RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Archive 12

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 Delete. C.ChiamTalk 12:09, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Category:Kharidian

This category is unnecessary, and can easily have its contents moved over to the Kharidian Desert category (although most are already in both). I'm not sure what its purpose was in the first place; there's no difference between the two, and at the moment all it does is confuse people. Quest.png Morian Smith Saradomin crozier.png 21:32, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Morian. --LiquidTalk 21:33, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Helm. --Iiii I I I 21:34, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Iiii I I I. --Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 21:35, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

<_< Seriously? --LiquidTalk 21:38, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
Yarly. --Iiii I I I 21:39, March 18, 2010 (UTC)
You have to, some times. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 21:41, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Stelercus. --Coolnesse 23:21, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Coolnesse, but only per Cool, not anyone else, lol Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 00:40, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Tollerach (lol) ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  04:50, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Telos BUKKITZ WEEL SMITE YOU!!!Murd3rlogistTalk Contribs Sign here 05:55, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Murder. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 11:12, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Now Helm should consider changing his reasoning to "per Yanks", recusion ftw!!! Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 23:16, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Request closure - Per RS:SNOW. --Coolnesse 21:04, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Yaks. Chicken7 >talk 11:46, March 22, 2010 (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 Apply here what is decided at RuneScape:Requests for deletion/File:Ghrims book.PNG. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 00:11, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

File:Clean rogue's purse.png

This file is simply a duplicate of File:Clean sito foil.png.

  • Delete - As nom. --Coolnesse 18:40, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah! =D --Coolnesse 18:45, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
So what makes you think the result is going to be different this time around? --LiquidTalk 18:47, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
  • Why Nominate it for deleteion? - If your going to mark a page for speedy deletion, I can't do so in good conscious without knowing what image it's a duplicate of. The one you requested be deleted was used on the actual Herblore page, so with all the knowledge I had at hand, everything looked fine. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 18:42, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's not a duplicate, it's Jagex lacking the time to change the colour of the herbs (and other misc. items). Sito =/= Rogue's even if it's the same image. Leave it be. Ryan PM 18:44, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
  • Lazyness - To save everyone's time since this is the same discussion as this RFD, I will apply the decision of that RFD on this one. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 00:11, March 28, 2010 (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 Speedy delete due to original image being replaced appropriately. C.ChiamTalk 13:46, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

File:Noob capture.jpg

File:Noob capture.jpg

This image doesn't really add much to the article and is a total eyesore, being both SD and Jpeg. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  10:13, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete - It's before the graphical update, and it's jpg - you're right, this image could easily be updated. 10:19, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Keep, but replace - While I do agree that it is a total eyesore, it does add significantly to the article by showing a safespot for killing Otherworldly beings. Plenty of images on the Wiki fit into the description of being standard detail and jpeg, but that is not a sufficient reason for deletion as they still contribute to the article. The image is in dire need of replacement though. C.ChiamTalk 10:40, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Replace - Per Calebchiam. --Coolnesse 13:50, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Request closure - Delete; obsoleted by [[:File:Otherworldy being safe spot.png]]. It's not even worth it to safe spot these, though. I couldn't get the trap on the mushrooms to work. Riblet15 05:17, March 29, 2010 (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. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 23:33, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

File:Ghrims book.PNG

This image is just a duplicate of File:Guthix's Book of Balance.png.

  • Delete - As nom. --Coolnesse 23:16, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - Although the two books use identical graphics, they are still two very different items in game. It would confuse users to have a file named Guthix book on a page about Miscellania. --LiquidTalk 01:27, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
I remember somewhere... There were two completely different item with the same inventory sprite, I speedy deleted one and it was deleted. The only reason why this wasn't deleted is because it's on someone's signature. --Coolnesse 02:25, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - If the inventory sprite changes in the future (which happens quite often), then it would be hundreds of times easier to accommodate by having each item have its own inventory image. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 05:15, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep-Per Yanks and Helium. HaloTalk 00:34, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Request closure - Darn. --Coolnesse 13:15, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
The consensus seems to be keep. Also, I have fixed Ghrim's book so that it displays the proper image. So, the picture is now used in the mainspace. --LiquidTalk 01:59, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
Nice try. --Coolnesse 03:36, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
According to that thing up the top, only Admins call consensus. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 07:36, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - Things like books change appearances all the time. I remember when I first started, every book looked the same, like the Book on baxtorian currently looks, but with different colours. But now most of the books that are released are unique, Tzhaar tourist guide, Dagon'hai history, and Goblin symbol book just to name a few. Not only that but some of RuneScape's oldest books, like Book (Shield of Arrav) are being updated from the old standard appearance to a more unique and suitable look. So when this book finally is updated, as its almost a certainty, it'll be much easier and make much more sense to have separate images. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 19:36, April 3, 2010 (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. --LiquidTalk 22:16, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Template:USspell

This template is not being used...

  • Delete - As nom. --Coolnesse 22:20, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - This template could be very handy, and although it is a bit too big, it isn't doing any harm as it is. Ajraddatz Talk 22:22, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
Handy? --Coolnesse 22:24, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - If you know can tell the difference between American and British spelling and realise that the wiki only uses British spelling, then it would probably be just as fast for you to fix the words then to look up this template and put it on the page. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 04:48, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per Yanks, if you see the word is wrong just fix it, this is a total waste of time and inflated edit counts.--Degenret01 04:58, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per Yanks.  Ranged-icon.png Zap0i TalkRune scimitar.png  20:57, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'd probably rework the template but It can be placed so people can see where spelling needs to be checked and more throughly.--Dragon helm.png Team6and7 Talk Dragon boots.png 04:46, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - Just because it is not currently being used dosn't mean it is not usefull. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 04:57, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
Useful? --Coolnesse 18:24, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per Yanks. --LiquidTalk 18:25, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per Yanks. HaloTalk 17:42, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Yanks said pretty much everything I wanted to say... Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 18:33, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - We don't need a template for this. Telos 06:34, April 12, 2010 (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. C.ChiamTalk 07:09, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Fletching training (short) and Pay-to-play Fishing training (short)

These two guides are supposedly condensed versions of Fletching training and Pay-to-play Fishing training. However, a perusal of those pages reveals that they are sub-quality pages. They are short, but their content and training methods are, well, crappy. They also do not analyze the pro's and con's of each method, something that the longer guides do. Thus, they are in violation of RS:NPOV because they are expressly advocating a certain training route over all others. --LiquidTalk 14:41, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete - As nominator. --LiquidTalk 14:41, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - I thought that guides weren't covered by RS:NPOV? It is extremely difficult/impossible to be neutral when writing a guide, and is an epic waste of effort. Chicken7 >talk 14:45, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
It helps when I think <_< --LiquidTalk 14:51, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Pointless. Telos 21:49, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per Liquid/Telos. HaloTalk 23:37, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per helm. BUKKITZ WEEL SMITE YOU!!!Murd3rlogistTalk Contribs Sign here 13:07, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - No real point in it, waste of memory space Woodcutting cape (t).png Swampflare Green partyhat.png 21:27, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment - As Az said in the request for deleting Runescape:Market, "Contrary to popular belief, deleting does NOT free up additional space in the wiki, as deleted pages still exist in the database. All it does is remove the link for normal users." Leftiness 17:17, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per all. --Coolnesse 00:55, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - This guide doesn't help in any way. You'd probably spend more time trying to translate its confusing and unhelpful contents than if you read the longer full guide. =D 222 talk 07:10, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think this guide is useful to those who don't want to read a long guide. It's like a TL;DR version, and it should be available to those who prefer their guides short and to the point. --Fishing Raian the Fallen Talk Runecrafting 22:52, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - If you don't want to read the longer guide, skim it. Not hard to do. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 18:40, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - That makes sense. Delete the page then, lol. I'm for deleting. --Fishing Raian the Fallen Talk Runecrafting 22:53, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per All Mageamooney 07:04, April 17, 2010 (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 Speedy delete. --LiquidTalk 02:08, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

File:24867 398723454432 190889354432 3610619 6023960 n.jpg

There is no way to prove that this is what the Jagex staff portal looks like, and if this is truly a picture of the staff portal this is a clear privacy violation. --Aburnett(Talk) 02:02, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - As nom. --Aburnett(Talk) 02:02, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Same reason as nominator. Pl1324 02:07, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - I'm calling this a speedy delete due to Aburnett's reasons. It doesn't merit a RfD.


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. Aburnett(Talk) 02:20, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Money making guide/Player killing

Reason - When you strip away the bad grammar and spelling, there's really nothing here that is useful, or not found on the Bounty Hunter or PvP Worlds page. Cook Me Plox 02:33, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - PKing is not just Bounty Hunter or PvP Worlds, but the state of the article suggests that it is. It also suggests some stuff which I am sure comes under Jagex rules as scamming. Also per Cook. Ciphrius Kane 16:28, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per Ciphrius. Telos 21:49, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - I agree with Ciphirius Kane and Cook Me Plox Stupid 376 22:49, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per above+This article is not written well at all, it has no structure, and is not very helpful. HaloTalk 22:54, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - As said above, not very well written, has no use, and loads of grammar and spelling errors - Unregistered, April 6, 2010

Delete - Per all. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 03:18, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - As said above, no real use - would be better as a strategy guide not a levels guide.Vbn174 12:05, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Jagex clearly stated that PK'ing was meant to mbe a money sink. Therefore, this article is invalid and contradictory to the subject's purpose. It's quality is also quite low. Icecold531 15:47, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Poorly written, not helpful, and doesnt cover other pking stuff, (like duel arena etc.)

Instead of deleting ask the main author if they want it as one of their subpages. Maybe they can work on it over the next few months or something. Don't leave a redirect when it gets moved, although most of us know that.--Degenret01 15:51, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

The user is Gakk97, who has two contributions, and hasn't edited since his "guide" was made. Cook Me Plox Talk 20:44, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Revise - This is a good topic consider revising instead. Stupid 376 21:56, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite - I would simply ask for him to rewrite it with more information on it and fix the spelling mistakes. -White partyhat.png Chasingu 23:54, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per all. --Coolnesse 00:55, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite --Monkey Mja Don't delete, cause PKing can actually be an effective way for money. Just rewrite the whole article, show the good ancient stuff. Infact, I might do that if I dont collapse from being exhausted at 4AM not sleeping for 22 hours. I think it should be a F2P/P2P Article though.

Merge - Proposing a merge to the Combat F2P guide, as I feel this is more relevant to its interests. Fruit.Smoothie 03:37, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite and move - Rewrite it and make it a section or subpage of the PKing article. It's pretty much impossible to make this into a money making guide, since PKing is so random. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 18:37, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite - I am in particular favor with this topic and i suggest a littel spruce up an d a list of equipment. - Unregistered, April 11, 2010

Merge - Maybe shorten it a bit first by removing some unneeded wording, and then merge with combat F2P/P2P guide. In other words, I basically agree with Fruit.Smoothie.  Golden warpriest of Zamorak helm.png Wingcap Firemaking master cape.png 20:27, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think there is anything useful enough to be merged. I think it would have to be re-written to be useful at all. HaloTalk 20:31, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - This page is full of spelling/grammar issues, and even if you strip those away, it is poorly written and doesn't help at all.

Delete - There is not much content. Per Ciphrius. Prgmbeta 00:07, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per many people. Pl1324 02:10, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Article will be deleted. --Aburnett(Talk) 02:20, April 19, 2010 (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 Speedy delete.kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 20:39, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

File:Dungeoneering-hood-inv.png

It's most likely fake or from the RS cache. FredeTalk 14:52, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Delete Keep/Comment - And what makes you say that? He only claims he 'got it from youtube'. --Coolnesse 20:34, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Changed to Delete per all. --Coolnesse 22:13, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
The method the uploader to youtube obtained it by must either be from the cache (a rather grey area here) or its a fake. It can't possibly be real, no one has 99 Dungeoneering yet. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 22:00, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Speculation until someone actually does get 99 Dungeoneering. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 22:00, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per reasons listed above. HaloTalk 22:04, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - This could probably be speedy deleted safely. Anyway, better to be safe then sorry. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 01:32, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Keep AGF, and if its from the model viewer so what? We actually have no policy against it, just a bunch of people enforcing a non existent policy. --Degenret01 01:36, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

The model viewer views models of items, not inventory images of items. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 01:57, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - There is no way to verify that the picture is the actual hood, since no one has 99 Dungeoneering yet. It's most likely it, since the skill guide for Dungeoneering in-game has pictures of the cape, and the color of the hood there matches. But, we cannot confirm that the hood actually looks like that, so it should not be here. Technically, it's not a non-existent item, since it exists, but since no one has it yet, I think we can safely treat it as such for the time being. --LiquidTalk 01:41, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Request for timely closure - I am not requesting that this is closed at the present time. I am, however, requesting that this is closed in a timely fashion. If we take forever to discuss this, someone will have 99 Dungeoneering already, and this discussion will be moot. --LiquidTalk 01:47, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

'Delete'/Comment - I thought Parsons stopped using the model viewer..., dont think of it as offensive, though. BUKKITZ WEEL SMITE YOU!!!Murd3rlogistTalk Contribs Sign here 14:43, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - You can NOT obtain inventory images through RSMV, for the record. I'd appreciate it if people didn't accuse the cache of things when they haven't even looked through it themselves. I myself have no idea where Parsons got the hood image, I think he recreated it from another hood and the dungeoneering capes' colors, but it looks pretty legit to me. I think it's safe to say the hood will look something very close to that anyway, so why not keep it? The past 24 skillcapes have had hoods, why wouldn't this one? Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 21:29, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

Keep...Sorta - We can keep the image there and when some1 DOES get it we can just upload the image to that one. easy peasy. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 21:34, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

OR we could get a Game Guide image... --Coolnesse 01:36, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

keep - it real for sure and for the last time i got it from youtube, it only a hood, what's wrong with it? --Project Myface Parsonsda Talk | Sign Here | Project Myface Project Myface 16:58, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Where did the guy on YouTube get it from? YouTube is not a good information source. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 17:00, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
So what? the hood is exactly the same colour with the dungeoneering cape, it's obvious that the real hood will look like that. bad_fetustalk 17:02, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per Lil. bad_fetustalk 17:02, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Speedy deleting. Parsonsda has had days to come up with an explanation for how he got this and he has not. So clearly something less than kosher is going on. P.S. Even if it was from YouTube, files obtained from other websites are not allowed per the images policy. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 20:39, April 21, 2010 (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 No action. Aburnett(Talk) 12:54, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Pyrelord

Three words: WTF??? Was this an accident? Someone trying a template and accidentally saving?--Dionisio 11:36, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Request for closure - No there is a page there. Your browser must of not fully loaded the page. Just clear your cache if nothing happens. —Manyman (talk) 11:44, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see that. Talking about the deletion request at the bottom... This is a useful article, no bad facts, not a load of opinion/tripe... No reason for the request being made... Should we delete the delete request?--Dionisio 11:52, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

It seems to have been made in late Feb. And looks like it was a result of the dialog getting it's own page. (Which is odd.)--Dionisio 12:11, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - RfD is for requesting deletion of whole pages, not sections of them. If you think a section needs to be changed or removed, you are encouraged to be bold and edit it. --Aburnett(Talk) 12:54, April 22, 2010 (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. Aburnett(Talk) 13:00, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Gameplay

  • This entire Wiki is about the gameplay of RuneScape, so the page is redundant.
  • The information on the page is vastly simplified to the degree of uselessness, and if expanded would make the article massively bloated.
  • The information on the page is massively out of date - it says players start in Tutorial Island, it mentions Random events causing damage and it refers to Activities as Mini-games. While this could be edited, the fact that nobody has done so yet shows how rarely the page is read.

