RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Archive 15

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 No consensus. --LiquidTalk 21:19, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

Template:Navbox2

Not edited anymore for more than 1.5 years so i think it is not needed anymore. If it is still used, i would like to continue with this rfd as i think it is still useless then, and else it should be speedy deleted i think. — per Sentra: There are sandboxes for this kind of tests.

Delete - As nominator JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 22:46, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - On the page it says it's a Test template for the {{Navbox}}, and with how much the navbox template is used, I think it deserves a 2nd one for testing. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 23:07, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - You could also go to a page with a navbox on it, to check how it works. This doesn't need an apart page for testing anymore, as the template is used that much. also, you could use the /doc for testing, which is what i always do. Also, a test page is actually not needed in 99% of all cases. For those 99% there's the "Preview" button, which shows everything you need. I know there are some cases you have to save the page to see the results, but those are so rare, the /doc page could also be used, and not a whole page should be made. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 23:58, September 12, 2010 (UTC)
For some things, it is nice to be able to create the template (or edit the test one), and apply it to a few test pages to see how it works out and for more in depth testing. You can only see how it works on the template page with the preview button. You cannot see how it works after it's transcluded from the preview as it may be different. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 00:10, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
that what he↓ said. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 22:00, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
And to see how it looks when transcluded follow these steps:
  1. Place <noinclude> and </noinclude> around the sandboxheader.
  2. paste your template
  3. save
  4. edit again
  5. enter {{Runescape:Sandbox|(any parameters u want)}} below the template
Done. No need for more pages. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 02:59, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - We have things called sandboxes for this sort of thing. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 06:10, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - <<< 222 talk 09:04, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Well, we have sandbox for this. But I'm not going to vote delete, since it doesn't cause any harm. bad_fetustalk 15:03, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

We don't want useless pages on this wiki. It costs time, as it is completely useless, so it does cause the harm of lost time. If any useless pages would be allowed, this wiki would be a mess. If we are going to follow that "it doesn't cause any harm" thing, the wiki would be filled with things like this, and does it do harm then, as that will cost much time if browsing. Please don't use the reason "it doesn't cause any harm" anymore for this reason. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 22:00, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't cost anytime at all except for those looking for something to tag for deletion. How many people who come to this wiki care at all about how the stuff works? Most likely, most of them do not, since they came here to learn about RuneScape related information, not how our Wiki runs. They do not appear in the Special:WikiActivity page, or the Special:MyHome page which most people who are not involved with this wiki for more than just searching information see. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 23:58, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
Just 1 thing, i am not looking for things to tag for deletion, i occasionally see it and then think "this is useless" so i tag it. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 22:26, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per Sentra and nom, if anyone wants to test a template, they can use a sandbox. Why this needs an article, I don't know. Real Crazy 19:38, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per Chess. --Coolnesse 20:05, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per all. ajr 23:43, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Keep/Move - Whilst I don't think a test template should be specific to a template type, there are times when testing the effect of a template on pages where you would need two sandboxes to avoid affecting the mainspace - one for the template and one for a test page. Whilst this is do-able with any two sandboxes, a page actually in the template mainspace is somewhat useful and has as much call for existence as RuneScape:Sandbox since it doesn't belong to a single user. Henneyj 23:31, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you need, but for the trying if it works, we don't need another sandbox, as you don't have to save your changes. You can paste the test template in RS:S, then save, then click edit again and test the thing on the page itself. This works perfectly now. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 14:52, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

{{Closure|Nearly 2 weeks since last post}} Real Crazy 16:20, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - No consensus. --LiquidTalk 21:19, November 14, 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 21:22, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

Template:Historical article

This is basically a duplicate of Template:Gone, except for the fact that it says "Please do not edit it further", which I dislike because we should be able to perform maintenance work on it, etc.

Strong redirect to Template:Gone - As nominator. --Coolnesse 23:06, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Wait until Forum:Protection on historical items, npcs, etc closes before deleting this. Because, it may be handy if that thread passes. ʞooɔ 23:17, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - This template is used to prevent people from updating the page by changing things to past tense, commenting on the feature's removal, etc. Maintenance edits are exempted from this for obvious reasons. --Aburnett(Talk) 23:22, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - It's useful. But do reword it. ajr 23:27, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Historical articles should not be edited. Period. Maintenance work could count as an exception if it does not compromise the original content of the article. (Alright, that's my only keep for the next fifty years.) --LiquidTalk 23:29, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree. What about something like Orc (historical) or Sidney Smith? These pages are frequently edited, yet they are historical. --Coolnesse 01:10, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per above. HaloTalk 23:43, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat merge and redirect - I say we take the "This page is being preserved as a historical article." bit, add it to Gone and then redirect it to Gone. Matt (t) 01:18, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Strong merge - Furthermore, per this thread, no editor should ever be discouraged or prohibited from editing a historical article. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 01:21, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Gone. I really don't care about the maintenance aspect, except that it's obviously exempted. Common sense dictates that that phrase really is intended for the unfamiliar user who may be tempted to change something. That being said, I really don't see the need for this template, since {{Gone}} achieves the same effect. Therefore, (and per Psycho), I'd prefer this to be merged with {{Gone}}. --LiquidTalk 01:28, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Dude, you already posted... --Coolnesse 01:47, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
He is too cool to post only once. bad_fetustalk 16:13, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
Blush Whoops, didn't see that. At any rate, I prefer my second opinion. --LiquidTalk 01:44, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - It seems like something like this should be reconsidered, now that the thread has been closed. Most of the arguments that have been made to keep this template have been those that were used to support the thread, which failed. ʞooɔ 01:13, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Gone - How we decide whether an article is historical is a mystery to me. Surely anything that's been removed is a historical article? Real Nub 09:46, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Changed to Keep per Cook and Aburnett. Real Nub 07:58, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - There is a difference between gone and replaced by something totally different. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 02:54, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Please reconsider looking at the point of this and {{Gone}}. Historical article says to keep the articles in present tense, while Gone does the opposite. This would lead one to believe that we have to either keep the historical articles in the present tense or change them to the past tense. This is, at least, how I see the discussion as it goes. ----クールネシトーク 20:37, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - The template will be kept. --LiquidTalk 21:22, November 14, 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 21:25, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

