Anyway, what does everybody else think? 7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko)

  • Support Deletion Per reasons given. 7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko)
  • Strong Keep The RuneScape Wiki is a fansite. Sure, people come to fansites for info on cities and monsters. But I'm willing to bet that almost half of them come for miscellanious guides to playing the game. Go to any big fansite; RuneHq, Sal's, Tip.It, Zybez, and you'll find a big section on guides for various topics. Sure, some of these guides need a big rewrite, and a select few outdated ones could probably be deleted. But these are a huge part of the wiki and should definitely not be deleted. Morian Smith 02:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per reasons above. Liferune.pngbufar(talk)Death rune.png 04:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly and Completely Keep!!! - Actually, let me get this straight. You want to delete every single guide that is linked to this template as well as the template itself? This isn't even a template! IMHO this is akin to a suggestion to simply shut down this wiki and delete all of its contents. I simply don't get it at all. While I would be the first to admit that a great many of these guides could use considerable improvement, I completely fail to understand why even a single one of them ought not be on this wiki... barring duplication of content and other minor editorial issues. This isn't a wiki to create an "Encyclopedia Gielinor", but to allow fans of the game to write about all things regarding Runescape. Guides like this need to be kept. I also consider this VfD to be far too overreaching and disruptive to the wiki as a whole, and inappropriate to be something this broad. This "article" also doesn't belong in the "Template:" namespace. --Robert Horning 15:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment to Robert Have you seen the majority of those guides? Utter crap. I'm not trying to delete EVERY GUIDE, either. This is just to delete the guides that need to be deleted. Oh, and I was TOLD to move it to the Template space. 7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko)
  • Comment to Stinkowing - Alot of these guides are in severe need of a rewrite, or atleast an updating. But just because a guide needs to be improved doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. Better sick then dead. Morian Smith 22:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per Robert. Some of the guides may be outdated, but you don't have to delete them, just improve them. All of the guides are very helpful. Andy why did you move it to the template namespace? Who told you to? White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 00:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - POV should never be a problem because we aren't a traditional encyclopedia. And guides that adhere to a NPOV are usually garbage anyway. May be coloured blue in the near future.earth(t)
  • Keep - per reasons already given above. Second-abyssal-whip.pngPatheticcockroachGuthan's platebody.png(Talk) 06:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep all -- we can deal with any ones that should be deleted on an individual basis, with due process. I don't think we should be making batch votes like this. Endasil (Talk) @  01:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - As per Endasil, best pick out individual problem articles rather than burning all of Rome. I'm sure most can be improved. Hurston 12:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was delete. 16:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Prayer (RuneScape)

Redundant article; we already have Prayer. Shadowdancer 15:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete I think Hyenaste merged it with Prayer --Eucarya 15:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, all the info is covered in Prayer and it has no links to it. --Eucarya 10:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was keep. 16:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Cheats and scams

This article needs to go. Shadowdancer 21:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Everyone might like to read Wikipedia:WP:BEANS. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 20:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep

Keep Though I wouldn't mind if it was oriented more towards teaching people how to not get cheated and scammed.
--Wowbagger421 21:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
This article is merely going to draw people who are looking to scam others and ruin the community further. Shadowdancer 21:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're so afraid of. You seem to think that anyone who reads that article is going to become a scammer. The information could be helpful to new players who don't want to get scammed. Besides that, its just simple scams that everyone who's played for a while already knows.
--Wowbagger421 21:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Wowbagger. This article could be an invaluable tool in warning new players of popular scams. This won't be a "how to scam" article for the simpel reason that people will do it with or without this article. MJMyers2 18:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Hesitant keep. If someone wished to scam, they will find a way to scam. Most sites take the idea that "maybe if we don't mention scams, they will go away; lets hope others are smart enough to not fall for them." It seems we should mention scams as a proactive measure, but this article needs some serious censoring to gear it towards "don't fall for this" rather than "check out this scam!" Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 21:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep: Given the many advertisements for dubious websites offering RuneScape Gold on the pages of this very Wikia alone - it is clear that the cheats are highly active and will not stop. I doubt if we will ever be ahead of them enough to be a good site for scammers to learn their craft. I believe that there is a real need for a credible source where players can learn how to not get cheated and scammed. Since most players won't trust third party sites that means this wikia has a definite role to play. In fact, this article deserves greater prominence on the Main Page to make it easier to navigate to. Dragon 2h sword old.png RuneScape 17:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I, for one, have been heavily advocating the removal of the ads from this Wikia. Shadowdancer 17:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep People will scam with or without this article, as they have been doing since RuneScape came out. This article can, however, help people to avoid being scammed themselves. MJMyers2 18:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry bout voting twice, Couchpotato. I forgot I put this here.... heh heh... MJMyers2 20:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep This page doesn't so much tell scammers how to scam as it does instruct honest players as why something is a scam and how to avoid it. It doesn't go into detail telling scammers how to prod their potential victims into falling prey to their schemes. It just gives an overview of the scam, describes how the scam works (if it is successful; as I said, this guide does not give hints at making scams more successful), and tells users how to thwart it. Eruan 15:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep: I believe that there is already evidence that this page is helping honest players avoid scams. In fact, here is feedback from the discussion section of this article:
I am also against this. Because I read this yesterday, I reported a scammer today (Armor trimming scam). This page helps people be aware of what scams are commonly used so they don't fall for them. I also disagree with the user that stated "If someone is intelligent enough to actively try to look for "cheats and scams" in order to avoid them, they won't be stupid enough to fall for any of the ones here." I read this article when I came across it while mining coal. I don't think people may come looking for it, but if it catches their eye while on here they may read it and learn to avoid scams. Maybe we should even put a link to this on the main page to attract more attention. Mr.hotkeys 23:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
This proves the value of this page, which as far as I know, is the only place where players can learn how not to get cheated or scammed. I agree that this article deserves greater prominence on the Main Page to make it easier to find. Blue partyhat.png Historian 21:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Yea, you're right, Historian. Jagex won't talk about these scams for the same reason the people here want to delete it. They're afraid that it'll give scammers ideas. This is, I think, one of the reasons that scamming is a huge problem in RuneScape. If Jagex put out a page about these scams, and instructed all players to read it, then even if a scammer got a new idea, people would have already read about it and been warned. If you don't talk about it, it will NOT go away. MJMyers2 20:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep It'll warn people about the risks and what is a scam and wat isn't. I learnt about the Drop Scam that if it wasn't for this page i would've fallen for.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Imagine Wizard (talk).
Keep Although I have one concern that I'll help- Don't go too far in depth into the scam. Scammers reading that would see that as a scam. But it is good for one that doesn't want to be scammed, so I can keep it, but adjust it a little. Also look at the discussion for Guides! I need help! :-)

~(NiK NaK PattY-WhacK)~

Keep It will warn people, as was said earlier, when we see a new scam being tried ingame, then the scammer can be reported and the article outlining the scam can be created to stop others falling for it. Simply ignoring the scams will only mean that people are less weary of them. I shall use this as an example:there is a TV show here called beat the burgalar, where a former burgalar is asked to gain entry to the house of people that have asked to appear on the show to see how secure their house is. If the government decided that this show showed people how to break into homes, then they would ban it, however the show also shows people how to protect their homes from break ins, much like the cheats and scams section here tells people of scams, so that they know when someone is trying to scam them, as they will recognise the scamming method from here and report the would be scammer. So I say keep. EDIT:I saw an ad for a site where you can buy RuneScape GP, on this wiki! Another reason to keep this article!Marcus Gord 21:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep Everyone says it will warn people. They'll know about this or that. And of course they're right. On top of that, this is an encyclopedia, I believe the people of RuneScape Wiki, whether here for a moment or for a year, deserve to know the scams as a form of information, not rotten, mistempered ideas against players. Nyrk Monday, November 13, 8:18 A.M.

Delete

Delete - because the only person searching for cheats or scams is likely to be perpertrators rather than victims. --Eucarya 23:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete Although this has good intentions, it also teaches people to scam items. I say remove it. Cool Spy0 04:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Eucarya. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 16:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete - as Cool Spy0 said it has good intentions but more people are searching on the web for a way to scam than those that are trying to prevent themselves from being scammed. --◙▲╛Whiplash◙▲╛ 21:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Undecided

Undecided A person wishing to protect himself or herself from scams can come here for advice, but at the same time, would-be scammers can come here too to learn the advanced tricks of their trade. It all depends on whether more offenders know their scamming tricks, or whether more innocent players know how to defend against them. As such, it is hard for me to decide.--Death motor 04:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Neutral - I have mixed feelings on this issue. I value this article's encyclopedic content, and it could even prevent noobs from being scammed. On the other hand, WP:BEANS should be taken into account. --Ixfd64 00:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Finished?