Cabbage.png Phoenix316 talk Quest point cape.png 12:28, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - As nominator. Cabbage.png Phoenix316 talk Quest point cape.png 12:28, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I think that the page is out of date, and needs major reworking, but it seems to give a basic overview of the game that newer players may like to see. TyA 12:31, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per nom. --Coolnesse 21:03, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - It is the same as the Lumbridge Beginner guide, but lower quality. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 23:28, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per Evil Yanks. --LiquidTalk 23:31, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Weak keep - I believe we should keep this article, as it summarises the gameplay of RuneScape. Most wikis about games or articles about games have a gameplay article/section, as it is important to outline the main gameplay. The gameplay isn't necessarily everything about the game, it is how it is played and its goal. Someone could see RuneScape and say "What do you do in this game and what is the gameplay?" Obviously it isn't first person, it's third. It's fairy open-ended, you do quests, level skills, accomplish goals, communicate, etc. It does need a serious cleanup though. And it could be redundant because of other pages, mainly RuneScape. Chicken7 >talk 11:54, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Weak keep - Per Chicken7.  Ranged-icon.png Zap0i TalkRune scimitar.png  20:55, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - And transfer any valuable information to Lumbrigde beginner's guide. 5-x Talk 15:49, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per above. HaloTalk 17:40, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Just move relevant information to Lumbridge Beginner guide and/or RuneScape#Gameplay. It might take a long time to fix this page when its probably easier (and more useful) to move the info. 222 talk 06:09, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Its pretty much trying to sum up Runewiki in a nutshell, which we don't need, because nutshells are bad. Furthermore, it is somewhat out of date. I personally dont see the purpose on keeping it. Monkey Mja 21:03, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Delete/Merge - Can't this just be put on the RuneScape article? Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 18:32, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Delete/Merge - Per above Pl1324 02:11, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Article will be deleted. --Aburnett(Talk) 13:00, April 22, 2010 (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 Speedy delete. --LiquidTalk 17:18, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Template:Dungeoneering weapons and armour

The above template and [[Template:Dungeoneering Melee]] are duplicates of each other. They are both complete templates and are used in articles, but I see no reason to have two separate templates with the same links on them.  Tien  16:23, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Isn't there a provision that allows you to speedy delete these duplicates? --LiquidTalk 16:23, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, but I don't know which one to delete since they're both nice templates.  Tien  16:25, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - [[Template:Dungeoneering Melee]] is used more often. --Coolnesse 16:34, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Request for closure - Why don't you do the bold thing and combine the two, then delete one. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 16:39, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

They contain the same content, so how would I go about doing that? OMG! However, Dungeoneering Melee is more developed because it has some extra links that the other template doesn't have. Hm, perhaps I would have been better off speedy deleting it.  Tien  16:46, April 25, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - I'm going to use RS:BB and call this a speedy delete. I have just spent some time to replace all the uses of this template. --LiquidTalk 17:18, April 25, 2010 (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 Withdrawn. --LiquidTalk 10:25, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Category:RuneScape Merchandise

This is a proposal to delete all things about the Jagex Store including individual item pages, trimming that page down to simply a brief overview of the store, what it sells (like saying "it sells bags, hats, etc.") and a link to the official Jagex store. Sorry Chicken.

Rationale:

  • It's not even close to being under the mandate of this Wiki. Wait, aren't we for all things RuneScape? No! We have asserted time and again that we are for all things related to the RuneScape GAME, not the universe. Which is why, among other things, we don't allow fan fiction on the Wiki, which is arguably orders of magnitude more related to the game than merchandise.
  • We're just presenting a non-NPOV advertisement for Jagex.
  • Basically everything is copy-vio'd from the Jagex store.
  • It is unfair to make the community maintain this. It's not good enough to say if you don't care about it, don't edit it. Things that are on the Wiki carry our "brand" and we all have an individual stake in standing behind every article and keeping the information correct. With this, every time a price changes we would have to update articles! That's not what I, and most of the other 17 thousand editors signed up for.
  • It serves no greater purpose than a link to the store would!

The Wiki should fulfill a role that a simple link to the Jagex site wouldn't. This needs to go (again, while keeping a small article explaining and commenting on the store, without trying to be a store itself!).

Endasil (Talk) @  18:44, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete - This is technically advertising, as a short summary. --Coolnesse 19:33, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - We are for the Runescape game, not universe - Then let's remove machinima competitions etc. as they aren't really in-game, let's also remove RuneFest which is completely irrelevant to the game, lets remove things about official forums, which aren't in-game etc. bad_fetustalk 19:38, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not saying we shouldn't have a Jagex Store article though; I'm saying that the level of granularity should be much, much less than for in-game things. Endasil (Talk) @ 
  • Delete - While Chess has a point, the copyright violations are enough for me to vote delete. --LiquidTalk 19:40, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - For a perfect example of why this is unmaintainable, look at some of the tshirt descriptions - temporarily out of stock. Are we serious??? Endasil (Talk) @  20:12, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
Then Be bold and make them better. bad_fetustalk 20:13, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
No! My whole point is that we as a community shouldn't be forced to maintain this! Endasil (Talk) @  20:16, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think we should, because they are runescape related. bad_fetustalk 20:17, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
That's not the be-all-and-end-all of deciding whether it should appear on the Wiki. If it were, I'd have an article about my character, and we'd certainly have articles for Zezima and non-interactive scenery, both of which have a whole lot more to do with playing RS than merchandise. There are times that we copy large portions of things from the RS website or game. They are arguably copyvios. But at least we do them for a purpose. We reproduce Updates so we can fill them with Wikilinks to our articles. We copy dialogue pages because it provides a service to people who missed dialogue or are curious. This is copyvio and serves NO purpose since the exact same information can be found more up to date and without copyright violations on Jagex's homepage. With these articles, we have gone from a commentary on Jagex/Runescape to trying to BE Jagex/Runescape. Endasil (Talk) @  20:24, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - I almost never vote in RfDs, mainly because people don't really explain how it is hurting the wiki to keep it. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. Besides, this is a volunteer effort - if people want to use/update it, why not? Ajraddatz Talk 20:20, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

It IS broken, and I don't want to fix it, and I don't think I want to require anybody else to fix it. And if it's not fixed, I don't want the community to stand behind it. It's impossible to keep this kind of stuff up to date. And it's a copyright violation. There's a LOT of broken things about it. Endasil (Talk) @  20:24, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Strong keep - I'll reply to each of your rationales individually.

  • It's not even close to being under the mandate of this Wiki. Wait, aren't we for all things RuneScape? No! We have asserted time and again that we are for all things related to the RuneScape GAME, not the universe. Which is why, among other things, we don't allow fan fiction on the Wiki, which is arguably orders of magnitude more related to the game than merchandise.
We are for all things RuneScape. Please link me to a policy where it says that we are not. RS:NOT#OTHER doesn't say that. It says we're about everything related to RuneScape, and not other games. The Jagex Store merchandise is mainly RS-related items anyway.
  • We're just presenting a non-NPOV advertisement for Jagex.
I don't see how it is non-NPOV. The articles hardly have any information at all. If someone sees something that they think is non-NPOV, they can freely go ahead and reword/modify it to something more neutral.
  • Basically everything is copy-vio'd from the Jagex store.
On the individual pages, I don't see any copy-vios. If you're talking about the images, they may be. I'm unaware of if they are copyrighted, and if they are, they can be removed (if not fair use).
  • It is unfair to make the community maintain this. It's not good enough to say if you don't care about it, don't edit it. Things that are on the Wiki carry our "brand" and we all have an individual stake in standing behind every article and keeping the information correct. With this, every time a price changes we would have to update articles! That's not what I, and most of the other 17 thousand editors signed up for.
Price changes are rare, and if they are changed, I'm sure we can go ahead and change it. I don't think the thousands of editors who signed up wanted to assign categories to hundreds of articles, but that is part of being an editor here. You may be different, but I'm sure many are more than happy to update things like this, if it betters the wiki. Also, we have over 4000 stubs, which aren't the greatest sources of information, and nearly 80 outdated articles which are supplying dodgy information!
  • It serves no greater purpose than a link to the store would!
Heaps of our information can be found easily at the Jagex site. They have information about how to play the minigames, they have skill information with various methods of training, they have QuestHelp, which is an if not better alternative to our guides, which are outdated and image-lacking.

There are many more reasons to keep these articles I have not mentioned as well. We can display this information without it sounding like an advertisement. Also, in your rationale, you probably were talking about the table ON THE Jagex Store article. But that isn't up for discussion here, as you clearly stated you want the individual articles deleted, not the Jagex Store article. Either RfD that, write something on the talk page or whatever. Chicken7 >talk 10:19, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Actually my main objective is to reduce the scope of the Jagex Store page. As a result of that limiting the granulartiy, the individual pages would go. If that doesn't happen I'm still going to remove all the prices and copy-vio'd descriptions and basically turn the page into a description of the store plus a gallery that links to those articles. You have not provided a justification for why it benefits the Wiki to have this information here, and in this detail. You've just said that other stuff is just as useless, which I of course disagree with. Our quest articles have a commentary on the game, which, by the way, is required for using copyrighted material under fair use. You're not providing a commentary. You're providing a mirror. And the day we've just become a mirror for anything Jagex brands as RuneScape is the day I'm ready to stop maintaining this Wiki. Endasil (Talk) @  17:09, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
By the way, this point is supported by RS:NOT#JAGEX. In addition, editors should try to avoid usage of content taken directly from the Knowledge Base unless it is essential to readers' understanding of a topic, as we have no permission to use it except fair use. . That extends to the Jagex Store too, it's just a mistake of omission that it only includes the KB explicitly. Endasil (Talk) @  18:23, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Strong delete - This the RuneScape Wiki not the Jagex Wiki, I think the store page should stay as it has RuneScape stuff in it but we dont need this category. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 10:43, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Keep per Chicken7 Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 11:13, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - By the way, there are other, more legal reasons for why we absolutely shouldn't be keeping at least the prices here. Stores are required to honour advertised prices, and if even one of Jagex's customers start getting pissed because they saw us advertise prices here without authorization, Jagex will come here in raging fury. Can you at least justify why having prices here is a good idea? Endasil (Talk) @  17:20, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per RS:G and it isn't copyright violation as Jagex allows fansites to do so (else they would have told us long ago, as they would have seen those pages because they even knew about the Staff Portal page). Mark (talk) 17:13, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

And yet again you confuse a lack of action to enforce copyright as implicit permission. Of course Jagex wouldn't have us take this down; it's just advertising for them and nothing else. Who turns down free advertising? That doens't mean it's not copyvio'd, and that doesn't mean it should be on the Wiki. Speaking as someone who was there, I can tell you that we wrote RS:G when we were considering in-game objects, not random things in the fan universe. By your interpretation of our granularity policy, we should have articles on every cache file on your computer, every fansite, every piece of fan fiction. Those are all just as much part of the RuneScape universe. But our granularity was meant to be focused on the game. Endasil (Talk) @  17:20, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn - I've deleted the blatant copyright violations but kept the links to the individual articles. It wasn't as much the individual articles that bothered me so much as the granularity and violations of the page itself, so this RFD isn't serving the purpose I intended it to. Endasil (Talk) @  19:11, May 2, 2010 (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. --LiquidTalk 22:56, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Charm gathering

The information on this page is primarily a percentage of charm drops, which is also located on the Charms page. The Charms page is more reliable as it is updated every time a Charm log is updated and it shows all of the charms in a single table, making it simpler to use. Any NPCs on this page not on the charm page should be added there, and this page redirected to that section on the charms page.--Degenret01 07:05, April 3, 2010 (UTC)


Support as nom.--Degenret01 07:05, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support This page stopped being useful after Rich Farmbrough made the drop list on Charms auto updating. Its now redundant. Cheers, Penderwyll 16:37, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Not very well made, outdated, and the charm logs are clearly superior.

I think this is what needs to be done (and I would be happy to help/do most of work, with others approvals, as I am 99 summoning.):

  • This page needs to be improved, because right now-it's not about actually training summoning, it's about the craziest possible methods people could think up to train summoning. Anyone going for 99 will use an average method, none of which are listed.
  • The Charm gathering page needs to be factored into this, but not quite like it is now.

Again, I'd be willing to do most of the work, if community consensus is okay with my idea. HaloTalk 16:54, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

So would you factor the Charm gathering methods into a section on the training article? Would you still want it to be a separate page, or should we link it to a section on the training article. I'm just a big fan of all useful information in one place as much as possible. You don't need consensus to rewrite an article if your trying to improve it, go for it man. Let us know when your happy with it then you/we will decide what is best for this particular page.--Degenret01 03:32, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Suppport - Charm gathering != Summoning training. In my opinion, Summoning training only actually starts after you have the charms, i.e. it covers what familiars to make, methods to get to and from the obelisk, selling the pouches, costs, and Bogrog swapping. But not actually collecting the charms. As such information about collecting charms should not go on the summoning training page. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 03:36, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Collecting the charms is 90% of summoning though. It's not very hard to use them in an efficient manner. I will work on drafting something on the summoning training page (I may need a bit of help with the lower levels, because I don't remember everything I did, and some things have become more expensive since then.) But I will see if I can make something that combines all this information, and see if it can work out to be useful. HaloTalk 03:41, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I have a somewhat fixed (VERY ROUGH) summoning guide put together in my sandbox. Feel free to comment on my talk page about what I need to change. It's late and I'm slightly tired, so it's possible I made a few mistakes, but hopefully it's reasonably correct. HaloTalk 04:55, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

I have made a few additional edits, and if anyone has some experience with good lower level summoning, or other ideas they wish to share with me, it's in my sandbox...and I really need feedback-feel free to also edit the word choice, as I just wrote it rough draft and I need editors. HaloTalk 00:35, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Request for closure - This has been covered in the new and improved Summoning training guide. This page should be deleted, as it has been sitting for almost a month. HaloTalk 22:53, May 3, 2010 (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 No consensus. --LiquidTalk 23:01, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

RuneScape:Market

It is pretty obvious that nobody uses this page anymore... --Abyssal whip.png Superplayer08Talk HS Log Dragon dagger (p++).png 01:53, March 16, 2010 (UTC)superplayer08

Delete - As nominator. --Abyssal whip.png Superplayer08Talk HS Log Dragon dagger (p++).png 01:53, March 16, 2010 (UTC)superplayer08

Strong keep - Just because it isn't commonly used doesn't mean it should be deleted. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  08:56, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - This page can't be maintained well, and there are many other places where this sort of thing can be done much easier (Grand Exchange, RuneScape Forums, more forum-focused fan websites). It doesn't really fit on an enyclopedia anyway. Quest.png Morian Smith Saradomin crozier.png 18:58, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Sure, its not the most elegant or best way to sell/buy something, but it has a purpose and there isn't anywhere else on the wiki to sell items. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 20:34, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - I think that by keeping the page it is doing more harm then good. When people try to sell an item on the market they can't sell it through any of the means Morian listed, so since the item wont sell (most of the time) all it has done is make it take longer for the naive user to sell the item. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 09:29, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The YG thread for the creation of this project can be found here. C.ChiamTalk 09:40, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - This is nice, and people use it, just not alot. If no one voted in the poll section for some wierd reason, would we delete it? no. If no one posted on Yew Grove, would we delete it? Of cource not!! Lack of use is no reason to delete a page! (Not to mention the "Canidate for Deletion" template + Entry may be making people NOT want to use it)~~Signed,Bulbear4444Slayer's respite.png~~ 20:05, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Strong delete - We are an encyclopedia, not eBay. Also, when a user lists merchandise here, he or she cannot sell it anywhere else. He or she may never get a potential customer. So, as Morian and Yanks have said, this page is better off deleted. --LiquidTalk 02:09, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Delete - Per deleters. --Coolnesse 19:35, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - No one uses it anymoar, keel it! BUKKITZ WEEL SMITE YOU!!!Murd3rlogistTalk Contribs Sign here 12:51, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Keep (or at least preserve for historical reasons) - I personally dislike deleting for the sake of deleting. Contrary to popular belief, deleting does NOT free up additional space in the wiki, as deleted pages still exist in the database. All it does is remove the link for normal users. Spam articles and obsolete images can be deleted, but project pages? Project pages should NOT be deleted, but "archived" as in Wikipedia where semi-active or inactive WikiProjects are preserved. See Wikipedia's Template:Inactive or Template:Semi-active. RuneScape:Interest - Typical Player is one example of a preserved project page.