Template:Blacknomake

Are we really this lazy guys? I mean, we could just put this on every individual black equipment page. Also, for the same reasons as RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Template:Dragon nosmith.

Strong Delete - As nominator. --Coolnesse 20:42, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - For the exact same reason we deleted Dragon nosmith. ʞooɔ 00:15, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see why we can't keep this. It seems useful. ʞooɔ 21:29, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Delete Merge - Per Cook. Per Mark. HaloTalk 00:16, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - We're seriously that lazy? --LiquidTalk 02:41, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - If you wanna delete blacknomake, your gonna have to delete [[Template:Dnomake]] too. Matt (t) 03:12, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

You made that Angry Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 03:15, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
See this, it looks very similar to Template:Dnomake, soooooo... you copied what was on the dragon pages and made a template (essentially undoing the rfd)? Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 03:34, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know the rfd existed. I just thought it would be good to have one, standard notice. Matt (t) 03:37, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
It's been deleted, per the first RfD. --Aburnett(Talk) 18:58, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Doesn't hurt. bad_fetustalk 14:31, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - It may be only one line of text, but if we ever get the ability to create certain black items, wouldn't having a template to update be useful? Real Mad 18:18, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Simply {{subst:Blacknomake}} it? LordDarkPhantom 18:23, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - These templates are quite useful, as with Template:otheruses it allows easy styling of these kind of messages. For example, custom skins might add a small ! or so. It also saves some bytes for the page. Mark (talk) 18:29, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Small change, I suggest merging this with the dragon template and adding a parameter. Mark (talk) 18:30, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Merge - Per mark. I like that idea. It can be called nosmith! kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 19:31, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Strong merge - Per Mark. Matt (t) 12:27, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Merge - Per Mark, good thinking. 222 talk 03:49, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I thought dragon one was deleted? bad_fetustalk 16:10, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

{{Closure|No posts for over 2 weeks}}  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Real Not Pure (talk).

Closed - No consensus. --LiquidTalk 21:25, November 14, 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 21:31, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

File:Lumbridge Rat.gif

It is laggy like i don't know what, and it is also useless. I tagged it with speedy deletion, but an admin told me to rfd it, so i do that.
Speedy delete - As nominator. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 16:00, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Then upload an unlaggy version? Deleting is not going to help anything. bad_fetustalk 16:37, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is: It is useless. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 21:55, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
It is showing the animation of a rat. Explain how that is useless. bad_fetustalk 13:30, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Strong delete - What the hell? This image is not useful at all... --Coolnesse 18:37, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - It shows a rat. It hasn't got any hitsplats blocking it. It's not obstructed by anything. Yes, it's a bit laggy, but that doesn't mean it doesn't serve its purpose. If you want a higher quality image, be bold and upload one yourself. Real Mad 19:35, October 20, 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to, but how?{{{Plz}}} JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 21:55, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
Er, use the Upload Image button? Real Mad 14:27, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
ok, but how to make an animated gif i mean...Rofl JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 19:48, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Would anyone notice the mouse is running too quickly? There is also some impurity dots in the gif. Make a small optimized version might be useful. Rewlf2 06:41, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Delete and replace - This is a case of unnecessary animation. It's better if we uploaded a PNG version instead of a GIF animation. --LiquidTalk 02:17, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

We already have that... JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 19:47, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads up - I fixed it up and is now 1/4 the previous size. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 02:49, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Now it looks like a hyperactive rat... JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 19:47, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Uselessness, though I feel no lag.
@Joey, see [[User:Ryan_PM/Animations]]. LordDarkPhantom 19:53, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, and with "laggy" i mean that the image was laggy(now hyperactive) at the previous version. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 19:38, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I just don't get why people called it useless. It shows the animation of rats, which is unique. Anything that shows something unique can't be useless. bad_fetustalk 19:34, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per liquid. 222 talk 08:05, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - I deleted it because of this RfD and because of a clause in our image policy which states that unnecessary animations should not be used. There is nothing on the article that would suggest that this needs to be an animation, so I have deleted it. However, people are welcome to replace it with a still image if they so desire. --LiquidTalk21:31, November 14, 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 21:34, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

Template:((

All this does is make {{. First anyone who can't make that with there keyboard need to be able to use it to show the template, and second if they won't to use it so it doesn't put the template on a page they can just use nowiki brackets. Note - This also affect Template:)).