Um... since nothing's changed on this page for around 10 days, and since the "keeps" have a clear majority, could it now be time to remove the tag? MJMyers2 23:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think so, to be honest. It's a keep. We have to do something to this page; don't know how but we need to put that thing round it that says, this is an archived discussion, etc... JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 21:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was delete. Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 17:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Template:Babel

This vfd refers to the whole Babel project of the RuneScape Wiki. The idea for Babel originates from Wikipedia (to the best of my knowledge; the point is, it wasn't created solely for this wiki), and Wikipedia's page about it can be seen here. The project makes perfect sense on wikipedia; when you have such a large amount of users, some are bound to speak different languages. According to the Wikipedia article, Babel is supposed to "aid multilingual communication by making it easier to contact someone who speaks a certain language." That's a good idea, but with our small and not-so-diverse user base, we have a few intermediate french speakers and all the rest native english speakers. These templates aren't used, so no one could even use them to find someone if they spoke another language. Additionally, we don't get too many speakers of other languages visiting our site, so they don't use the templates, and there are always the RuneScape Wikis in other languages for them. Also, not to sound inconsiderate to speakers of foreign languages, this is the English RuneScape Wiki. Because these templates aren't useful or even used, they just create clutter and waste. Here is the list of pages created for this project:

  • TemplateBabel
  • TemplateBabel/0
  • TemplateBabel/1
  • TemplateBabel/2
  • TemplateBabel/3
  • TemplateBabel/4
  • TemplateBabel/Box
  • TemplateBabel/Box2
  • TemplateBabel/G
  • TemplateBabel/N
  • TemplateBabelMsg
  • TemplateEquals
  • TemplateIf-Then-Else
  • [email protected]
  • CategoryTemplates/Babel
  • CategoryTemplates/Advanced
  • CategoryUsers/Language
  • CategoryUsers/Language/en-0
  • CategoryUsers/Language/en-1
  • CategoryUsers/Language/en-2
  • CategoryUsers/Language/en-3
  • CategoryUsers/Language/en-4
  • CategoryUsers/Language/en-N
  • CategoryUsers/Language/es0
  • CategoryUsers/Language/es-0
  • CategoryUsers/Language/es-1
  • CategoryUsers/Language/es-2
  • CategoryUsers/Language/es-3
  • CategoryUsers/Language/es-4
  • CategoryUsers/Language/es-N
  • CategoryUsers/Language/fr-0
  • CategoryUsers/Language/fr-1
  • CategoryUsers/Language/fr-2
  • CategoryUsers/Language/fr-3
  • CategoryUsers/Language/fr-4
  • CategoryUsers/Language/fr-N

Please consider what I have said. Even though these templates were added without their creator consulting the community first, the community can decide their fate. -- Couchpotato99 (talk) (contribs) 07:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It's been more than two weeks. No one has said anything, so I guess it is safe to assume no one cares if this gets deleted... -- Couchpotato99 (talk) (contribs) 08:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep. --◙▲╛Whiplash ◙▲╛ 14:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Care to give a reason, Whiplash...? I'm fine with it being deleted. Barely anyone uses it, barely anyone is likely to use it in future. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 18:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was keep. Woodcutting-icon.png HYEN-ASTE 03:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

TzHaar Fight Cave Guide

Just...no... Shadowdancer 16:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Noes. Shadowdancer 20:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The user who created this page obviously worked very hard to do this. I think the only problem is too much of an informal tone, which should be easy to fix. MJMyers2 12:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I tried to fix this, up but I can't even figure out what his tips were about or when they were supposed to be used. Maybe it should be deleted... 17:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think it should be revised, not deleted. Though it is a good article, it has incorrect grammar, punctuation, capitalization and does not look at things from a player point of view, rather a personal view. Still, it might still be possible to revise this rather than delete it. White partyhat.pngIlyas --Ilyas 23:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was keep. 17:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

:Category:Slayer Monsters

We can assign any monsters who happen to be assigned as Slayer assignments the Slayer category. Shadowdancer 02:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I'd say no, have a separate category for those. There's category Slayer Monsters which include all those that require some level in Slayer to kill, and there's Slayer Assignments which can be a lot more creatures. Mm, 'Slayer Assignments' sound good to you? Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 02:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Interesting Question. I understand the point, that it is redundant. But, it is a list of a specific type of monster, a portion of the bestiary. And from that, I say it should stay, as a special disambigation of the bestiary. Setherex 03:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Perhaps have 2 categories, slayer monsters and slayer assignments? Slayer monsters would include monsters that require a slayer level to kill (Crawling Hands, Abyssal Demons, Kursaks and such), while assignments would include everything that a master can assign. Dtm142 21:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Perhaps a viewer will want to see all of the monsters that we have articles on and require a Slayer level to kill. Instead of looking for certain articles in the slayer category or certain article in the bestiary, it is much easier to just look at a seperate category reserved solely for those monsters. -- Couchpotato99 (talk) (contribs) 21:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was keep. 22:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Noob