This page was created for players who couldn't buy/sell items through the usual means. I don't think it is "doing more harm then good", because I do not see the harm in advertising. Yes, I agree that this is an encyclopaedia, but is this wiki strictly an encyclopaedia? We have a variety of community projects not fit for the encyclopaedia, should we delete those too? I would propose that "User of the Month" is deleted because it is not fit for an encyclopaedia. (Why promote the user, when we should promote the content?) We should stop advertising Wikifests in the SiteNotice because Wikifest is a community event which has nothing to do with THE encyclopaedia. We should also delete Requests for Clan Chat Rank because it has been inactive for a while, and has nothing to do with the encyclopaedia. But I digress...

Let me list the objectives of the project when I first proposed it (as listed in the page):

  • Trading large quantities of merchandise (which may take a long time to buy/sell)
  • Trading slow-selling merchandise (i.e. Fletching items)
  • Junk trading
  • Preserving space in the Grand Exchange interface (especially for free players)
  • Item Lending

Forum threads get old quickly (a few days at most?) unless they get bumped often, and get deleted/replaced with newer threads every day. Using the Grand Exchange takes up space, especially when you're selling slow-selling items and/or large quantities of items. This is also a centralised place where players can advertise items for Item Lending.

I know the project lacks activity, but I believe it is due to unawareness, especially among traders and merchants. And I do not agree with the statement "when a user lists merchandise here, he or she cannot sell it anywhere else". Is that really true? People can still use the Grand Exchange if they wanted to, as this page serves as an additional avenue for advertising. If a player lists an item which isn't traded often, nobody would know it is on offer unless they actually buy them, or stumble upon a forum thread. But if this player added this item in RuneScape:Market, there is a slightly better chance of selling the item faster. So instead of "never get(ting) a potential customer", you double the chances of getting a "customer".

Pardon the long post. This is only project I proposed (I think) which never really took off, so I feel passionate about it.   az talk   09:06, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per az. I for one, never even knew the page existed. I believe it was totally unadvertised, and the only links to it are talk pages and YG threads. When az and caleb's community portal gets implemented there will be a non-discussion page link to it. The whole reason for the project namespace is for dealing with non-encyclopediac things, such as projects. As az said, we have many things on this wiki which don't help the encyclopedia side of the wiki which we should delete per this arguement. scoot4.pngscooties 01:22, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Aww I guessed wrong. I could have sworn that Rob H. worte Az's comment. I have to say I was dissapointed when I saw that signature. But, back to the topic at hand, contrary to what Az said, claiming that this doubles the chances of getting a customer aren't exactly valid. See, anyone that posts here can't sell it or post it anywhere else, should two people try to buy the item at the same time. So, it just unnecessarily holds items in our database that might better belong somewhere else. --LiquidTalk 01:29, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Az is right, and I want to expand on that with an example I had in a GE conversation today (Real Conversation): Friend: Man I cant sell this junk anywhere Me: Y? Him: I was banned from the Forums :( Me: Wat R U Selling? Him: Mints Then I changed the topic. Point is, this is another chance for selling if you are banned from Forums or selling junk. According to "Buy" Offers here, my friend could have easily sold up to 100 Mints thanks to this (I was stupid not to suggest this). Point is, This is a way of helping people get more buyers/sellers if they are banned or cant use GE. Just some words of Wisdom. (Oh, and just so everyone knows, you can't sell MMO Items/gold on eBay, even if it is for in-game currency)~~Signed,Bulbear4444Slayer's respite.png~~ 02:03, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Weak Delete - The Grand Exchange and trade worlds are good enough to usually sell these items, posting here probably would not help any further considering the fact that I doubt over 5% of all wiki users (guests and members combined), have never heard of this. However, because people never got the word out, it never really reached any potential it had, that being said, how MUCH potential did it really have?

I would like to make a comment to your point Bulbear, every player in RuneScape can use the G.E., and those who can't take 5 minutes for the tutorial will have to deal with their apathy. As for banned people, it is all in all, their own fault they were banned, so they have to live with that penalty. Bowler225 23:12, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, this page was NOT meant for normal trading, but for: trading large quantities of slow-moving items, junk trading, item lending, and free players with limited slots. And I've already stated above why we should preserve semi-active and inactive projects.   az talk   04:11, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Keep - Per Az. Why must it be deleted when this yields no particular advantage? We can clean it up and try to increase usage of it. Pretty simple if we execute it right. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 13:41, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Delete - Not extremely useful, very out of date. Better just to use RSOF. HaloTalk 17:40, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - per above. Thats what the RuneScape Forums are for! 222 talk 06:13, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Repeating what I said earlier: Forum threads get old quickly (a few days at most?) unless they get bumped often, and get deleted/replaced with newer threads every day.   az talk   12:40, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
The RSOF has a specialized Marketplace section for this. The threads in there don't really get old, since people are searching for what they need. --LiquidTalk 12:43, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
If you want people to look at your offer you'll bump it anyway 222 talk 02:34, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
This isn't the official RuneScape Website. This is the RuneScape Wiki. We have our own information, our own market watch, our own forums, our own everything pretty much. Why not our own Marketplace? We shouldn't delete the Market with the reasoning of using Jagex's... Chicken7 >talk 12:45, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
The reason is that our marketplace is not used enough to make having one practical. Using our marketplace in lieu of the Jagex ones basically ties up merchandise here, with a very small clientele. The chances of finding a client are slim, and the user cannot sell it elsewhere, or else, if a client actually showed up here, the user would have no merchandise left to sell. --LiquidTalk 23:43, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
If we really are going to keep it someone will need to manage it and tidy it up often. Its bound to have heaps of dead offers and "expired" stuff. However there is no need to do this because we can use the OFFICIAL RUNESCAPE FORUMS!!! 222 talk 02:34, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
What about free players with less than 5m total experience? Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 11:03, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
With that argument, you could say we can delete all our maps, our personal forums, a lot of our articles about activities and places, our GEMW, our quest walkthroughs and many other things because we can use the Jagex official versions. Chicken7 >talk 02:13, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Strong keep- I used this page just yesterday!.Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 12:51, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - I've never myself seen a reason to sell within the the Wiki, as we have the RS Forums and the G.E. I don't think maybe people will continue to use that that use it anyways, and it' a upkeep nightmare in general... 23:56, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Weak Delete - I think if it was watched more, it could turn out good, but if left alone for the users to settle, then it won't work out.

Keep - Still used often. I regularly check it myself. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 18:30, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Weak Delete - Many things on that are outdated, and it doesn't look like it's used much, but it could be useful if it was utilized more. Pl1324 02:03, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per above, not really used. Ajraddatz Talk 22:49, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per az. bad_fetustalk 08:00, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Comment/Question - Can somebody please explain what good deleting it would do? I can tell you it would not remove it from the database, as everything it kept so that it can be restored by admins, so it will not free up space on the wiki (and we already have an infinite amount of that, anyone really trying that hard to conserve space would not even contribute to RFD discussions with that as their reasoning, as even commenting takes up space). Another poor reason I have seen is that there are other means of trading, such as the G.E. or the forums (be in the RSOF or another site). What if your a f2p without 5M xp, or your trying to lend an item or have one lent to you, or simply want to trade strictly with wikians? You could have all your GE offers full, the list goes on and on. We can always use the sitenotice to stir up use of the market, or some other means of doing that. So what's the problem? Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 22:43, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

While I don't particularly care if this gets deleted or not, the point of deleting this is the same as deleting a template: so it won't be used anymore, at least not with the recognition/support of the community. KNYBucket detail.pngrwojy 22:58, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Keep - Just because it isn't used often doesn't mean it can't be used. Perhaps it could use a bit of a refresh/cleanup, some more advertisement, and some active participation from the wiki user community. For those that insist that it is deleted, the best argument I see is "I don't use it, so it is in the way". That is hardly justification for deletion. BTW, for those who claim that the RS official forums are the place for this activity, I should note that other fansites also have markets and exchanges for player to player trades, notably Tip.it and Legend's Tower. This one happens to be done in a wiki fashion. --Robert Horning 20:24, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Request for closure - Been open for a month and a half and hasn't been posted on in almost a week. HaloTalk 22:59, May 3, 2010 (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. --LiquidTalk 10:05, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Template:Drops

This is only used on the chicken article, and I don't think anyone wants to expand on using this... (see first nomination)

  • Delete - As nom. --Coolnesse 00:33, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep See below - It doesn't really matter if it's only being used in one article now. Its use should be expanded in the future to encompass more articles. We just need a few volunteers to do the work. --LiquidTalk 00:34, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
Are you saying to be bold? --Coolnesse 00:40, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete It's an eyesore. VHSTLBucket detail.pngrwojy 00:48, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Looks bad. You could just put ==Drops== ===100% drop=== ===Herbs=== ===Armour and weapons=== ===Other=== or whatever headings you want. --Iiii I I I 00:56, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - What 3i+1 said makes perfect sense. HaloTalk 00:57, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per all; it's fugly... --Aburnett(Talk) 01:00, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Teh uglies Concerned. I much rather like the regular Drops sections and whatnot that we currently use. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 21:30, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - So ugly D: bad_fetustalk 07:59, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep/Hold on - What Helm said. It isn't really a valid to delete based on the reasoning that it isn't used anywhere. This template could be really helpful, plus make the pages a lot more organised. Please don't delete this in the next few days, as I'm going to attempt clean it up and make it look nicer, seeing as everyone thinks it's fugly. Chicken7 >talk 16:35, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
Fugly?? You people have watched too many chick flicks... Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 02:43, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
Keep withdrawn/neutral - I've withdrew my keep, as that template is obsolete to the ones I am testing now in my sandbox. The outcome of this RfD cannot affect the ones I am testing, so this can be deleted anyway. It's already given me inspiration. ^_^ Chicken7 >talk 06:22, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - This template violates no policy of any kind, and it certainly could be expanded to be used in some other fashion to help improve creature articles. The beauty of a template is that you can tweak the appearance in multiple ways after the template is completed, and to provide a consistent look and feel across multiple articles. Seriously, I don't get the rationale here for why this must be deleted. Keeping it in the Chicken article might just inspire somebody else to do something else amazing or interesting with this or a new template idea. --Robert Horning 20:32, April 27, 2010 (UTC)
Requests for deletion don't necessarily have to violate a policy. --Coolnesse 21:36, April 27, 2010 (UTC)
True, but the rationale for deletion really ought to be in policy, or as a result of the discussion from the VfD can be used to help write a policy that would respect the edits of somebody trying to improve the wiki. If there is a glaring something that just doesn't fit on the wiki, perhaps it is time that the policy should change. I have seen numerous VfD/RfD discussions that have resulted in a policy change because this is where the problems show up and often push the boundaries of existing policies. This template fits so solidly within the scope of this project, being bold, and doing something to help improve the appearance of the article that it boggles my mind that it is even under dispute here. Seriously, what sort of policy change would you implement here, other than a no new template policy? --Robert Horning 01:17, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
What? New policy? I only have lots of reasons to state that this template, and only this template alone. won't work. No new policies here O_o. --Coolnesse 01:52, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately that sort of violates the principles of assuming good faith on the part of new contributors. The assumption of good faith is that experiments should be encouraged and contributors to this wiki should not have project shut down merely because it goes against the status quo. I've had that happen before and I didn't like it, nor do I think that should be the case here. In terms of a template looking ugly.... fix it! That doesn't need a RfD, it needs some editing and some understanding of how templates work to improve it. So far other than pure aesthetics which might as well be a skin issue, I see no other rationale being brought forth as to why this template needs to be deleted. Indeed, I don't even see that as an argument at all. --Robert Horning 19:38, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, this template doesn't look half bad... It's just that we can't categorise it into different sections (by which I mean weapons, etc.) --Coolnesse 19:48, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
Why not? We have dynamic lists on this wiki that can sort stuff out into categories and be able to put stuff like that into a template. That is a matter of improving the template, not necessarily a problem with having the template on the wiki in the first place... as seems to be the case here. If this is a question on how to break this up into various categories, that can be arranged. --Robert Horning 20:15, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Like Robert said, I saw a lot of potential in this template and took the idea and expanded on it. For an example of what I have turned it into, see User:Chicken7/Sandbox#Testing of Drop tables. I don't think I'll propose the implementation of the template in a Yew Grove, but instead be bold and start changing some articles tonight. What do you think? Smile Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 07:19, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

I still don't like it. The main reason is that the current system is fine, the only improvement this adds is sortability & ge prices, which are one click away. And the fact that it doesn't look good is valid: It is a table, which shouldn't be used in articles unless really necessary. Also, just implementing it would show problems: 1 large table with everything, or several separate smaller tables (for armor, weps, etc)? ZMIXSIBucket detail.pngrwojy 07:25, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
Well, you're a minority, Rwojy. You have overlooked many improvements. Sortability is a major improvement, as viewers can quickly find the item they are looking for if it is not alphabetical. Or they can sort by rarity, and see which items are most common. Etc. And the GE Price is a major benefit. Users can then value their drops and decide whether they want to keep it, instead of accessing each item's individual page. You've overlooked the new consistent rarity column. It's much better than the "make up a new rarity" we currently have, which has made our article's drop lists very inconsistent. And what do you mean we shouldn't use tables in articles? What are they there for? Talk pages? A table's goal is to neatly organise information, and that is exactly what this template does. The one large table/several smaller category tables is the only problem that I see. Even then, we might as well have one large one, as the point of the headers was to bring some sort of organisation and easy navigation, but the table brings much more than they would've ever achieved. I think you just don't like change and all the work it'll take to implement this. Chicken7 >talk 13:36, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Sorry Chicken, it looks ugly :P Ajraddatz Talk 13:54, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

This discussion isn't about my template. You can delete Template:Drops now. But deleting Template:DropsTableHead and Template:DropsLine would need a new RfD, and it'd be invalid, as the template is under construction. Plus, you've voted to keep (oppose=oppose deletion). Chicken7 >talk 13:56, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
Changed to delete; my noob error. Ajraddatz Talk 14:24, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Request closure - 10 days is enough. Sorry! --Coolnesse 00:12, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Delete, keep withdrawn - At Chicken's request. --LiquidTalk 10:02, May 4, 2010 (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. --LiquidTalk 19:38, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Sailing

First nomination

Now that we know the new skill is Dungeoneering, not Sailing, this article is unnecessary and potentially confusing. It contains a lot of speculation, which is not allowed per RS:NOT#CRYSTAL. --LiquidTalk 02:12, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - As nominator. --LiquidTalk 02:12, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

keep- while the newest skill is dungeoneering, there will be another skill. and sailing has been hoped for and asked for for years. then there was the fake symobol on the highscores, and all those fake pictures people made. it was a pehnoninon for a while.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.115.204.217 (talk).