Delete - As nominator. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 10:35, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

WHAT IS THIS?! WIPE THIS OF THE WIKI NAO! Evil - It actually takes up more space. Matt (t) 10:40, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Speedy delete - what is this I don't even bad_fetustalk 15:56, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per below. bad_fetustalk 08:46, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

Speedy delete - Per Chess. --クールネシトーク 19:26, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per Ajr and Gaz. --クールネシトーク 22:19, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Keep - That template is incredibly useful for very complex templates which use parser functions, and as such it should (and needs to be) kept. Also, it takes up more db room to delete it than keep it, Matthew. ajr 20:05, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Can you give an example of how it would and why it would be used in a complex template? Matt (t) 23:20, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
Parsers, like templates, use {{. If you combine parsers and templates, you need to ensure that all of the {{ are closed for each or else it won't work. using {{ allows that to happen. ajr 23:22, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
Lolwut? Aww nah, parsers don't use {{... Matt (t) 23:33, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
What are you smoking? Have you ever seen a {{#ifexist? I suggest you learn what you are talking about before to presume to be an expert on it. ajr 23:43, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
{{#switch: valueA
|vaueA=valueB
}}
^ Parser function. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 23:44, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
Evil, you are incredibly wrong. {{switch is not a parser, {{#switch is. U forgot the # XD JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 17:09, November 7, 2010 (UTC)
Just saw this, one character off doesn't not make "incredibly wrong" ... Don't make me go through your conribs for mistakes Evil. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 20:46, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
<sarcasm>Aww nah, parsers don't use {{...</sarcasm> Matt (t) 23:58, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
Btw, by it using more space, I meant in an article.
{{((}}stub{{))}}
Matt (t) 00:01, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
...It isn't meant for use in articles. ajr 00:37, October 30, 2010 (UTC)
Whatever. Can you please just answer my question? Matt (t) 00:39, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - (edit conflict with ajr) Its needed to pass double braces without mediawiki evaluating it as a template. nowiki tags do not work inside parser functions. If you're not sure what a template like this does then ask someone before RfDing it - you may well end up breaking something important >.> Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 20:06, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

No i won't be breaking something important as it is only used on 1 page, a talk page used to no use nowiki brackets. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 23:35, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - per whatever the heck Ajr and Gaz said... Real Mad 21:21, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Ok so its needed if you wish to use double braces in a template or whatever... but we're not using it. Why keep it if we're not using it? Or are we using it, but its not showing up in the uses because of the nature of how its being used? kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 21:26, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

No, it would appear. But consider that this template might have use in the future before you delete it. ajr 21:32, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
We have the orphanage for that. --クールネシトーク 02:14, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per Ajr. HaloTalk 21:39, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Farming cape (t).png Ikin Talk - I won't say anything.

Delete - I really don't care either way, but any argument about the so-called parser functions has been lost on me, so I'll remain skeptical and say delete. (If this looks like it's going to pass as delete, I'll consider changing my position). --LiquidTalk 22:22, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

What? This doesn't even make sense. You're last statement seems to indicate you don't want it to be deleted, and yet you vote delete? HaloTalk 22:28, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
Such a vote is Neutral or Undecided i think... JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 02:35, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per Ajr and Gaz. Suppa chuppa Talk 23:36, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per the jibber-jabber up there. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 23:45, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Undecided - First i wanna know where we will possibly use it in the future. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 02:35, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Undecided - Template:)) is broken anyway - it only produces a single } when transcluded. I'll fix it, but I'm leaning towards the delete option due to the fact that nobody even noticed the template was broken. I also can't see a reason to prefer this over <nowiki>, which works within parser functions too. Magic-icon.png Robinjam (Talk | Contribs | HS) Quest.png 01:06, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - <nowiki> breaks string comparisons within parser functions. These templates are necessary to avoid the problem. I can't think of a reason to compare strings with template names in them, but it's worth keeping these templates just in case. Magic-icon.png Robinjam (Talk | Contribs | HS) Quest.png 01:24, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Close - Though I still think it's useless, this will be kept. --LiquidTalk 21:34, November 14, 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. HaloTalk 18:03, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

RuneScape:Adventurers' Tales

This project is essentially dead. Over the past 2 years there's only been 4 stories added, and none at all in the past 6 months. There's no content on this page, everything is on the user sub-pages, so its pretty much just a directory of fanon. As such I don't think its worthy of keeping for archive purposes either.