This article has nothing that directly has to do with Runescape. It is a biased article that will never represent everyone's views. And the actual accuracy of what is said on the article can not be verified. --╞Æ╛Ƨ Whiplash 17:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It'll be recreated for eternity. We just need to vastly improve it. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 17:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it should be deleted. It does not represent a neutral point of view, some may take it for and insult, and it has a constant quarrel on it's talk page.

White partyhat.pngIlyas --Ilyas 14:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I say it should not be deleted, but instead, just shortened...by a lot. Just so it is only saying what noob (as in new player) means. Nothing else. No opinions on what they tend to do, or what people think of them. Then maybe somehow an administrator or someone can lock it so it's imposiible to re-edit, or something. Chiafriend12(Contribs) 19:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
We can do that, yes. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 21:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I think shorten too, don't get rid of it. Just needs to be one or two lines tops. Oh and protected --Eucarya Talk 21:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
How about if we redirected it to an article on Runescape slang/abbreviations?--Wowbagger421 21:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
It would probably be expanded upon to a painful degree within that article, and we'd have the same problem. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 21:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Jedi Master95: Dont mind me I am barely ever on this. BUT KEEP THE NOOB PAGE! Someday there might be some guy out there questioning a more meaing of noob. Just improve this.

I change my earlier vote about this. Vimes did an absolutely great job redoing the article and he fixed up the problems.Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs--Ilyas 20:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
There should be an entry for noob, but it should just explain that it is either an insult or means new player.--Tzone92 00:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I say keep it. I mean, create a section about its usage in RS and make a link to the official wiki page! Well, if this gets deleted, than shouldn't the Pwned page (my baby) get deleted too? Navij11 01:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The article has been changed - a lot. I say we close this VfD. If someone feels that it should be deleted again later on they can re-VfD it, but I don't think anyone does at the moment. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 07:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was delete. Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 23:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Magic spell screen

All info can easily be included in Magic, Ancient Magicks, Lunar spells, and List of spells. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 12:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak delete Its a good article perhaps it could be shortened or rewrote but yes another list of spells is not needed at this time. --Whiplash 12:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Vimes. This page actually is more like list of spells. Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 14:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Agreed with Hyenaste. Red partyhat.pngDreadnoughttalk 23:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete the info can be included in other pages. We don't need extra pages.Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs23:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • So can we delete it yet, or has it already been deleted?Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs23:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The link's red, the article no longer exists; it's been deleted. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 09:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, well the page has been like this for an amount of time and it never said that the page was deleted. This kept me wondering if it was because of the red link.Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs16:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was keep.ДҖ--Huanghe63talk 23:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[[:Category:Dragon]]

This category has been replaced by Category:Dragon metal--Curmudgeony 16:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep. As seen on the dragon page, dragon refers to a lot more than just the red metal. The cat can be useful for all colors of dragon, Elvarg, the dhide, and the metal. Both should exist. Hyenaste 11:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep but only use it as a category for dragon creatures. For the leather armour, make a Dragonhide category. -- Couchpotato99 04:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Undecided - can't we have a Dragon disambiguation page that links to both the monster and the metal? Shadowdancer 04:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, dragon currently has five links. Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 05:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
My vote for deletion comes more from a dislike of disambiguous categories as opposed to disambiguous pages. Categories are more about how the information is organized, then the information in the page itself. I believe a disambiguous category might be confusing to users.--Curmudgeony 06:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I wasn't aware that categories could be deleted. Perhaps you mean to remove all of the articles from the category? >_> Oddlyoko 06:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not an expert at wikis, but I believe that since categories have a page to represent them and show what articles are in them that can be edited, this page can be deleted too. If there are still articles in the category, they will show up on the page but it will be treated as a blank page. -- Couchpotato99 (talk) (contribs) 06:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep Dragon reffers to more than the Dragon weapons and armour, as stated before. White partyhat.pngIlyas