Delete - Per nom. --Coolnesse 04:36, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Keep + Rewrite - While we all know Sailing is a cruel, cruel joke by some Jagex mods, Sailing has a history in RuneScape. The icon and obsession on the forums are still very real. The Sailing article should be rewritten to make it clear that Sailing will not be a future skill, and it was only a joke. It should also make sure that readers know that Dungeoneering was the "new skill" at the time. It simply needs a rewrite. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 04:39, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per Lil Diriz 77 --willwill Talk 05:03, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Keep/rewrite - Per Diriz. Sailing was a major part of RuneScape culture before the Q&As, and even after the idea of Sailing being the next skill was shot down, Sailing fanatics continued to advocate the possibility that Sailing may be a skill in 2012-13. Definitely keep. Telos 06:29, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Strong keep - It just needs a rewrite, which someone could go and do right now. Chicken7 >talk 06:47, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - I said my piece in the previous nomination. While standards can be improved within the article, there is no need remove this article which has certainly been a phenomena within the Runescape community worth documenting on its own merits, even if it never becomes a skill. Besides, it never was an issue that Sailing was going to be the next skill. Andrew Gower did say that he enjoyed sailing on a personal level, and I have no doubt that something related to sailing may happen in the future besides what is already in the game. --Robert Horning 19:47, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Sailing is significant not in its potential as a new skill, but in its sheer persistance and depth as a piece of RuneScape culture. The article should make it very clear, though, that there's no indication that it is ever going to be released. Quest.png Morian Smith Saradomin crozier.png 23:05, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Keep/rewrite - Per above. HaloTalk 22:58, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawn - I suppose you guys have a point. --LiquidTalk 19:38, May 4, 2010 (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 No consensus. Aburnett(Talk) 22:00, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

[[:File:Jagex store main.png]]

This image is more or less an advertisement for the Jagex store (and the page about the topic seams like it just the same). I could not find a way to fit it into the article, so I don't see any reason to keep it. I would otherwise just delete it, though I don't feel like I can do that without community consensus just because I don't like it. The file is unused at the tiem of writing.

  • Delete - Per above. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 22:07, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Image is also somewhat duplicate- see File:RuneScape Merchandise Store.png. -Aburnett(Talk) 22:19, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't see it as an advertisement. It's the welcome message to the Jagex store. That's something we should show. We show the welcome message to RuneScape and other things. You could call this an advertisement, as discussed in Caleb's editorial. I also implemented this into the article. And if you think the article itself sounds like an advertisement, you can fix it or add the NPOV template. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 13:49, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per Aburnett. --Coolnesse 19:53, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - Per Chicken. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 18:35, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per nom. Pl1324 02:09, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - Per Chicken. bad_fetustalk 14:53, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - Per Chicken. HaloTalk 14:59, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - Please write me a paragraph explaining how it hurts the wiki to have this. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. Ajraddatz Talk 20:23, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't have to hurt the wiki, it just adds on more useless junk onto the wiki. See Aburnett's post about File:Jagex StoreNew.png. Is it not a duplicate? I believe it is. You don't have to fix it, just destroy it and clean it up. --Coolnesse 23:48, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
You're right here, there isn't much point in having this duplicate. Ajraddatz Talk 00:03, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
Arrghh! lolz. Oh well. I hope you don't see the clerical error you made in that post. I clearly stated that this image is the duplicate. --Coolnesse 00:10, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
No, this was just a little noob on my part. Sorry. Ajraddatz Talk 00:11, May 4, 2010 (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 Speedy delete. --LiquidTalk 01:53, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

File:Burying_Bones.gif

There is another animation illustrating the same thing.

The other animation, Burybones.gif, is larger and has better detail.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zepolesoj17 (talk).

Comment - Forum:Deleting old images says to merge instead of delete (even though it hasn't been acted upon with consensus completed). However, the later is the older of the two meaning this is eligible for RS:SPEEDY. Either way, it's only linked to a userpage. That can be easily fixed. Ryan PM 01:52, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - This file is unused in mainspace. --LiquidTalk 01:53, May 11, 2010 (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. --LiquidTalk 13:57, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Adamant bolts (p)

This was originally tagged with a speedy-d tag, however I believe this needs discussion. Article was tagged with the reason "Covered in Adamant bolts"

  • Comment - I have no opinion on this, I just moved it to RfD. --Aburnett(Talk) 00:45, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

OpposeSupport RS:G-Need I say more? HaloTalk 00:54, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support redirect - RS:G says that armor/weapons that look alike should be covered on the same page. Since the poisoned versions of arrows are essentially the same item with the same purpose, and can be substituted for each other, this does not need its own page. I redirected Adamant arrows (p++) today after seeing a speedy delete with the same reason. --LiquidTalk 00:56, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

RS:G Also says to make different articles if the items look different. So even if there isn't one for p, p+, and p++, there should be one for regular, and one for poisoned. By policy at least. Sometimes...I hate that policy. HaloTalk 01:03, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Sure granularity policy technically applies, but RS:IAR and RS:UCS override granularity. Simply put we can very easily and effectively cover both the poisioned and nonpoisoned versions in the article, and the poisoned version is not different enough to justify a completely separate article. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 01:24, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

IAR=UCS...but you do bring up a point. I really think we should modify RS:G. HaloTalk 01:26, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

Speedy delete - I'm the one who nominated it, anyway. --Coolnesse 02:10, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should review this page for the future. HaloTalk 02:57, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

Im not very Wikia-savy as others.. But i just say merge it onto Adamant bolts.. It makes sense, they are both the same items one is just a modified version of the other. Defence-icon.png O_o Willis HS Quest map icon.png 02:18, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect - Most/all other poisonable items simply have a section on the page about poison (see [[Template:PoisonedWeaponExchange]] and the wlh). I prefer having them all together, since the only difference (pretty much) is the extra poison damage (covered in Poison#Weapon poisoning), the exchange price (covered by the template mentioned), and maybe the inventory image (just a case of getting someone to obtain it if we don't already have it). If you want to split them all, go for it, but that may need a YG discussion. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 13:50, May 10, 2010 (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. Aburnett(Talk) 01:32, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Template:Dragon nosmith

This isn't necessary. The individual articles tell you where dragon items come from, there's no need to specifically say you can't smith them.

--Wowbagger421 13:57, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support16px‎AtlandyBeer.png 14:09, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per nom. --Coolnesse 19:38, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Are we actually this lazy? --Aburnett(Talk) 19:28, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Yeah. --Iiii I I I 19:34, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I never knew this was a template OMG! I thought we had enough energy to copy and paste that message onto a few articles... guess not Concerned Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 03:57, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - What's the difference between copy/paste'ing it and using it as a template? bad_fetustalk 15:21, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Using a template allows all uses to be updated at the same time - a keep reason - but increases overhead on the page (albeit only a little for a simple template like this) - a delete reason. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 15:35, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
Meh, I still don't see why it should be deleted. bad_fetustalk 15:37, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
Also remember, there may be special cases. The shields have to be smithed together, and I think there was another item that involved smithing the parts together (platebody?) Anyhow, without a template, it could be easily changed to reflect each individual case. Chicken7 >talk 02:28, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - What above said, and it is also more confusing for new users who don't understand templates. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 00:56, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per above. Ajraddatz Talk 02:31, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support- per everyone who supportsKrayfish 19:14, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Template will be deleted. --Aburnett(Talk) 01:32, May 27, 2010 (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. Aburnett(Talk) 01:41, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Template:None selected

Give me a good reason why we would need to keep this. All it really is, well, a waste of space.

  • Delete - As nom. --Coolnesse 20:43, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - Actually, deleting it doesn't conserve any space. The file still exists in the database. It just cannot be accessed by anyone except for administrators. --LiquidTalk 20:45, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
Well, who cares? I still don't see any good reasons for keeping it. --Coolnesse 20:48, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
I care.
I don't know what our respective MediaWiki page is currently set to, but this is the default thing that comes up when you upload an image without selecting anything from the license/category drop-down list. Normally, it just comes up as a redlink. This thus replaces that redlink.
There are two ways to fix the problem that the redlink causes:
  1. Replace the redlink with an actual template (as done here)
  2. Or change the MediaWiki page so it is not included (not sure if that was done)
Categories can be attached to the template that would compile all of the images lacking a license/category into one list, which then gives the template a very valid use. However, upon just looking at its current code, you'd see that such a thing has not been added. Nevertheless, even without the added category, it alerts anyone looking at the page that it needs a category—something that anyone can easily fix which most people would never realize if they weren't told.
However, there is always Special:UncategorizedFiles to go through, and if images are given a category so that they will then be compiled with all other uncategorized images they will not appear on the special page.
Even without the category, the template still helps. If someone comes across a cagetory-less image without realizing it, the template should make it very obvious.
In short, it would be like deleting {{jpg}} but keeping the category. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!I have 12 friends. 01:55, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:None_selected would also give you a list of the images with this template, just not as nicely formatted as a category would be and it also includes non-transcluded uses of the template. --Quarenon  Talk 02:57, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
Let's just used Special:UncategorizedFiles and be fine with it... --Coolnesse 21:17, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - Please explain to me how it is killing the wiki to keep this, and also per Chia. Ajraddatz Talk 20:23, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
As I explained in RuneScape:Requests for deletion/File:Jagex store main.png, it DOESN'T HAVE TO HURT THE WIKI! I, for one, know that is serves a very unuseful purpose. Why not just leave it in Special:UncategorizedFiles. --Coolnesse 23:52, May 3, 2010 (UTC)
There is still no need (in my mind) to delete it. If there is a chance that it will be used, then why? Ajraddatz Talk 00:03, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
A chance? It won't be used, ever. Files that don't have a category be left in Special:UncategorizedFiles, end of story. --Coolnesse 00:11, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
Won't ever be used? It's already transcluded in hundreds of pages. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!I have 12 friends. 04:15, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
That's what I meant!! We won't use it again!! --Coolnesse 01:27, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Deleting doesn't save space, just makes it unaccessible to those without the privilege level on this Wiki. If it's because you don't see a use then that's your problem. This has request has been here for awhile and received no new input. An administrator might want to close this if they find consensus among the few who participated in this brief discussion. Ryan PM 21:07, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Addressing your first sentence, I understand what you're talking about. However, can you explain why we need this? It's just like deleteing a useless template like Bspell or Dragon nosmith, correct? --Coolnesse 01:27, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
  • Closed - Template will not be deleted at this time. --Aburnett(Talk) 01:41, May 27, 2010 (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, but move. C.ChiamTalk 06:22, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

Thieves' Guild quest series

This isn't really a quest series at all... it has one quest in it, with some optional, hidden miniquests that can be done after that quest. Since when are miniquests considered part of a quest series? Jagex hasn't confirmed any sequels to Buyers and Cellars either; the Thieves' Guild is complete anyway. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 04:44, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support (See below) - Per nominator. HaloTalk 04:45, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

I'd roll with what Chicken has proposed below. HaloTalk 00:38, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Hmm, I could make it a mini quest series? Is there anyway I can keep this article, just redo it? Move it into capers maybe? Like, get rid of BaC and its rewards? Zaros shall return.... 04:53, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per nominator. --LiquidTalk 13:56, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per nom. bad_fetustalk 14:03, May 21, 2010 (UTC)Changed to Move per Chicken. bad_fetustalk 13:43, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per nom. --Coolnesse 20:22, May 21, 2010 (UTC) Changed to below. --Coolnesse 19:23, May 25, 2010 (UTC) Move - Per Chicken. --Coolnesse 19:23, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - The capers aren't quests, and they share the same quest journal as Buyers and Cellars. And a single quest does not justify a whole series. Ciphrius Kane 23:35, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Move to Thieves' Guild capers series - There is some good information that is there, that should not just be deleted. The only argument I have seen is that they are not part of a quest series; well, they're part of a series of capers. If not that title, merge it into Capers. Chicken7 >talk 10:02, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Comment/Move- per Chicken7 Krayfish 19:15, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the page to Thieves' Guild caper series Zaros shall return.... 05:28, May 27, 2010 (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 Speedy delete. C.ChiamTalk 06:26, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

Mountain troll/Charm log

For a few hundred kills of mountain trolls, there's not a single charm. Other articles about monsters that don't appear to drop charms don't have charm logs. It seems there's sufficient evidence to suppose that mountain trolls don't drop charms, either. In which case there's little point in keeping a log of nothing. I suppose this page doesn't quite meet the speedy deletion criterion of nonsense, since it's not actually gibberish. Nevertheless its value seems extremely limited, to say the least, and its existence seems inconsistent with information maintained on other monsters which don't drop charms, so I'm rfd'ing it. --Saftzie 12:26, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Speedy delete - Per nom. --Coolnesse 20:06, May 27, 2010 (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. C.ChiamTalk 08:12, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Drop trick

Much of the information contained here is false or obsolete. If it is one of these items that it could be done with, this could be put on that article's page. It is also reminiscent of duplicating items (maybe that's just me?), but it doesn't look very good if you ask me. Maybe I'm overly panicking, and if people don't want this deleted, then I will personally clean up the article after this is closed and make it at factually accurate.