Delete - As nominator kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 20:32, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per nom. HaloTalk 20:37, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Strong delete - This is completely useless. --LiquidTalk 21:39, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - What is this... (we're on the same page again, Liquid) ʞooɔ 21:41, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - It's not useless but it doesn't have enough publicity to be useful. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 21:52, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - RS:NOT#FORUM. --Coolnesse 23:30, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Per Sentra. There actually is no policy preventing this. --Coolnesse 23:31, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

'Lulwut Delete - What is this... I dont even... Twig Talk 772kZGs.png 23:34, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Wipe it off the wiki - I have never heard of this until now. Per nom. 222 talk 06:52, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - What is this? ...I don't even. ScionCrush 06:57, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Most of the people here clearly stated that they've never seen that page. That exactly is the problem. Just put a link to it on Community Portal or something, and it will become active again. bad_fetustalk 06:32, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Really? You guys haven't heard of it? Maybe you just haven't explored the project namespace enough. If the problem is that not enough people currently use it or are aware of it, then I will side with Chess and say to make it more known and see if people will use it before scrapping it. Also, guys, really? Memes? Come on. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!I have 12 friends. 20:36, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Take it to the fan fiction wiki. --Aburnett(Talk) 20:39, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per Chess. Real Not Pure 17:14, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - This content isn't really encyclopedic, and probably would be better on a different type of wiki. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 17:16, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Commment - I would like to point out that the RSWiki post has a fan fiction section that people could take advantage of. In light of that there is no need for such a page. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 17:18, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Don't delete something because it isn't used; make it used again. ajr 18:21, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comment to those thinking about its use - See RuneScape:Requests for deletion/RuneScape:Editor Review. --LiquidTalk 18:22, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that Editor Review had a potentially negative impact on the reviewed user (see discussion). Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 14:37, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - First of all, I don't want to see it used again. There are more effective ways to share your personal stories. At the same time, I don't like the idea of deleting things from the projectspace just because we don't think they are still in use. I suggest keeping the page for archival purposes only, but redirecting any further use of it to the post. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 14:37, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Why not delete unused stuff from the project namespace? I prefer to discontinue dead projects so that no one gets lackluster attempts to reuse them in the future. --LiquidTalk 14:40, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
I also want to discontinue it, because the post is a better outlet for fan fiction. However, I don't see any harm in keeping it as an archive. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 14:44, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
I guess I misunderstood what you meant. I said "Delete" meaning that I wanted to discontinue the project, but of course, per RS:DDD, the stuff that's already there will be kept. --LiquidTalk 14:46, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per Stelercus. Jack

Delete - Per Aburnett. --Coolnesse 20:41, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

{{Closure|complete}} --クールネシトーク 19:20, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - The consensus was to discontinue the project, but keep the archive. HaloTalk 18:03, November 15, 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. The calculator no longer serves accurately and profit cannot be made. Deleted.--Degenret01 16:38, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

Calculators/Decanting

There is no need for this calculator. All potion prices are the same per dose, and in every single entry, the only profit comes from the extra vials you are left over with. Anything which shows a profit is an error in the price, be it from an incorrect update or the inability to get the full price from the ge database (it will give prices such as 11.8k instead of 11,892). Decanting is not a way that anyone makes money and there's no possibility of profit.

Delete - As nominator. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 02:54, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per nominator. --LiquidTalk 02:55, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - This is just plain unnecessary. Matt (t) 03:33, October 23, 2010 (UTC) See below. Matt (t) 20:34, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - What happened to being the wiki for everything related to rs? bad_fetustalk 07:20, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? HaloTalk 07:41, October 23, 2010 (UTC)
People won't know if it makes any major profit or not without that calculator. The calculator shows that it does not. bad_fetustalk 08:08, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per above. No point (and actually provides inaccurate information). HaloTalk 07:41, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

Strong keep - How are people going to know if they will make a profit or not? What harm is this calc doing? You may find it unhelpful but to others it could be helpful, when I made it there were some losses and some higher profits, it's just not as exciting as then. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 07:54, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

What it seems like you didn't read is that the prices are inaccurate. There will not be the same profits that are advertised on the page. Inaccuracies from Jagex's database cause these, and we could condense this to the sentence "No profit can be made from decanting potions, but vials will be recuperated." No use for the calculator. ʞooɔ 08:16, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Money Making Guide - (Edit conflict) It may give an incredibly small profit, but it's still a money making method. Seeing as dosages aren't linked any more, it's pointless to have a calculator, but cutting willow logs is listed under the Woodcutting moneymaking guide, and that's almost as slow. Stick it in Money Making Guide/Miscellaneous and Merchanting and be done with it. Real Nub 07:59, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - I stated the same thing on the talk page three months ago, but I got no replies. This calculator is useless and misleading. ʞooɔ 08:10, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per all. --クールネシトーク 19:21, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - It's possible for certain 3 dose potions to be buyable below mid price, and the respective 4 does potions instantly selling at max, but there's no way to automate this. Just thought I'd point this out >_> Tokkul detail.png Inhaps talk 20:29, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per Evil and Chess. Matt (t) 20:34, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per Evil. 222 talk 08:07, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Especially since all potions can be decanted as a note now, so the profits will lower quickly i think. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 02:36, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

"Closure" ----クールネシトーク 22:03, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

Closed The calculator no longer serves accurately and profit cannot be made. Deleted.--Degenret01 16:38, November 16, 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 02:37, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

Category:Trivia

This looks pointless to me, it has a handful of articles the barely relate to each other. We have Trivia and it has way more than this.