--Ilyas 19:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was keep.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 01:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Zaros mjolnir

Should be deleted - it's not a real item, we don't really have any real proof that it "might" exist. See the item's talk page for more details. --Eucarya Talk 09:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Support, for all the reasons outlined on said talk page. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 09:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Support, I have never heard it be mentioned in any of the behind the scenes or from any of the mods Agility Resatr 09:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep There certainly is proof. If you don't believe the proof, you're welcome to deob and decompile the client. Perhaps there should be a page listing items that exist but are unobtainable as of yet. --Wowbagger421 04:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Support, So what if it is proof. If it is real, just wait for it to come out. White partyhat.png Patcong talk White partyhat.png04:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Support, yea, let's wait for it to come out first. Katshuma 21:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I don't think it not being a real item is reason for deletion, personally. I just don't think we have enough evidence to say it's a future update, nor is it an obvious one. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 21:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep. If you download the RuneScape cache (contains game engine, items, etc), you will see that several unreleased items are hidden in RuneScape's programming, the Zaros mjolnir being one of them. It is a legitimate item that may be released in a future update. Besides, it's real enough that they made a picture for it. --Gangsterls

Keep. I agree with Gangsterls on every aspect. Also, why else would it be published in the "Items that do not exist" if it didn't exist? So I think that opposition is eliminated there. I also suggest to google 7804 - Zaros Mjolnir and 7805 - Zaros Mjolnir (Noted) for evidence. --Chaoman201

OK, I think the end result is keep, I'll remove the tag from the page. --Eucarya Talk 00:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey, how come this got deleted? --Wowbagger421 01:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've restored it.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 01:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was delete.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 02:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Player Moderator and Category:Users that are PMods

  1. There is no real way to verify that the people using the template really are player moderators. This normally wouldn't matter with most userboxes, but this encourages people to break rule 5 (Jagex staff impersonation).
  2. It doesn't reflect someone's editing interests or knowledge (again, this wouldn't normally matter, but it encourages violation of rule 5).

Dtm142 22:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Support I had the userbox on my userpage (deleted after reading this), but I have to agree here. It doesn't really add anything positive, and being a PMod shouldn't matter anyway, all editors are equal. However, saying so in a userpage (with text) I don't have much of a problem with unless it's used as a source of power (eg. I'm a PMod, I'm right, do what I say). I also think that using silver crowns in signatures should be forbidden as well, it could give even more false ideas about users. I came across one a few days ago, and to the best of my knowledge that player isn't a mod of any sort, so it gave a bit of a false idea of their status. If need be, maybe even ban all claims of FMod/PMod status, since they shouldn't matter anyway? Maybe something better suited for a forum discussion.  AScott00  Rubber chicken.png 22:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Support - only megalodon99 and someone else has the template currently, I'm a pmod myself but I don't see the need for the template. --Eucarya Talk 23:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Support! User page "Katshuma" Talk page 16:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I support. I even removed my crowns from my signature (replacing them with white phats) and all indications that I was a mod. Might as well delete it anyway because I made that template myself. White partyhat.pngCh1lled SocksWhite partyhat.png 19:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

support - Reasons given above.Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 19:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Support. --Sαcrε (edit my sig) | (edit my user page) 01:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was delete.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 19:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Dragon Kiteshield

Such a silly article with plenty of grammar errors. I bet some of the things are made up. An F2P Dragon kiteshield? Why should this article be kept? Dragon chainbody.pngEmosworldSysop crown.svg 00:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete. It's not a real item. There is no proof or background information for this myth, and the entire thing is made up. Dtm142 01:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Um... what Dtm said. :) --Sαcrε (edit my sig) | (edit my user page) 01:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Totally fake, they just recolored the border of a kiteshield and whited out the center, and then pasted it over a Dragon Square Shield. I saved it cuz it looks awesome {{Signatures/Total Rune}}02:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete is no such thing ever

DELETED. Though it's bound to be created again soon. hehe --Eucarya Talk 19:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was keep.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 19:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Pure Guide