Delete - As nominator. HaloTalk 02:42, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - if we did this we would have to explain it every time it comes up Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 02:49, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Explain what (it is very ambiguous) ? HaloTalk 02:50, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - RS:BB and many quest items, such as Carnillean armour can be drop tricked. --Coolnesse 10:54, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - It might not look good to you, but it looks good to me. bad_fetustalk 17:15, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - There's nothing wrong with drop tricking. Jagex knows it happens and if they had a huge problem with it, they would have done something about it long ago. It doesn't harm any aspect of the game, since you can only ever use one item at a time. To be honest I'm kind of miffed every time they release something that's not drop trickable, since what is the harm in having more than one? kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 17:36, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should change the name then. (In addition to cleaning up the article). Because this seems to condone it in a negative light (at least to me-am I just randomly panicking?) HaloTalk 20:01, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
I can't really think of anything that adequately describes the technique that doesn't use an even more negative term like duplication or copying. Maybe something like "Drop Method"? kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 20:12, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
That may be more appropriate. "Trick" just sounds like it's rulebreaking to me. At least in this context. HaloTalk 20:22, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
Just to comment, although there is no official name, drop trick is the much more common one user among players. But then again, drop method sounds a lot more encyclopaedic. Chicken7 >talk 06:02, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
RS:NOT#WIKIPEDIA --Coolnesse 20:37, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
? I had a read, and I don't believe I referred to Wikipedia or their policies. We apparently are supposed to keep an encyclopaedic format to our wiki, while being a fansite. Chicken7 >talk 06:58, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Keep- per Psycho Robot Krayfish 19:17, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - It seems fine to me. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 07:19, May 26, 2010 (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. QVNMPMBucket detail.pngrwojy 10:56, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Kharidian Desert Diary

"Yeah, one day I'm sure" sounds as if Paul was only saying that there will probably be a desert diary in the future. He did not confirm that this will be released, he did not confirm that it is being worked on or will be worked on, and he did not give any sort of official name for it. This diary is purely Paul's speculation on what it might be like if it were to be developed, however, he did not confirm anything. I believe this article should be deleted. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 23:33, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - As nom. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 23:37, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Remake when the diary is made. HaloTalk 23:39, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Hal. Ciphrius Kane 23:40, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Yet again I get the feeling that this was made purely to reach 15000 articles. --LiquidTalk 18:38, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Disagree - This article should remain, or the information from it should be moved to some history page, so that there is trivia as to when this diary is created, when was the first time it was mentioned. --Golduin 14:13, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

But the thing is that it wasn't mentioned. Maybe a "desert diary" was, but nobody mentioned a "Kharidian Desert Diary". That is made up. +, if you'd really like to keep this information from the Q&A as trivia, then I'll archive the Q&A with WebCitation, bookmark it, and then when this "desert diary" is released (IF it is released), then I'll add it to the Trivia section for you. We do not need to have this page here to add trivia elsewhere, and thus, this should be deleted. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 20:12, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
Why not rename it to 'Desert Diary' then? It doesn't hurt >_>. --Coolnesse 20:36, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Same as with Dragon ore. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 20:39, May 25, 2010 (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 No consensus. C.ChiamTalk 04:02, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

Keyboard control

Is an article about an update that will never occur. This article was created for the purpose of achieving the lackluster goal of 15,000 articles for vanity. If the original creator had thought about doing more research on the article, he would have realized that it would never be done as Mod Nick said "Unfortunately, WASD key controls (which means that you use the W, A, S and D keys to control your character), did not work well in RuneScape when we researched it. The main reason was the path finding, which is done on the server. Due to the frequency of packets and the possibility of missing packets or lag, the player could suddenly move position."[1]

Support as nominator. Ryan PM 19:35, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support Comment - Per nom. HaloTalk 20:45, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Chicken brought up an interesting idea. That being that we take all the things that Jagex intended to put in game (but never did for some reason), and put them all in one article. That way when people ask, "What happened to ______?", we can simply refer them to this page, which would also be interesting reading for some people. HaloTalk 19:59, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it was Degen's suggestion. ^_^ I won't take all the credit. We can discuss this on the CC later maybe and work out how it'd be presented. Chicken7 >talk 05:58, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per above. Ciphrius Kane 23:36, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - If the original proposer of this RfD had some manners, he'd understand that I am a volunteer and was simply creating an article for, according to the information at UU, an update that was confirmed. I don't have all day to scour the forums looking for sources, like many seem to want to do to prove me wrong. And if the original proposer had some common sense, he'd realise that 1 article makes barely any difference to 15000 articles, so I did not create it to reach that number sooner... Chicken7 >talk 09:11, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

I have never read that page, but after just looking at it since your comment it is chuck-full of speculation where the intended article is a joke by the staff member whom answered the question, or do not recieved an edit after the initial project was created, such as was this defunct project by Jagex. I did not mean to offend you, but I must say that with the dragon ore creation, the edit summary just rubbed me the wrong way. Sorry for not taking the time to remove dilapidated information from the speculative article and ignoring good faith. Ryan PM 09:41, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support - What is up with these subpar articles? Don't people realize that having decent articles is more important than having 15000 articles? --LiquidTalk 18:36, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

.... You obviously didn't read my comments here or on the other RfDs/YGs. With the information I had available, an article about this topic was permitted, per RS:NIP. 15,000 articles had NOTHING to do with its creation. I'd been planning these articles since December 2009. And tell me; what is subpar about that article? All information available has been added. Would you call this article subpar, and propose its deletion? People do realise that having decent articles is important, but those people also realise that covering important topics and RuneScape's game engine history is equally important. Chicken7 >talk 05:58, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Delete... per Liquidhelium... what was the rush anyway? Would we get some kind of reward or cookie for 15,000 articles? Was it really needed to mass create articles that didn't need them >_<? Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 18:40, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. You don't have to make dumbstuff like this. --Coolnesse 19:52, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

When it was made it was intended to be released. Jagex later found out that it wasn't working real well. HaloTalk 19:59, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Deletion - Dragon Crossbow, anyone? Dragon Warhammer? Did anyone else click the link to Upcoming Updates and see that other confirmed updates have articles? Regardless of "lackluster" intentions, there's nothing wrong with creating an article for keyboard control. It isn't sub-par, either; it contains all the information we have on the topic, and it is a stub, but that's no reason to delete it. If it's decided to create an article detailing updates that Jagex never implemented, make sure there are re-directs for each topic, but, really, I don't think such an article would be any more efficient than separate articles; I'd call it less efficient than separate articles, scrolling through pages of unimplemented updates when, currently, you can just type "Keyboard Control" into the search... and how do we know that Jagex is never going to implement an update? Maybe they need to revamp the engine before they can implement keyboard control; that doesn't mean they'll never implement keyboard control. Leftiness 16:14, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - If it's possible (I do not remember if this has any effect on RuneScape:Consensus) I withdraw the nomination for deletion based on other articles - such as Life rune - and the opposition positions. However the article should and will reflect of it's project being defunct by representation of both references and any supporting material to make it a better article. Ryan PM 06:26, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - From what I've stated above. We can easily improve this article greatly with information, including the quote stating it's been abandoned, the technical limitations of the engine that prevented them, the tests they used, etc. Chicken7 >talk 09:00, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Per Chicken. bad_fetustalk 11:05, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Mod Nick (2010-02-19). RS Content Q&A - pt 2. Retrieved on 2010-05-22.

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. C.ChiamTalk 04:05, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

Dragon ore

The info on this page deserves mentioning somewhere, but per RS:NIP and RS:NOT#CRYSTAL, the fact that this future update is not 100% confirmed means we shouldn't have an article on it. I hate to spoil the party, but I just don't think this topic is deserving of an article on its own.

Delete - As nom. --Quarenon  Talk 20:30, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Delete - He said "Probably!", and really gave no other information. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 20:29, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - There is other information besides that comment about dragon ore, like a postbag and another Q&A. This is something I'm sure many readers will be looking for, so we should give them all the information we have. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 01:32, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
Also, you're not spoiling the party... we still have 15,008 articles. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 22:52, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Delete Neutral - Re-make when released. (Stop using bullet points people.) HaloTalk 20:39, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

I can't really say on this anymore, both sides have good arguments. HaloTalk 22:05, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per nominator and due to the vanity at which it was intended for. Just looking at his contributions and edit summary tell me all that I need to know to support the deletion of this article. Ryan PM 20:42, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Delete explained below As the content is in the Future updates page is see e no no reason to have a seprate page now. I saw the keyboard control deletion request that was up too for deletion but I wonder if a other future update pages were created and suggest they all get speedy deleted once we solve this. --Dragon helm.png Team6and7 Talk Dragon boots.png 22:36, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's not why I'm supporting deletion. I'm fine with having articles on non-existant / future items, just not ones that we don't know for a fact are going to be released. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 22:55, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
If you delete the article, you delete the section... Chicken7 >talk 08:46, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but Team6and7 is saying that all future update articles should be speedy deleted if this requests succeeds. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk

13:46, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Yes to clear out what i meant is Strong Delete anyfuture update articles crated in this article creation surge and keep in future updates page sections --Dragon helm.png Team6and7 Talk Dragon boots.png 19:24, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per everyone, it is not a confirmed update and because it would annoy ChickenHunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 22:53, May 22, 2010 (UTC) Doing something to annoy someone is a terrible reason to do it. HaloTalk 20:06, May 23, 2010 (UTC) I'm pretty sure he's joking, though. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 21:07, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Yes it was a jokeHunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 07:16, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
Okay, my bad then. 22:05, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Part of an attempt to create 15,0000 articles I suspect. Also, anybody notice a Pokemon in the article? Ciphrius Kane 23:39, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

WTH are you talking about??? Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 08:59, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
I'd been planning to create this article since December 2009.... [1] Chicken7 >talk 09:26, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - While the article isn't speculating, I think that Mod Mark was when he said it. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 01:36, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per above, the Mod's words seemed a bit uneasy. Remake if it is released or more info is released. xScoobsx Talk Contribs 01:43, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I feel very saddened by the fact that some of you have referenced me in your reasonings.... Dragon ore has been in UU for over half a year, and despite the hundreds of users that have viewed the page, including many of you I'm sure, no one has removed it or requested a source. But, when I create it as the 15000th article, it seems everyone wants to join in and criticise it. I am adamant that there wouldn't be an RfD if it wasn't the 15000th article. You should go through UU and check for the many other updates that have not been confirmed properly with a "YES ITS GOING TO BE RELEASED". I'm not going to bother supporting/opposing, as it's obvious which way this will go. Chicken7 >talk 08:46, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Super Strong Keep - NEVERZ FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUU, it will most likely come out but for the meantime its good for people searching for this so its fine Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 08:51, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Nobody bothered to delete the small section, so I don't see why everyone is making a fuss out of it, probably because this is the 15,000th article, imo, but he said probably, which is leaning to a yes. Also, there are plenty of other articles on items that might be created, such as Dragon Warhammer, so why not have an article on dragon ore? Seems a little unfair. 08:55, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - This update is not confirmed and so this page shouldn't be here. Quest point cape detail.pngRuneueins Talk # Quest point hood.png 09:13, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Dragon warhammer should have it's own page, because it has been confirmed 100%, unlike the dragon ore. Quest point cape detail.pngRuneueins Talk # Quest point hood.png 09:16, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

There is a Dragon warhammer article. --Coolnesse 10:50, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Strong keep - This update IS 100% confirmed. Can't you guys understand that? --Coolnesse 10:50, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 13:46, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
"Probably"="Yes"? That's news to me. HaloTalk 13:51, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - I don't see a reason to delete it. We have an albeit vague JMod statement on it, so is no longer player speculation, and is notable enough for an article. There's bound to be players looking for information on dragon ore so we should be there to provide what information there is for them. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 16:21, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Not confirmed and thus should not have its own page. In fact I will edit the page now to reflect actual reality.--Agamemnus 16:23, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Strong delete - This article was probably created as part of the mad rush to have 15000 articles prior to May 22, 2010. Well, it worked, but the articles that were created were all subpar. This is one of them. --LiquidTalk 17:46, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Strong keep - It could well become a larger article should Jagex decide to release this then you'd just have to create it again, so it seems pointless to delete only for it to be remade again should the item come out. Defence cape (t).png Rabbit FearArmadyl godsword.png 18:54, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a big deal to remake. The ONLY thing on the page says dragon ore will "probably" be put in game eventually. HaloTalk 20:03, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Keep- per Rabbit Fear and Coolnesse. If it has been hinted of is coming out, we should still keep the article until Jagex makes its decision unless Jagex decides to cancel the update. Krayfish 19:11, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

So when you say "per Coolnesse", that actually makes you automatically wrong, because Coolnesse said that "this update IS 100% confirmed".--Agamemnus 19:54, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I cleared up my point above. Dragon helm.png Team6and7 Talk Dragon boots.png 19:24, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Actually, I've removed my comment on keep, I'm not sure, but If you view the Non-existent item policy here., it clearly states Articles about unreleased items with valid proof of being implemented in the future may be created under normal circumstances. Links and references to the evidence should be supplied, However it also states Commonly discussed things that do not exist in RuneScape, such as various dragon and white items, should be redirected to Non-existent item.  I actually rather like the 15,000th article to be Dragon Ore, there is some proof it exists as the Moderator did say yes. But I'll leave you to discuss the Non-existent item policy, since it's pretty weighed out wether to change it 21:06, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I totally agree that it is indeed unreleased with valid proof of being implemented in the future. A J-mod mentioning the possibility is certainly valid proof. If this article was about a Guthix Godsword, then it would probably be a better candidate of being deleted. That's an item that Jagex has not said anything about and has no evidence of existing. However, we know that Jagex are probably looking into creating Dragon Ore if they actually addressed it. Krayfish 19:28, May 24, 2010 (UTC)


Comment - I know it wouldn't be much of a hassle to remake but you'd feel pretty stupid if you deleted it only to have to remake it a few months/years later if it ever did come out. Dragon warhammer also has an article but has very little information on it just like Dragon ore but you don't see that being proposed for deletion do you? I would find it bad that the wiki deleted an article just because it wasn't what users may of expected for a 15k article. Defence cape (t).png Rabbit FearArmadyl godsword.png 21:47, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