Delete - Why would I oppose? Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 19:37, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - I've been thinking about this for a while now. I never really liked this category. Suppa chuppa Talk 19:40, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - The title is actually quite misleading, as none of the articles are anything to do with trivia. Real Crazy 07:41, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per above. 222 talk 09:53, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - What is that page supposed to do again? bad_fetustalk 17:33, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Lolwut? What was the point of this? Oh wow, there articles contain trivia. They should be in a trivia category... Matt (t) 21:18, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Pointless catagory, just cause they all share a feature, doesn't mean they warrent a catagory. What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 23:21, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Let's keep this and also make a category for pages with the word "beer" in it! and a category for pages with all red/red shaded items!

Strong delete - Per sarcasm above JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 00:16, November 16, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Category will be deleted. --LiquidTalk 02:37, November 20, 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 Merge. --LiquidTalk 02:49, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

Graphical improvements/Facial textures

Facial Textures are a small enough change that they don't need their very own subpage to show it off. Look at the images so far shown here - Since there is only one face for males and females, they don't really show much. These changes could easily be displayed on the Page for NPC graphical updates

Merge - As nominator Armadyl symbol.png Nightgunner Talk Illuminated Book of Law.png 04:05, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Delete all images except [[:File:Old ingame head.png]], :File:New ingame head.png [[:File:Old ingame head woman.png]] and :File:New ingame head woman.png. Merge histories where appropriate. Delete sub-page. The difference between an npc with the new face and an npc with the old face is too slight to justify an entire page of the comparisons. As such only the for images I listed are needed to show the difference. The rest are unnecessary duplicates of those comparisons. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 04:14, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per Psycho. The differences is pretty similar. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 04:18, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Well, the faces do look slightly different with the hairstyles of the NPCs. Also, the difference is too small to MERGE the page. MOST comparisons have only two images: one old and one new. If everything gets at least three or more all of a sudden, the page would become way too big, which is why I think this page should be kept. And you could have said this when I proposed my idea on GI's talk page, but nobody answered, so now you disagree when I've already put about three hours of work into it? If I knew this, I'd spend that time on something else. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 05:41, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Merge - It is useful but should be merged with Graphical improvements/NPCs and Monsters because it is pretty much the same thing. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 06:23, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Merge - Useful and should be merged with Graphical imrpovements/NPCs and monsters as that person above said it. ^ \_/Bluepupfrost\_/ 06:30, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I'm okay with merging, but will it be a new section with faces or just merged with the Character section of the NPC part? Because if it will be merged like this:

==NPCs== ===Characters=== {{wikitable}} ===Chatheads=== {{wikitable}} ===Faces=== {{wikitable}} ==Monsters== ===Monsters===

,I would support merging. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 07:41, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per Psycho. --Coolnesse 19:15, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per Psycho, that's what those images were made for and those summarise all face updates. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 12:39, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Keep - The change might be little, and they might all be similar, but the thing is, even though it's little, it's still a change, and even though they are similar, they aren't exactly the same. bad_fetustalk 15:05, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

Comment Yes they are. A different hairstyle or clothing doesn't matter when you are trying to show off faces - and there are only two faces to show off: One for males, and the other for females. The first two sets of images show everything that needs to be shown. Armadyl symbol.png Nightgunner Talk Illuminated Book of Law.png 06:22, September 16, 2010 (UTC)
@chess:I would agree with you, if the changes were different for every NPC, like the one gets this type of face, the other gets that face. This isn't the case, so the changes could be summarized to one image comparisation for men and one for women. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 09:55, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Keep As per Chess Dmck2b 06:31, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

Merge - When, I looked into the page, I thought the only worthy pictures were the banker woman and man, because the two pictures show both sideways and front view. All the other items are not really nessesary if we got the latest picture of a NPC to compare. Rewlf2 16:46, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - This change would already be covered on the Graphical Improvement/NPC page, so it's really just unnecessary. Mining cape.png The Last Pun Talk Aberrant Spectre Champion.png 04:33, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Merge - I think a merge would work nicely. as most others have already stated, I support the merge. 71.199.121.129 23:37, September 28, 2010 (UTC)Update222

Comment - I definitely would want to save some of the old NPC images, as some may have an historic value that may be hard to appreciate right at the moment. (For instance, the old 50 Ships Mufassah, who wears glasses!) That said, a separate page that potentially includes all of the NPCs seems a bit much. If say, holding on to the old Duke Horacio isn't seen as being all that valuable, then it comes down to the "man & woman" thing. --TheLastWordSword 17:38, October 15, 2010 (UTC) Why do we need side-by-side comparisons at all? Isn't that what "historical images" are for? We have enough historical images that they should get their own page, but without the crappy side-by-side treatment. --TheLastWordSword 17:46, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

The history of the file also keeps the image alive. No need for a page for that. The 2 files used in Template:Face are enough to summarise the whole update imo. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 17:17, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

{{Closure}} ----クールネシトーク 22:02, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

Merge - I'd tend to support a merge as it doesn't remove a minor but major update. Juxtaposition, I know Wink. 222 talk 09:48, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming it's the page that you want deleted, not the images. If it's the page, I say Merge per 222, but if it's the images, Keep some to show the contrast, but use common sense and delete any that are essentially duplicates, or don't show anything that's not shown by another image. Real Crazy 08:09, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - The page will be merged, and the images will also be merged with the new ones (with the exception of those that are used elsewhere in mainspace). --LiquidTalk 02:49, November 20, 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 Reinstate other RfD. --LiquidTalk 16:20, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

Category:Likely extinct

Simply because we are not a place for "likely".