Whoever wrote it didn't read the style guide, didn't present a neutral point of view, didn't thoroughly explain the builds he did talk about, and didn't talk about all types of builds and give advantages and disadvantages for each. Besides, the Wiki is a place for factual articles not tactical guides that may or may not really work anyway. Almost all of our guides are quest walkthroughs or training suggestions, and all of those are proven to work. Whoever wrote this also seemed to be writing it for only free-to-play pures and used very bad examples, as well as abbreviations (DDS?! Try Dragon Dagger++) and bad grammar. Just a bad and unnecessary article. Slayer-icon.png Gangsterls Divination-icon.png talk02:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Would it kill you to log in next time?Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 21:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
...just got back from vacation thought I was logged in...gonna vote on it or just tell me to log in? lol Slayer-icon.png Gangsterls Divination-icon.png talk21:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
We can just fix it. So, I vote Keep!Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 21:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - it might need rewriting but not deletion. --Eucarya Talk 23:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I like the guide, maybe it does need a rework but in general I think it's okay. Agility Resatr 13:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep - It's a potentially good guide, but I do agree that it seriously needs a cleanup. I'll try to contribute if I have time and the effort, but hopefully, this guide will see better days soon. Thunderbird346 17:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was redirected.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 19:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Nasturium seed

Misspelling of 'Nasturtium seed'. Slayer-icon.png Gangsterls Divination-icon.png talk03:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirectified. :) --Sαcrε (edit my sig) | (edit my user page) 03:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was redirected.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 19:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Raw sea turtle

We've already covered it in Sea turtle. I think raw and cooked foods should share a page like Lobster. --Wowbagger421 03:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this page should be deleted. Green partyhat.png Bob2006ty(RUNESTORM333)  talk Green partyhat.png

Yes, this is a no brainer, I've just changed it to a redirect instead. --Eucarya Talk 23:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was delete.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 19:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Royal Fudge

Must be deleted! User:Royal Fudge mistakenly created it to be his/her userpage. Katshuma 17:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was keep.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 19:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Inventory

  • Delete. This can be covered in another guide, possibly the Lumbridge Newbies Guide. The guide can hold the basics of the game and what each menu does. --Richard1990 15:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, but rather include it in a tutorial island article. Oddlyoko 16:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete but only if the info is moved into other articles, like banking.--Curmudgeony 07:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, its part of the game's mechanics and an article should be devoted to it, even if it is just a couple sentences long. -- Couchpotato99 15:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I've changed this article around a lot, take a look again. It's no longer about the backpack inventory interface, but about the items that you can carry with you, including your equipment inventory, and what you can equip where. I hope this changes your minds on deleting it. -- Couchpotato99 18:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks good. Oddlyoko 21:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Has been updated for the better. Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 21:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was delete.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 19:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Permanent Death

Zero relevence to RuneScape. This is a speedy deletion vote and will be acted on unless substantial evidence to the contrary is presented within 12 hours. Shadowdancer 06:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete. I don't think it qualifies for speedy deletion under our current rough guidelines, but yes it has no relevance here. The entire article is summed up in one sentence in death as "death is not permanent". Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 09:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Mega Delete I don't even see a reason why this page was created in the first place. It has absolutely no revelance or use in RuneScape. Megalodon99 11:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Super Ultra Mega Uber Delete There is no way to permanently die in RuneScape. Simple.--Death motor 19:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The article has been deleted. Shadowdancer 19:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was delete.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 19:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Noobs in RuneScape

Like, no? Shadowdancer 08:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

OMG lol awesome. I agree though... Delete.--24.109.206.88 00:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete: Inappopriate title. Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 00:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was delete. --Sαcrε (edit my sig) | (edit my user page) 05:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

RuneScape:Creation tools

I've set up the MediaWiki so that when you create a new page, you'll have a few squares above the edit box that when clicked, set up the page for whatever it's being made for. This method is much faster than using the RuneScape:Creation tools|creation tools.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 01:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Support No longer needed. But what about pages that have link to creation tools? User page "Katshuma" Talk page 16:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

They'll be deleted as well. The templates [[Template:Newpage quest|newpage quest]], [[Template:Newpage item|newpage item]], [[Template:Newpage equipment|newpage equipment]], [[Template:Newpage monster|newpage monster]], and [[Template:Newpage NPC|newpage NPC]] replace them.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 20:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't even know we had that page. I've just been copying and pasting those infobox templates fo so long... Anyway, now that we have the buttons, the other page can stay or go, I don't care.--Atlantima 19:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete, they served their purpose. Dtm142 16:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Wish I'd known about that before, though. --Wowbagger421 01:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I'll delete next week if I see no more responses here. I don't think anyone ever used them anyway. --EucaryaTalk 19:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete theyre obsolete now. --Whiplash 19:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I'll delete it; there's no support to keep it. --Sαcrε (edit my sig) | (edit my user page) 05:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.