It's because dragon warhammer was confirmed to be coming. They said yes. With dragon ore they said probably. That's the difference. HaloTalk 21:55, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
prob·a·bly adverb in all likelihood; very likely. He will probably attend. From an online dictionary, so probably doesn't mean for certain yes but means it's highly likely. Just because a J mod makes a joke at the end, doesn't suddenly mean they were just joking a J mod is a person too. Defence cape (t).png Rabbit FearArmadyl godsword.png 10:35, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
While true, what is the harm in deleting and then remaking if they ever decide to introduce into game? HaloTalk 20:00, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Delete - We have no confirmation, only speculation. Mod Mark says there will "probably" be Dragon ore. This shows NOTHING. Furthermore, Postbag 41 shows that, if Dragon smithing IS ever released, it might not even use Dragon ore, but some other sort of metal. This article has no merit, and should be deleted. --Armadyl symbol.png Nightgunner Talk Illuminated Book of Law.png 23:11, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, not even that is confirmed. "it may be an alloy or composite of other known or unknown metal". Besides, even if it was some sort of alloy, we could always move the article under the appropriate name. Krayfish 20:34, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Strong delete - Same reasons per all...I can't believe we even posted a sitenotice saying whoopie the 15000th article dragon ore was created. It doesn't even exist or have any confirmation! Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 04:26, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, does "Helmet shop" sound better to you? Lol Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 20:17, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - How do we even know if Mod Mark wasn't being sarcastic? I somehow have a feeling he wasn't serious about the answer. Besides, he said probably, like others pointed out. His answer is not a confirmation that it will happen. BlazeTheMovieFan 05:01, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - It seems that part of the reason why people want to delete this article is because it is the 15,000th one. Personally, I believe that there is no relevance to that argument. We should focus more on debating the validity of the J-mod's statement.Krayfish 20:28, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Thre is evidence supporting the content. That, and it would really suck to re-create the article should the ore come out. Icecold531 01:03, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Okay, so, after reading the others' comments, the impression I got is that (1) there is a slippery slope of allowing articles for items that have no confirmation of being released and (2) dragon ore/bars will probably be released at some point in the future at one point or another, so why delete the article in order to create it later?
I agree with both sentiments, and here is a compromise that I think would satisfy both sides-- why not simply redirect dragon ore to the future updates page (the one where Mod Mark's quote is originally from). This page has no information other than the few sentences from that page, so it would make sense.
In the case that a dragon ore/bar update ever happens, we wouldn't be really "deleting" this article at all but actually adding concrete information about the dragon ore/bars. Furthermore, we would also be keeping the wiki as complete as possible by allowing those interested in dragon ore/bars (ie if the type it in the search bar) to directly see Mod Mark's comments as from the original wiki page.--Agamemnus 02:37, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. Redirecting it to the upcoming updates page seems to be a good compromise.Krayfish 02:45, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
Disagree - No, either delete the article and the section, or keep them both. What is the difference? If you want this, you'd have to propose a policy change or exception, as RS:NIP states that we should create articles for sections on "Upcoming Updates", but RS:NOT#CRYSTAL states that we shouldn't speculate about them or future content. There is no happy medium. Chicken7 >talk 07:03, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
I didn't realize that section was entitled "upcoming updates". The difference, which you fully know, is that dragon ore is a likely update (just like a dragon kite), has often been joked about by Mod Mark, and he did say "probably", which is neither a "yes" nor is it entirely speculation; thus it shouldn't be redirected to something like the blog that Quarenon links nor deleted outright, and thus blindly following the guidelines which you state is not ideal. Besides, weren't you the one who made this article? If so, and if you believe it shouldn't exist, why didn't you delete the other bit in Upcoming Updates?... :) --Agamemnus 07:16, May 28, 2010 (UTC)
That I was, the one who made it. And there are multiple reasons why I didn't remove the section. Firstly, because after months and months of no one else noticing or removing it, I thought it must've been "accepted" or something like that. Secondly, in my opinion, if he is giving extra information like that (about the owners that wouldn't be happy), it sounds that the ore is under development, planning and/or their writing up ideas. Thirdly, I personally think we should have an article for EVERY "unreleased content" that Jagex has even MENTIONED. Even if they say something like "No! There will never be a Music cape", I still think we should create an article and put that info on there. There are other more minor reasons too. Chicken7 >talk 07:33, May 28, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand fully, but you seem to suggest that we need articles for every instance in which a Jagex staff member comments on an item which won't be released or will "maybe" exist. So if a Jagex mod does this anywhere on the RS forums (in passing, even), does that automatically make it deserving of an article? Or does having a forum question about an item that becomes mentioned in a Q&A/blog make it notable enough for an article? I'm just unclear on what capacity a Jagex staff should make a comment such that we need an article about it. Also, I think that it is possible for a Jagex staff member to speculate on an item on a forum/blog/twitter post that represents personal opinion rather than the actual direction Jagex is going with their content. --Quarenon  Talk 20:50, May 28, 2010 (UTC)
The idea was more about Jagex official Q&As, etc. About forum posts, I think only if a Jmod created the thread themselves. This is my personal opinion, as we only cover information that has been confirmed, but isn't content that Jagex has mentioned or denied to ever be in existence just about as interesting? Chicken7 >talk 08:06, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
Disagree per Chicken. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 21:09, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
Disagree - At best, I would support redirecting to the relevant part of Update:Blog - Q&A: RuneScape Content's Answers, which has the original source of the quote without speculative commentary. The dragon ore section in Upcoming updates needs to be removed or relabelled, because the article title "Upcoming updates" implies that we are certain the update will come out. --Quarenon  Talk 21:31, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Keep: I only say keep because many other things that are being developed in the future have pages, such as Love Story, and EW3 and FTP3 both had pages long before much was known. Dragon Ore was said to exist in a postbag. The Mistress of Poison 01:24, May 28, 2010 (UTC) Neutral - Unreleased content with hints from Mods or the Q&A's should either all be allowed or put on a single page Quest capeGundoggyTalk Contribs #Blue hallowe'en mask 22:01, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Keep - It is a confirmed content, although the other confirmations were not put on that page. (see somewhere above)--MeStarfinder 16:43, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

If you mean Postbag 41, then it did not do any better at "confirming" this content than did Mod Mark's comment. In my opinion, these articles are blurring the line on RS:NOT#CRYSTAL. For example, we should not have to create articles for every player suggestion for which a staff member says that it "might" happen. --Quarenon  Talk 08:57, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Agreed with others. It wasn't confirmed, it was a possibility, meaning it may or may not happen. Babyvegeta93 15:59, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

If we have articles like Lucien's daughter and Crystal halberd, then we should be able to have an article on this. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 21:23, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Delete - I will agree that the possibility of it should be noted on the wiki, but I think it is a waste that we have a page on an update that has not been confirmed, or has been given any definite information. The entire article is simply something that could possibly-POSSIBLY, not definitely-happen.Boxian77 21:46, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - per Gundoggy. Rune longsword.png CPLstone Talk HS Rune kiteshield.png 23:30, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - It doesn't exist, if Jagex does make a Dragon Ore, we can remake it then.Forgotten warrior (primal).png Tako Manz Sign me!Forgotten warrior (primal).png 23:35, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - This is the same as Kharidian Desert DiaryHunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 11:08, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Good point, and I would agree with you; however, there is additional info about dragon ore there other than what was on the Q&A. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 19:37, June 10, 2010 (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. SCYDDTTBucket detail.pngrwojy 01:19, July 5, 2010 (UTC)

Template:Hasdialogue

Notice - Please do not use RS:UCS in this, as it has no bearing on the copyright issue. CKBDBucket detail.pngrwojy 22:06, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Notice Part II - Please read Forum:Dialogue pages before commenting on this issue. ʞooɔ 16:54, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Reason - I am quite aware of the likely heated discussion that will ensue because of this. But, based on Forum:Dialogue pages#Dialogue page format and Forum:Links in Update pages, all Dialogue pages on this wiki violate Jagex's copyrights. I'd like to make it clear that this RfD is not just for this template, but for all Dialogue pages. I'd also like to say that I am neutral on the deletion of these pages, and I am just bringing this up so we can have a discussion about it. ʞooɔ 22:05, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per all. --Coolnesse 23:41, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Changed to below.

Strong Keep for now - Per Inelcirc. If Wikia/Jagex has a problem with it, THEN we delete. --Coolnesse 04:09, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what UCS has to do with this. It's a copyright violation, and we could get shut down. ʞooɔ 22:30, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Keep (Changed to Delete) - Forum:Entire_Dialog_for_familiars. Also, if we were afraid of being shutdown, Jagex wouldn't have added us to the Silver list. We have had those pages for awhile now and don't act like this one thing would shut us down. Also, Jagex has stated many times that any content used from their game must show/say it's the property of Jagex in one form or another. This is said in multiple areas across the Wiki. Ryan PM 22:41, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

"Also, if we were afraid of being shutdown, Jagex wouldn't have added us to the Silver list." Interesting point, but you suggest that Jagex looked through all the major wiki sections, which is highly unlikely.--Agamemnus 17:23, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Interestingly enough, the reason for keeping this is exactly the same as the reason for keeping the RSMV, yet that discussion has wrongly been shut down: In the game, the dialogue provides a form of entertainment or amusement and adds to the enjoyment of the game. In this wiki, the dialogue provides information on the game.--Agamemnus 02:47, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - But possibly consult with Jagex. It seems possible to me that under British copyright law the dialogues fall under permitted use, as long as sufficient acknowledgment is made, as the dialogue pages do. If there is sufficient concern that there may be a copyright problem, consulting Jagex for its opinion or its permission seems reasonable. Inelcirc 13:56, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Note: the copyright law that applies is primarily US copyright law, because (I believe) Wikia servers are located in the US.--Agamemnus 17:21, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - RS:G & RS:UCS bad_fetustalk 07:58, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Rename to {{D}} then delete all content associated with this template. Seriously, everything that uses this template is a pure and simple copyright violation, as it doesn't even fit the most raw definition of fair use at all. It isn't just that Jagex may shut us down here, but it is also unethical. There is zero creativity in coming up with these pages, which by definition are a straight copy from the game. There is no possible way that under either UK or American law that keeping these pages could possibly be legal.

BTW, the reasons for keeping images from the RSMV are not the same here. If you want to put an interesting dialog between a couple of characters or between a character and a player as a fair use quote, that is one thing and certainly permitted. If there is some particular humor or some point that is being illustrated elsewhere into more depth (original prose to accompany that dialog in the form of an article about the dialog) and that dialog is merely an example of trying to demonstrate that point, that is fair use and certainly permitted. A completely separate page that is just dialog, only dialog, and with the exception of some minor wiki markup is copied directly from the game.... that is illegal. The same would be true of images from the RSMV if we plastered images from that all over this wiki as well without regards to how those images are used. Well, perhaps that is the same as the RSMV issue in a sense but those protesting the RSMV images are arguing against any usage of any kind at all. We don't have to go that far, but otherwise all of these dialog pages must be speedily deleted. --Robert Horning 20:12, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Shutdown this discussion - This has been exhaustively discussed on the Yew Grove and consensus was basically achieved; restarting the discussion here is just going to delay the decision unnecessarily or unfairly prevent action. We can't be expected to reiterate the extremely long, detailed and at times heated legal discussions that happened there. It's not something we need to put the community through again. Let's just continue at Forum:Dialogue pages. Endasil (Talk) @  23:50, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather continue here. This is a discussion for deletion, that is a discussion for improving it. --Coolnesse 01:10, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
If it's our decision to keep the discussion here, then I must insist that this doesn't follow our normal format for voting on articles. This will not be a popularity contest, where a majority of "keeps" means inaction. A legal issue has been identified, and to my knowledge hasn't been refuted. Robert has gone to great lengths to explain this to the community. Simply saying "per RS:G" isn't good enough. RS:G does not give us license to break copyright law, and is simply not a good enough reason to keep these articles. Further, saying "Jagex probably wouldn't try to shut us down" isn't a good reason to continue illegal activity on the wiki. Therefore I insist that this comes down to legal arguments or otherwise sound arguments. Plus, don't be surprised if we simply refer you to places where this has already been discussed in depth. Endasil (Talk) @  02:59, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
I agree, Endasil, but I'm not really sure how we can go about this without community consensus unless this is some sort of matter of great importance, in which case it might be necessary for someone to make an "executive decision" to remove them. I know this goes against RS:AEAE and RS:C, but I believe that this could be dangerous for us to keep these pages up. As I've mentioned below, I think someone should write a letter to Jagex now that we are affiliated, and we might get a reply. In the meantime, I think we should take the dialogue pages down, and someone could keep a backup somewhere. If we get the okay (that is compatible with CC-BY-SA) we can put them back up. But I think it is in our best interests to take them down immediately. ʞooɔ 16:54, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per Robbie H. --LiquidTalk 01:12, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

^lol --Iiii I I I 01:14, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per Liquid helm. --Iiii I I I 01:14, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - I see no legal way of presenting this content and will adamantly insist they be deleted until we happen to find such a legal way. Endasil (Talk) @  03:01, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

I don't get why we can't just keep it now, until 'legal people' decide whether we can keep it or not. --Coolnesse 04:13, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
The discussions cited have plenty of arguments from legal savvy people saying they should go. If you want to foot the bill for an actual lawyer, go ahead, but until then we have to go on our own, more limited understanding of the law. Luckily, the law is pretty clear in this case. Dialogue pages are absolutely not protected under the fair use provisions of copyright law. What you're asking at this point is whether we can just ignore the issue until Jagex pays a lawyer to demand we take the content down. That's not the kind of environment I (for one) want on this Wiki. Endasil (Talk) @  05:01, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Jagex also visits this wiki (well, they see it), and I'm very sure they're aware of those pages! So if it would have been copyright violation, they would have told us to delete it long ago. As we're a fansite, and we won't use those pages for commercial purposes, Jagex really doesn't bother (this is what I think). Really, Jagex/Wikia would have notified the wiki. Mark (talk) 18:21, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

There's the possibility that it is a copyright violation AND Jagex wouldn't tell us to delete it (which is I'm sure the case here). It's not either/or. But since you seem to be the only one that has been in contact with Jagex, is there something they've said specifically about it or any other of our content? Such as explicit permission in this area? Endasil (Talk) @  07:21, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Now that we are somewhat affiliated with Jagex, do you think we could get an answer about our dialogue pages? We run the risk of alerting them to such pages, if they do not already know that they exist. I think that if we sent them a letter, or used whatever connections we have with them now, to ask if they are legal, we would clear up any problems. Of course, as Robert said, even if they let us use them in our wiki, their permission would likely not be compatible with the CC-BY-SA license. I'm wondering if someone (possibly Robert, who seems to be the most...legally savvy) would be willing to draft a letter to Jagex concerning the dialogue pages, and specifically mentioning the CC-BY-SA conundrum. We'd probably want to post this in the Yew Grove, whether under Forum:Dialogue pages or a new topic, and get consensus to send it through whatever channels of contact we now have with them due to our affiliation. ʞooɔ 19:19, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

The real problem here is to find out what sort of compelling reason there might be for Jagex to permit these dialog pages. For us as a wiki, it makes tremendous sense as this is content not found elsewhere. That is our problem, not that of Jagex. For Jagex, they already have their "free advertising" in the form of this wiki and have the name "Runescape" plastered all over several discussion groups, including that of gaming groups not directly associated with Jagex. To have the wiki exist at all, and to defend why it should be a "supported fansite" makes some sense as Jagex does get benefit from having this wiki around. Unfortunately I can't come up with any sort of compelling argument to Jagex as to why they ought to go through the huge leap of faith to place all of the dialog pages under a CC-by-SA license, when they have never shown any sort of tendency to support free content of any sort in the past before. Letting fansites get a couple of screenshots of their flagship product is one thing, but copying major parts of their game and introducing "spoilers" for players who haven't gone through the quests yet? I don't see that argument and in fact a rather substantial argument against letting us display these pages. --Robert Horning 22:36, April 29, 2010 (UTC)
Only thing I can think of is the issue I've brought up before about missing quest dialogue because the quest was designed in such a mayhemic fashion as to require you to forward through the dialogue as fast as humanly possible (Ghostly robes (miniquest), I'm talking about you!). In these cases, I'd be pretty pissed at Jagex to the point of perhaps wanting my money back for not being able to ever have access to content they sold me. By us providing it, we keep Jagex's users less steamed since they can come here and see what they missed. If they did the right thing and provided it after the fact, it'd be a non-issue. Endasil (Talk) @  07:25, April 30, 2010 (UTC)
If this is ever done, I think that the best line of argument would be citation purposes. The history pages could greatly benefit from having their NPC dialogue sources citeable. While this would have minimal benifit to most as not many bother citing, Morian does cite and he even sometimes cites other fansite's book transcripts and things. While saying that it improves the reliability of articles isn't a great line of argument, it is a line of argument. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 11:01, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per RH (wow, I'm actually able to support a deletion!) - It violates policies and stuff. Ajraddatz Talk 20:26, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

So what do we do now?