Delete - As nominator. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 14:59, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - This is the 2nd time i nominate it because Liquidhelium closed it 10 days after the nomination for "no consensus" while that is much too soon imo. Please don't close this before there is consensus, or if this nomination lasts too long. Thanks. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 14:59, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

I closed it after two weeks, which is 14 days. Quite frankly, I could have closed it as either no consensus or keep because the opposers argued their points much better than the supporters. --LiquidTalk 15:18, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - At any rate, a new RfD should not be started on the same subject. I will reinstate the original RfD if that is an issue. --LiquidTalk 16:20, November 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 Delete. ʞooɔ 20:18, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Achievement Diary Tutor

This is very speculative, and it's incredibly likely that Sir Vant is talking about Explorer Jack. In addition, Achievement Diaries are now called tasks. I can't find a mention of the Achievement Diary Tutor by talking to him now.

Redirect to Explorer Jack - As nominatrix. ʞooɔ 02:11, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect - Mas speculation, menos content. --Aburnett(Talk) 02:12, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Weak redirect - It is pretty speculative, and I guess that it probably is Jack that's being mentioned. It's not really doing much harm, although there is little reason for it to exist now... Real Crazy 14:30, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Sir Vant or Explorer Jack - Put it in a trivia or something. It's trivial, right? ----クールネシトーク 14:31, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect - Speculation. --LiquidTalk 16:42, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to Explorer Jack - It's obvious that he's talking about Explorer Jack there, he says the tutor is in the home above which he is currently camped out. bad_fetustalk 16:56, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect Per Chess. --Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 17:14, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to Explorer Jack or delete - Pure speculation, it is most likely referring to explorer jack due to the fact he gives out the first version of the explorer's ring which is meant for new players to show them around runescape and give them a feel for achievement diaries. Korasi's sword.png Archmage Elune  TalkHS Void knight deflector.png fetus is my son and I love him. 08:31, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to order one delete with cheese - The cheese is for the photo. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 15:28, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect - Per Nom. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 04:04, December 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 Delete. ʞooɔ 20:18, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Template:IP address

IP's should not have user pages (bullet number 3). Granted, these weren't created by IP's, but there is absolutely no point in having IP signatures link to userpages. Any IP signature created using four tildes will link to the IP's contributions at Special:Contributions/IP address.

Therefore, I propose that we delete this template, delete the IP userpages that use it, and replace the links to the IP's userpage to the IP's contributions list. This is consistent with both wiki policy and accepted wiki practice. --LiquidTalk 00:41, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - As nominator. --LiquidTalk 00:41, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - I can dig it. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 00:42, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Teh useless. ʞooɔ 00:52, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

{{D}} - Per above. ----クールネシトーク 00:56, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

Sure - Pointless. bad_fetustalk 21:12, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

d - --Iiii I I I 21:20, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Liquid summed it up nicely What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 21:34, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - . 222 talk 08:06, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

del - what is this i don't even.... JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 15:26, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - I see your point, but wouldn't it be easier to just change the template to link to the IP's contributions? Otherwise, we've got nothing to do if the IP leaves an unsigned comment in a discussion. Real Crazy 19:09, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

The template is not used for unsigned comments, and I am sure the template that deals with that can be adapted What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 19:11, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
If you might have had it in mind: redirects to special pages are not possible. Anyway: why even have the IP userpages? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:47, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
Didn't realise that it was for IP userpages =S

Delete per nom. Real Crazy 11:52, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Support - They don't appear on the wanted pages so we don't need it. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 11:55, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Even though I think I've used this before when I saw an IP sign and it left a red link. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 03:58, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per above. Suppa chuppa Talk 04:03, December 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 Delete. --LiquidTalk 23:20, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Category:Deceased Characters

This category is filled with characters that die at some point in the game but it says "Deceased" as if they were always dead. I'm standing next to Duradel.

Evil188: "Duradel, are you deceased?"
Duradel: "WTF, NO!"
Evil188: "But the wiki says you're dead; you and a bunch of other guys."
Duradel: "Well, I'm not!"

Most are not dead to some, if not most, players. So either clean it out or delete it.