It seems that those who are going to discuss this have given their input. What are we going to do? It seems to me that RS:Consensus might not even apply, as even if this does not achieve consensus, it is still a copyright violation. Do we have any way of contacting Jagex? Do we know if we can contact their lawyers? I realise that this may be taking it a bit too far, but it seems to me like we don't have many options. ʞooɔ 01:46, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Contact seems impossible for 2 reasons, one that I already sent a letter in. Dialogue pages weren't the main focus, but they were mentioned. No response was received, and it's been over 2 months. 2nd, one of Robbie's points is that no agreement would be compatible with our license. And yes, I'm pretty sure consensus has no effect on this issue, as neither it nor any of our other policies, are acceptable as legal defense. I'd like to ask Robbie's opinion before deletion takes place, although I'm pretty sure he will agree. JWIHVIBucket detail.pngrwojy 01:52, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I have to disagree that no agreement would be compatible with our license; as the copyright owner, Jagex has the right to say we can release the dialogue on our site under CC-by-SA. However, as they've reserved all rights to Runescape, I doubt they'd be so kind. I believe they could also give us permission to use the dialogue if we clearly identify that they've given us permission to do so and that we aren't releasing it under CC-by-SA; this is also unlikely. Because it is unlikely, to say the least, that Jagex would give us such permission, we should delete the dialogue pages. Note that the reason these need deletion is that they don't comply to the substantiality section of Fair Use; only blatant copies of large quantities of dialogue, like the dialogue pages, need be deleted; per Robert, snippets of dialogue used to convey the feeling of a quest or to otherwise inform our readers are allowed. Leftiness 23:40, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

We close this discussion, along with Forum:Dialogue pages. - There will be no consensus, close this now, request Jagex/Wikia to see if this is allowed or not, and then decisions are made!! Isn't that how it was supposed to be??? --Coolnesse 20:02, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - On the contrary, you don't continue with an illegal action until you're yelled at. There should have been discussion or permission from Jagex before we made dialogue pages. These should be removed, then put back if Jagex miraculously gives us written permission to use them. Otherwise, there's no legal way for this to continue. Leftiness 20:26, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Final Comment There was discussion at about the time the first dialog pages were created. I raised the copyright issue then, and it really is a huge issue. Yes, at the time it really surprised a whole bunch of people that there was a legal question at all, but this is a legal question here.... particularly due to the extent that we are copying the content. It is the breadth of the content extraction that really is the problem, and setting up the standard that we are otherwise encouraging a complete and verbatim duplication of all dialogs. If there is consensus, it is that we shouldn't do something illegal, and that these dialog pages need to go. That is why I thought it was a settled issue earlier, and then to see a whole bunch of defenders of the dialog pages come out of the woodwork sort of boggles the mind. Separate dialog pages simply need to go entirely. Small quotes from the dialogs are fine.... but those should be put directly into the article about the quest, and the articles about the quest should not be purely dialog either.

Again, consensus here is that these pages need to be deleted. If there is any, and I mean any sort of counter argument that can stand up to blatantly illegal behavior, I would seriously like to see it. Somebody showing how this could possibly be legal is a good counter argument. So far the only argument against the assertion this is illegal is that Jagex wouldn't care if this is done. That isn't a legal argument, but instead suggesting that Jagex has given us a license to do this. Fine.... show the license if that is the case and what terms or restrictions are in that license that is compatible with the license on this wiki (the CC-by-SA license in this case). Until that license is granted, the normal status quo can't be maintained and these pages simply must be removed. --Robert Horning 11:08, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Request closure/Executive deletion - It seems that the only thing we can do here is delete. Whether or not we need consensus for this (which we may or may not have) is moot, in my opinion, as this is illegal behavior. ʞooɔ 16:47, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Delete (change from previous stance of Keep) - Per Robert Horning and others. Ryan PM 02:14, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I just asked Jagex through twitter, and their reply to copyright violation is:

OfficialJagex: As long as you're clear about not claiming copyright & your not making money off of it then its fine.
— [Ajd]
This means that the template shouldn't even be deleted... It'd be a waste of time for many people. Mark (talk) 17:06, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
Out of curiosity.... is this an "official" pronouncement on behalf of Wikia (due to your "helper" status) or is this merely a personal opinion on the topic? Is this also a granting of a license to the RS Wiki, and what are the terms? Note here that non-commercial use only content is incompatible with the CC-by-SA license, even though there is a separate CC-SA-NC license that looks very similar but is non-commercial use only. Is Wikia fine if we change the terms of this wiki to that license? I'm talking the whole site here and not just a couple of pages. Is that something we as a fan development community would be OK with?
BTW, as it stands right now, those currently using this content actually can make a profit off of the content on this wiki. For example, under the terms of the CC-by-SA license we can take everything that we are using here and even go out and publish a commercial player guide for Runescape using content from this wiki. Generally this is something that ought to be encouraged, and in fact is the reason why Wikia introduced book publishing based off of content from the various Wikia wikis. That is a commercial enterprise, and something which can only happen due to the role of CC-by-SA as a license. Permitting non-commercial use only content substantially taints that potential and causes some real headaches in the future... especially if "permission" to use content in this manner hasn't been done in some formal and official manner. Just because somebody gave permission in a IRC or in-game chat is not legal proof that has any sort of binding authority. Twitter is a little more defensible, but I wouldn't want to try to take that to court. It would muddle the waters a little bit in terms of Jagex engaging in a lawsuit here, but the full context of what is being asked would have to be seen too. BTW, Wikia is making money off of this content in other ways too, so that may be a real tricky issue to deal with in terms of the non-profit status of everybody involved.
I think it is important to take copyright issues seriously, and my complaint here is that copyright isn't being taken seriously by the fan community. Until a formal license is granted that is compatible with the CC-by-SA license, I just don't see a legal way for us to use this content. The only other application is to apply fair-use standards (debated ad nausem on the RSMV thread), of which I don't see fair use applying to this kind of content. --Robert Horning 00:51, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
That was a statement outside my work at Wikia, so it's "unofficial". The best choice would be to change the license to CC-BY-NC. Wikia accepts that, as several other wiki's are also licensed under the No-Commercial license. Jagex is well-aware of the pages and the ads we have on the wiki (i.e. see Staff Portal), and Jagex doesn't have any objections of us doing this.
And yes, of course license problems are important, as it might get Wikia in great amounts of trouble. Though Wikia closely manages these things, and as such there aren't many copyright issues at Wikia. If we can reach consensus on the CC-BY-NC license, things should be "safe". Mark (talk) 01:14, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
Should we bring up changing our license to CC-BY-NC on Yew Grove? ʞooɔ 01:59, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to do so. Mark (talk) 20:57, May 28, 2010 (UTC)
A minor itsy bitsy teeny little problem...... changing the license in this manner is not simply asking a "majority" or "gaining consensus" on this issue..... it is quite literally either restarting the wiki completely from scratch (highly unlikely) or getting literally unanimous support for this change from every single contributor to the wiki. That is why the initial starting licenses for a wiki are so utterly critical. If even one person objects, the license can't be changed. The image data base could be saved and some of the raw templates perhaps could be copied over that are not copyrightable (if that can even be defined), and the GEMW database can be copied too as databases aren't copyrightable too (those are mere facts). It would require rewriting all of the regular articles, however.
I suppose there is the alternative way to deal with it... aka Wikipedia. What they did instead is to throw their weight around and get their hooks into the governing boards for the various licensing bodies, and explicitly changed the license from GFDL to CC-by-SA by re-writing the GFDL license. Unless you can get something similar happening with the Creative Commons suite of licenses, I just don't see it happening. It isn't just bringing it up on the Yew Grove and making the change. --Robert Horning 02:15, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
This is very, very confusing, to say the least. I really think we're in between a rock and hard place and there's nothing we can really do. Our three choices, it seems to me, are:
  • Delete the pages
  • Change to CC-BY-NC
  • Contact Jagex lawyers

All three of these choices have their downsides, mainly the last one. There's not really much, it seems, we can do. ʞooɔ 17:17, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Listen. Jagex won't sue the wiki(a), nor close the wiki because we have these dialogue pages. Jagex accepts these as we are a fansite. I know, legally this isn't entirely correct nor great, but it's simply not something (for us) to worry about. As soon as Jagex 'tells us to remove these pages we will. A different example: the Fallout Wiki has written pages on every single dialogue item that you can read in Fallout 1, Fallout 2 ánd Fallout 3, and Bethesda and Obsidian Entertainment are aware of these, though they have never taken any actions against it simply because they know it's not our goal to make money out of them.
Wikia was founded by Jimmy Wales and Angela Beesley with a mission to enable communities to create, share and discover content on any topic in any language. Wikia's consumer publishing platform has enabled passionate communities to collaborate on everything from the latest video games, and tv series to eco-friendly living and the world's best chocolate chip recipes.
— [[w:c:www:About Wikia]]
Mark (talk) 19:17, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
So let me get this argument correctly: Even though we know this is copyrighted content that did not originate on this wiki, it is content we have not been given explicit permission to use, does not fit within fair-use provisions of any copyright law, it is OK to copy and distribute this kind of content simply because we hope that Jagex will never actually enforce that copyright over this kind of content? BTW, just because other wikis and websites are using stuff like this and also because Jagex has not yet enforced copyright on this kind of content does not mean that they won't in the future.
It is also fallacious to suggest that Jimmy Wales and Angela Beesley support the violation of copyright in this manner when in fact they have not. Indeed, I can pull up several quotes from both of them that would suggest strongly to the contrary if you really want me to go that route. For those who are writing original content, Wikia certainly is there to enable "communities" to collaborate on a multitude of topics. This is not original content we are talking about here.
The question that is being raised is if we can and should worry about copyright issues. I believe we should take them seriously, even if there is no tendency on the part of Jagex to sue or enforce their copyright. If you like the game, you should try to encourage Jagex to be successful, which also implies that we should be respectful to the copyright and other intellectual property of Jagex. That doesn't mean we should bend over backwards to take care of their every wish, but we should stay on the correct side of the law when the law is quite clear. The law is very clear that this is a violation of copyright on the most raw and basic level. I also think by staying on the correct side of the law in this case can also protect us in other situations where we may wish to display content that the law is much more murky about.
I am also asking for consistency here. If we are throwing copyright out the window, stuff like "classified information" and things from the RSMV certainly should be allowed as well... or even have a much stronger rationale for them to be kept. This reason... "because Jagex will never actually do anything to us" simply doesn't hold water and to me is also unethical. --Robert Horning 16:36, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
If you think that our Wiki is having ethical issues, then fix it. Can't you just be bold and take action... ? --Coolnesse 04:57, June 17, 2010 (UTC)


Ignoring the very clear cut law in this case is just sad. Making ridiculous excuses to allow our poor ethics in this matter (I.E.Jagex is not telling us not to use the content) bothers the hell out of me. If you have no integrity, then fine, that is your way of life, live it as you see fit. But to bring down the integrity of this wiki with these pathetic excuses to keep 'illegal content is beyond any rational thinking. This should not even be a discussion. These need to be deleted, and that is that. Reading this entire discussion shows very clearly that there is zero allowance for this material.--Degenret01 06:07, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
If you believe that laws prohibit this kind of content and it is illegal, you're entirely wrong. This type of content is allowed by international laws and is supporting Jagex and our wiki, no matter how you see it. If it is supporting, it should be kept. This discussion is going to be continued whether you like it or not. Try to understand that this stuff is allowed, unlike you said. --Coolnesse 21:21, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
No, it is not, not in the least. We are breaking the law, whether you wish to admit it or not. Denial of the truth does not change that truth just because you want to keep something that you like, sorry. Keeping this material threatens the wiki.--Degenret01 10:30, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
Can't we make a thread on the rs forums asking them? That would put an end to this. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 10:51, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
Tried that, no response. ʞooɔ 01:14, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
I simply must respond here to Coolnesse. This kind of content is illegal because it is a non-trivial verbatim copying of copyrighted content without permission. Fair use is an acceptable rationale for copying a limited amount of content... for example a small quote of a sentence or two or to display a diagram or screen capture to explain a point. We do that repeatedly on this wiki in a number of places. BTW, fair use isn't even established in international law, but instead is American law. A number of countries around the world don't recognize fair use in any form (notably France), although most English-speaking countries have the concept or similar principles that do apply. I'm willing to be educated if there is an exception for this kind of content, but it is a major stretch of the imagination to think that this falls under fair use guidelines. --Robert Horning 04:54, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
Did you know that using RuneScape images in our signatures is against the law, as we may only use the images under fair use? And signatures are personal use. Just a random piece of trivia I heard from someone once Smile Chicken7 >talk 12:35, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - That's something Robert pointed out to me; I believe you were there when I mentioned it in the CC. Other instances include the logo, the skill icons on the front page, and maybe even the Runescape news. Another thing that's been bothering me is the fact that we have advertisements at all; you're not supposed to make money with fair uses, but here we are with ads and plenty of pageviews. This, for example, is troubling. Leftiness 16:29, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Comment I see no option except delete. While the idea of changing our license is nice. I say with 99% surety that wikia will not allow it. To become noncommercial means no more advertisements, and as one of the most active wikis, with probably 1000s if not 10000s of pageviews a week, possibly every day... No. There just seems to be no real choice except 1. Delete. or 2. Get direct express permission from jagex's lawyers. And I have to say 2 sounds as unlikely as wikia allowing the change. Remember wikia is for profit, and runescape wiki is very very active. AYBIIBucket detail.pngrwojy 11:01, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Pending Closure Final Closure This will be closed in 7 days, unless serious opposition is brought up, with lines that allow us to continue hosting this material. Otherwise it will be deleted, no exceptions. All pages that solely exist to show the dialogue between npcs and players or npcs and other npcs will be deleted, but subject to a review to make sure they are not being used in a legitimate purpose, like a subpage of possible questions and answers, etc. This has gone on long enough, and my original letter sent months ago never got a response, so it must have been 4-6 months we've been arguing over this issue, and I say enough is enough. If you don't like it, then figure something out. Pointless arguing ends now, any rehash of an idea that has been brought down will be ignored. Pending Closure. QBNBucket detail.pngrwojy 13:09, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per Degen. HaloTalk 19:04, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - I seem to be quite late to this discussion, and I realise that this is a "rehash" of a previously stated idea, but I'd like to get my opinion out anyway. Those who are in favor of deleting dialogue pages seem to be making mountains of of molehills. It may be illegal, but seriously? So what? Does it look like Jagex cares? We've had dialogue pages for quite some time, and since then the Wiki has become a Silver-level Fansite. Do you really think Jagex would have done that if they had a problem with dialogue pages? While this example may seem a bit extreme, it is more or less what is occuring; consider for a moment that you openly commit a crime like murder, but nobody seems to care or even ATTEMPT to punish you for it - in that case, would it really matter if it is against the law or not? And even if Jagex is against them, the absolute worst that could happen is Jagex asks us to take them down, which is a request I am quite sure we would comply with. My stance is to keep these articles. If Jagex really cared at all, they would have asked us to take them down already. --Armadyl symbol.png Nightgunner Talk Illuminated Book of Law.png 05:32, July 4, 2010 (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. Aburnett(Talk) 00:14, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Template:Dungeoneering keys

Resaon - For this nomination, not only the template, but all individual dungeoneering keys are prompted. Dungeoneering keys are identical in examine, usage, trading properties; inducing more of less article content. There is no need to spread identical content over different pages, this will only cause mainteniance inconvience, and the main page can easily include most related images for these keys. Rewlf2 11:25, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - You want to delete all regular keys too? Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 11:42, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Response - If the keys are identical in all aspects a single page will do the job. And dungeoneer keys are. Colours and shapes different of course. Melzar's keys is an example of merging very silmilar item into single article. Rewlf2 12:36, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - RS:G --Coolnesse 12:52, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Follow these guidelines when deciding on keeping two articles separated or merged:
  1. Does item A have the same purpose/use as item B?
  2. Can item A be substituted with item B?
RuneScape:Granularity#To merge, or not to merge?
  1. Yes - to unlock the respective door for each.
  2. No - each key will only unlock its respective door, not any door.

Some things to think about. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 15:57, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Gaz' reasoning. In addition I'd like to highlight that having separate pages for each doesn't do a casual reader of the Wiki any harm and combing them all into one doesn't provide any benefit, which should be the overriding consideration in cases like this. If they search for 'Dungeoneering key' they will end up at this page from where they can navigate to the other individual key pages as they like. Visa versa, they could search for an individual key and navigate from there back to the 'Dungeoneering keys' page by using this template. As the information provided in both cases is fairly similar, I see no reason to go against RS:G. Dechaineux Talk 08:56, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per everyone this is a perfect example of where RS:G applies.Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 08:58, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - G Says it all BUKKITZ WEEL SMITE YOU!!!Murd3rlogistTalk Contribs Sign here 09:55, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support on delete template, oppose deleting individual pages - Pretty useless template, per others on single pages LordDarkPhantom 19:44, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Why do we have separate articles on Baubles? Because of granularity. Plus, there's a similar template. ShinyUnown T | C | E 22:06, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose + Comment - I personally oppose as well, but I want to also point something out. Common sense comes before policy. If the information about the keys would be more useful on one page, RS:G shouldn't apply. But, I think individual pages are fine, as well as the template. Chicken7 >talk 07:26, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per above. HaloTalk 18:51, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - From learning in everyone's opinions I found out the dungeoneer keys individual artic;es (such at blue crescent key article) does have neutral uses (redirection) and are fine to stay in the wiki. Retreating request. Rewlf2 02:44, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Request for closure - Consensus has been reached. ShinyUnown T | C | E 19:02, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Template will not be deleted at this time. --Aburnett(Talk) 00:14, July 6, 2010 (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. Aburnett(Talk) 00:18, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Template:Userbox/If Only

I don't like this userbox. I realise that with that whole kerfuffle about admin crowns people are probably sick to death with AEAE discussions, but I think that this userbox is too much. It implies that becoming an admin is something to be aspiring for, and not just the granting of extra tools and responsibilities. I am not saying that those who want adminship badly shouldn't get it, but they should help the wiki out of the goodness of their heart rather then in a bid to become a Sysop. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 10:45, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

I realised now that I probably shouldn't have said the (now) striked out sentence. It directs everyone away from why I actually think that the userbox should be deleted and into a WBM-esque debate. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 10:25, June 11, 2010 (UTC)


Comment/Supportish I'm pretty sure it was originally meant to be hum(u)orous, not serious. But I have seen that many have used this seriously, or at least it is impossible to tell them apart. NWCRWZZBucket detail.pngrwojy 10:48, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - I see the harm but also its the user's choice to believe what they want about admins. Got a problem with Template:Userbox/WikiCat too? Wink Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 10:49, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm pretty sure it is made to be humorous as that is how i use it as.Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 10:50, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - While I am leaning towards Support for Deletion, I am also aware that the 52 people who this links to are not intending on becoming administrators as much as this may bring one to believe. It's also used for humour, but I cannot vouch for those I know and do not regarding this userbox and RS:AEAE. Just a userbox, although provoking to some, which brings to question why we should have some Userboxes and delete others (I don't have any examples). In either case, it's immature in some aspects, but I would have to be aware on each individual usage, whether humourous or downright true in their sights, before I could say delete. Ryan PM 10:53, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Come on, it's not serious, it's humorous. Lots of users use it for humour, I also did so when I used it, it's not the template's fault if some people take it seriously. bad_fetustalk 11:16, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, kinda don't care One useful thing is anyone using this template doesn't know what admin is about, so it is useful in RFAs. If they use it, we know they should not be entrusted with the tools. Other than that, it is a rather stupid box, but I don't really care if we delete it or not. There are other and better ways to see if a user should be sysopped.--Degenret01 12:22, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

No, before any one freaks out, check my participation in RFAs, I never use as the sole basis for my thoughts. I only became aware of this template over the past few weeks.--Degenret01 12:22, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
It shouldn't affect RfA's, as several users use it for humourous reasons. bad_fetustalk 13:02, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - It's already transcluded into about 75-100 pages. --Coolnesse 21:17, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

55, actually. 52 of them is in the userspace. bad_fetustalk 21:23, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Either delete or change the ID to something more respectful and not nooby. Anyone who wants adminship surely won't get it by acting illiterate and saying "ADMIN PL0X." I don't see how it's supposed to be humorous, it makes people looks like silly, desperate children. It bothers me that anyone who really wants adminship might put this on their userpage, instead of starting up a respectful and official RfA. In my eyes, this ruins their chances a little bit, as it doesn't seem to me that they're serious enough about adminship. To anyone who doesn't want adminship, and/or is just joking... get better jokes. I don't see how it's a humorous userbox. It seems to me that this is just another unfunny attempt to try and fit a title name in with RuneScape/the internet's atmosphere. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 22:14, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

1'd l1k3 7O 7H1nK 17 1S 73h KON73n7 oF wha7 A p3rsON Says, No7 73H MANn3R 1N wh1cH 7h3y sAy 17, 7Ha7 Ma773Rs. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 19:02, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Delete - This just makes sysop more of a status symbol, as 90% of the people with this (or more) will never be sysops. HaloTalk 18:56, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - It doesn't really matter to me, its just for fun, and anyone who deserves sysop tools will get them whether they have this userbox or not, likewise anyone who doesn't deserve them will not get it regardless. This is just a slightly more informal version of Template:Userbox/WikiCat. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 19:02, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Template will not be deleted at this time. --Aburnett(Talk) 00:18, July 6, 2010 (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. Aburnett(Talk) 00:27, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Template:Tfd

It's a duplicate of {{rfd}}, which already has a {{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}} thing built in for the template namespace.

--Iiii I I I 22:23, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Lul, just used this minutes ago wondering the same thing myself Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 22:40, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - "Why do we have this?" is what I thought too. This meant to me that we had to make deletion templates for all of the namespaces. --Coolnesse 00:28, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I believe that it was created as a low profile RFD notice that would be transcluded onto every page along with the template, potentially by someone who didn't know about noinclude. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 00:34, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It was created a long time ago, when our coding was not as complex so that it changed depending on namespace. Chicken7 >talk 10:06, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It's a duplicate.Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 10:08, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per above. HaloTalk 18:48, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - and redirect to the newer template. bad_fetustalk 08:14, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Delete and redirect - Delete it due to an already active template replacing the function, redirect due to possibility that someone might use it on a template. ~MuzTalk 12:53, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Template will be deleted. A redirect seems unnecessary to me, however if someone would like to add one in the future they are free to. --Aburnett(Talk) 00:27, July 6, 2010 (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. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 23:25, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Category:Images taken with Orb of oculus

Near as I can tell, this category doesn't do anything useful. The method in which an image was captured is unimportant information as far as maintenance and categorization is concerned. Additionally, this category is in no way permanent. Images taken without the OoO could have a new version which was uploaded, and images taken with the OoO could have a new version uploaded which was not. Categories are not supposed to be that dynamic, unless they're for maintenance, which this one is not.

Delete - As nominator kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 18:49, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per nominator. HaloTalk 18:52, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Doesn't do much good but looking at big pictures. Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 00:08, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Too widespread and too hard to maintain. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 08:21, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - What harm can that possibly do to the wiki? bad_fetustalk 08:35, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

It's just useless. No sense having a useless category. HaloTalk 08:40, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
It's not that useless, images taken with ooo are almost always much more detailed than other images, so it categorizes detailed images. bad_fetustalk 08:47, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
Did you even read what Psycho said? HaloTalk 08:47, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
Yes I did. bad_fetustalk 08:54, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
Look at the last 3 sentences again. HaloTalk 08:57, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
He's saying the method is unimportant, which I already stated why it is. He also says that a new image can be uploaded, but, it's much less dynamic then he thinks. There are real few users that occasionally use ooo to take images, and I've never seen an ooo image being replaced for a non-ooo image unless there was an update. bad_fetustalk 09:00, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Per my above comments. bad_fetustalk 09:00, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

C-c-c-combo Breaker... Delete - I don't use categories, but this sounds like a useless one. *makes "Category:Edited with GIMP"* Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 08:58, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Just a time waster LordDarkPhantom 15:21, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Delete I agree, the how is unimportant, it doesn't help in any way, it adds nothing to the wiki.--Degenret01 15:27, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - It used to be useful, now it is too hard to maintain. --Coolnesse 21:49, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Request closure - No recent replies, consensus achieved, etc etc. --Coolnesse 23:05, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - QBot will remove all pages and media from the category sometimes in the next week after which it can be deleted. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 23:30, July 8, 2010 (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 Outdated to Obsolete. ~MuzTalk 23:54, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Template:Outdated

This template only seems to be a horribly worded duplicate of the template {{Obsolete}}. We have no need for horribly worded duplicates.

Delete - As nom. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 21:33, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - They appear to serve the same purpose, and the other template is worded better. ~MuzTalk 21:42, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

And also redirect - Per Chicken. ~MuzTalk 12:54, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Muzzy. --Quarenon  Talk 21:58, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per above. HaloTalk 22:11, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Isn't obsolete for recently not updated articles? Outdated is still useful and provides useful in deciphering old articles from recently updated items. --Coolnesse 00:35, June 27, 2010 (UTC) Changed to below --Coolnesse 19:44, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Either way, the info changed as a result of an update. There is no reason to have two templates for the same thing. ajr 00:37, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per above. ajr 00:37, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect - As I always get confused between the two, and use both randomly. Chicken7 >talk 10:08, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It is just a copy of obsolete.Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 07:35, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect - Per James. bad_fetustalk 08:13, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Delete or Redirect - per all LordDarkPhantom 16:39, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per all. --Coolnesse 19:44, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Outdated will be redirected to obsolete. ~MuzTalk 23:54, July 9, 2010 (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.

RuneScape:Editor Review

I don't think editor review is very beneficial. Degen really got me thinking about this. But I went through one...and I didn't learn anything...I was just kinda like...what??? okay???? Degen summarized it as a "rate my pokemon" thing and he also said "It's a wiki, edit how you want". I think a lot of people who aren't very well known post there and don't get responses (or good ones at least). And also a lot of people who are great editors post there and just get told what they already know. I haven't met anyone who has found it all that beneficial and thus I believe it should be deleted.

Delete - As nominatior. HaloTalk 19:25, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per nom, I've gone through 2 of them and not really changed my style much.   Swizz Talk   Events!   19:29, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Sort-of Keep - While I agree that it's not very beneficial, and that it tries to pigeonhole some editors into being something that they may not want to be, I think it can still be helpful. New(-ish) editors may want to get some general help with their editing style. What we need to do is try to make it more popular, not less. Then we can get some good replies for everyone. You want to delete this because it's not really helping anyone in its current state (which is sort of true), but I think getting more people to comment on it would be better than deletion. ʞooɔ 19:32, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Delete A vast majority of the comments are telling people to edit more like the commenter. Not all, but a hell of a lot. We should all simply do what we feel most comfortable doing, and doing it the way we can. Trying to conform to others peoples desires of how you should edit is really against the spirit of the wiki. Besides that, it seems way too much like "Rate my pokemon", and that just isn't helping a hell of a lot.--Degenret01 19:34, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per above, and I also think that it is more beneficial to just ask some trusted user about how you are doing. ajr 19:54, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Most people are uncomfortable criticising though, as majority of users will be offended by it, even if they don't say so. With that, you're only going to get the obvious "edit some more" or whatever. And no one really has the patience or time to scroll through all the users' edits and check which areas of the wiki they need to contribute to more. Chicken7 >talk 07:27, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - I agree it doesn't really change peoples editing, like mines been open for probably 2 months and i haven't really learnt anything, but i think i can still be beneficial for new editors. I think what cook says is true, so if we get it more popular it will work better.Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 07:33, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Needs more attention and Neutral, leaning towards keep Changed to: Keep Changed again to: Neutral - This page is useful, I've already been reminded to add more edit summaries (Thanks Sentra), but it needs a lot more attention. e.g. I only noticed this page after at least 2 months of creating an account. 222 talk 10:02, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per deleters, dumbstuff. --Coolnesse 21:48, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - It might not always be beneficial, but I had found mine beneficial, and I'm pretty sure there are few others that had. bad_fetustalk 08:16, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - And I thought RfD would bring more attention to the page... 222 talk 08:19, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Strong keep - Doesn't hurt anyone... Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 08:23, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

It could hurt them as an editor. Billy asks for a review, only Bob responds. Bob is clueless and tells Billy he should focus more on anti-vandalism. But Billy is great at adding real content to articles, and all the anti-vandals are already keeping the wiki clean. So instead of continuing to improve our articles a way desperately needed, Billy join the group of people waiting for a vandal and racing to revert it. We lose, Billy loses, the wiki loses. Editor review fails.--Degenret01 12:24, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Delete - Per Degen. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 21:21, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - We need to give more attention to many of these neglected RS: pages. 222 talk 23:42, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

This page was on the sidebar for ages, and easily identifiable whenever users opened the Community menu. I'm sure many, many people knew about it, but as I said, no one wants to criticise or comment on the user's ability. Plus, half the editors can truly not be bothered going through all their contributions and saying what they have and haven't done. Chicken7 >talk 00:44, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
I guess you're right... 222 talk 09:12, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Request for closure - Consensus has been reached and no one is really commenting anymore. HaloTalk 00:35, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Not yet - Maybe we should bring more attention to this page and see if any better quality reviews come about. 222 talk 11:49, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - By consensus, Editor Review is neither used often nor useful. Slayer-icon.png Gangsterls Divination-icon.png talk 21:53, July 12, 2010 (UTC)


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