  • Delete - Even though I guess we could change it to "Category:Characters that die". svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 22:05, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
  • What?!?!? - You haven't done While Guthix Sleeps yet? Blasphemy! I beat the Balance Elemental with an Adamant weapon. Yes, that's right. An ADAMANT weapon. How on earth have you not done it yet? Oh, and delete per nom. --LiquidTalk 01:38, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
Nubnubnub.U haz adamant. Rofl. Nub. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 15:20, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep, but change a little - It's actually a very straightforward category - if a historical character is definately or most likely dead, stick them in there. However, I would say that we remove all characters that only die during a quest; seeing "Deceased character" at the bottom of an article is a spoiler for anyone who hasn't done the quest, and as Evil said, they're not all dead for all players. Remove the WGS casualties and anyone else (other than bosses) who are keeeeled during quests, but leave the category. Real Mad 16:48, November 30, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - Per spoilers. Ppl might browse trough the page, and see the in WGS section. They see the spoiler warning and think "me no complete no WGS, so me no read no WGS zpoiler zection" and then they scroll down, and check the categories, and see the deceased characters category and say "amg me haz zeen da zpoiler! me iz goin da sue deez guyz!" and then we have problems. Don't you guys see? we are going to be killed because of this category! Because of this category the world will end! 2012 disasters are made by deceased characters categories! JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 15:20, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
If you don't want spoilers in the category, remove the WGS deaths, and leave the category. If we delete it, we can't really categorise some characters, like Gentleman Mallard, who isn't technically an NPC, since he doesn't appear ingame, and what else do we put him in? "Category:Pirates"? Real Mad 19:04, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
"So either clean it out or delete it." Either is fine as long it's not something that dies during gameplay (wgs AND bosses). Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 19:10, December 2, 2010 (UTC)
Egggggggggggzzzzzzz-actly! JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:49, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
I've started cleaning out any characters that die during quests, excluding bosses. Haven't got time to check the entire category today, but I think i did all the obvious ones. Feel free to go through it and remove any I've missed. Real Mad 12:40, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - If you want to keep the category, bear in mind in wikip, people are either dead or alive, but in RSwiki they are alive, dead or "dying". You must make a new category for "Death in a quest" if you wanna keep it. Otherwise there must exist unclassified characters that act like Cyrsius. Rewlf2 03:04, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
If we make the category "death in a quest" we will still have a spoiler. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 13:12, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
  • No.... No.. just no. I thought people were playing a joke on me when I read this. I think its overall fine as the way it is. Update222 02:29, December 11, 2010 (UTC)Update222
Whats so ridiculous about it then? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 18:02, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
  • Cleanup - DOn't delete. Just clean. Leave characters like Asleif (although that might be a spoiler) or Wally in it, but remove characters like Grayzag, who has a 25% chance to die at the end of a hihg-leveled quest. Of course, we can leave undead things. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 15:21, December 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • Cleanup - or maybe split into 2 categories, deceased and those who died during the storyline.Dontlietome7 19:51, December 14, 2010 (UTC)
  • Closed - There is a rough consensus in place to delete this category. --LiquidTalk 23:20, December 14, 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 Rename. --LiquidTalk 23:26, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Category:Likely extinct

Simply because we are not a place for "likely".

Delete - As nominator. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 17:04, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - I think that they should at least be clened up if this passes, as there are still things like lemons ingame, even though the Lemon tree seedling is "Likely extinct". Achievements Coelacanth0794 Talk Contribs 17:10, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - These are things that can't be found ingame (with the exception of the trees found in the past) but have received mention. Joey, you're right, we aren't meant to speculate, but in this case, logic would dictate that these things are probably extinct, but we don't know for certain. If you want to get rid of this, would you also delete massive sections of Letters to the Chaos Elemental? Real Nub 17:14, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I believe their answer to your last question would be yes, since they voted delete on several things that were unreleased but mentioned. bad_fetustalk 18:18, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
Funnily enough, I rfd'd Letters to the Chaos Elemental a couple of weeks ago, and got nothing but opposition on that, because, in essence, it's meant for speculation. Real Nub 20:25, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
The Letters are on the RuneScape website, while this information isn't. ----クールネシトーク 21:24, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per above. bad_fetustalk 18:18, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - I like the way Wikipedia does it, with RS:NOT#WIKIPEDIA in mind. ----クールネシトーク 21:24, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

Examples of wikipedia's way how to do it plz? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 00:12, November 16, 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Category:Possibly living people, Wikipedia:Category:Possible impact craters on Earth... ----クールネシトーク 00:23, November 16, 2010 (UTC)
Those categories are less like speculation than "likely extinct". They are possible because there are lots of reasons why it could be thought they are dead/impact craters. What reasons do we have to think they are extinct? they are not here yet. And? Jagex can always surprise us. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 12:52, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
We have common sense to make us think they're extinct, I mean, we can remove them from the category if Jagex has the urge to release Gazulibirds one day, but until then, it's highly likely that they're dead. As a comparison, we don't know that Gentleman Mallard really got killed by that eeeevil sea monster, all we have to go on is Smith's story, but it's pretty obvious that he's dead. Real Nub 19:51, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
Well, we could move the page to something like Category:Does not appear in game which is also a much wider category. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 19:44, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Some things will always have a grey area. 222 talk 09:47, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

Grey area creates speculation like "likely" categories. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 19:14, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - No consensus. --LiquidTalk 02:37, November 20, 2010 (UTC)

Reopened - This is preferable to starting a new RfD on the same subject. --LiquidTalk 16:21, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Let me quote RS:NOT#CRYSTAL: "Articles are not the place for speculation about future updates." If you say something is "likely extinct" you actually say you don't know. And as future things(like if it is extinct or not) should not be in non-talk articles "unless it has been explicitly mentioned on the official Jagex or RuneScape sites", this should be deleted according to RS:NOT#CRYSTAL. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 12:51, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Making a logical assumption is not the same as speculation. Example:

Speculation - A massive fire killed every remaining plum tree. Logical assumption - So far, we have yet to discover a plum tree in modern Gielinor, so it's likely that they are extinct.

Speculation - Slash Bash and the other Ourgs killed the Raurgs. Logical assumption - The most that's ever been found of a Raurg is ssome bones from a coffin. Therefore, it's likely that they are extinct. Real Nub 19:55, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

hmm... so you say that if i place my theories about Sliske on the Sliske page saying "it is likely Sliske is the Strange Old Man" it is ok, because i say likely? it is also based on facts, and much more than your logical assumptions. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 18:54, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
Joey, that is speculation. However, I'd be neutral on having it on the article. bad_fetustalk 19:00, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
IRC: "[20:06] <Chess1242> Anyways, I doubt there is a way of making it nonspeculation unless you find some new clue that almost guarantees that it is real. (or it is revealed to be like that in-game.)"
So there you say "[[:Category:Likely extinct|that]] is speculation". Thanks for confirming. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 19:11, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
You know very well that I was talking about Sliske and Strange Old Man there. Anyways, this category does not need any more clue/hint/whatever that they are extinct, since logic would already suggest that they are very likely to be extinct. We know that they are not seen anywhere. We know that they used to exist. That's enough. bad_fetustalk 19:25, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
Well, we could move the page to something like Category:Does not appear in game which is also a much wider category. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 19:46, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
Not the same. Likely extinct is for things that used to exist, whereas does not appear in game is for possible future updates, or mentions, etc. bad_fetustalk 10:38, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
Why, if i place something like "it is likely this NPC did ..." it is removed per RS:NOT#CRYSTAL, while this is still there and with quite some opposes for deletion? isn't it both exactly the same: both "likely" based on a fact(don't start about your bloody wine please chess, as that doesn't apply here) JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:06, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
My bloody wine..? Anyways, if it is valid logic, there is no reason to keep it away from the article. In this case, it's like this:
Premise I: They used to exist.
Premise II: They aren't seen anymore.
Conclusion: They are likely extinct.
Now, that hasn't got any major difference from real life extinctions in the first place, since you can't go check every single bit of the earth:
Premise I: They used to exist.
Premise II: They aren't seen anymore.
Conclusion: They are extinct.
That is proper logic. bad_fetustalk 16:25, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
(reset) In real it doesn't work like that. I agree with your first time, but still call it speculation. About the second it goes this way(treating Pandas for this case because it is the clearest):
Premise I: They used to exist.
Premise II: They only eat bamboo.
Premise III: We never found one, although they poo amazingly much, in any bamboo wood.
Conclusion: They would be extinct if this would happen.
In real they have much more evidence to show an animal is extinct. Like fingerprints. Nobody is 100% sure all fingerprints are other. They do have data of 5,000,000(and add a couple more, don't know how much) fingerprints, and none of them are identical. That is making something that is not based on facts non-speculation-ish. Same counts here: There are no pandas in bamboo woods, neither is their poo, and as bamboo woods are the only places they live, they must be extinct as they die somewhere else.
Also, ever seen a CSI guy say "we didn't see the suspect anywhere although we know he is somewhere in the US, we searched the whole country, he couldn't have escaped as evryone is strictly checked, so he must be dead. No, because he could as well have escaped or be hidden in someone's house or have a good disguise and go on. the same counts here: The likely extinct thing could as well "have escaped" or here: grow on undiscovered land, or be "hidden in someone's house" or here: be hidden in a JMod's mind, or "be disguised" or here: have another identity than is thought, for example Mysterious Figure who is a disguise of (spoiler:)Wizard Grayzag. In other words: these cases would be speculation when it was in real. There the CSI would research it, but as we can't access all of runescape, we can't let someone good at that stuff research it, so it stays speculation unless Jagex gives us truth. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 22:47, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
Stay on topic. Thank you, 222 talk 06:55, November 26, 2010 (UTC)
Use your loaf, Joey. We may not be able to give absolute proof, but that's why we called the category "likely extinct", because, as I said earlier, and as Chess stated, logic and speculation are completely different. If you don't know the difference, you might as well claim that dinosaurs could still be alive in some amazing underwater air pocket, and say that's logical. Are the two words and a link really hurting the wiki that badly that they need removing? Real Nub 20:49, November 26, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Though I have ultimately kept to the side, I have to add one thing: when I was making the category, it was meant to be a category of things that were extinct, but time and time again, species that were thought to be extinct or not at all exist, like the Dragonkin and the Valluta, respectively, had come back, so a Likely was needed for those. Porp1 22:51, November 27, 2010 (UTC)

Rename to "Possibly extinct". "Possibly" gets rid of the speculation issues of "likely". The only criteria for "possibly extinct" would be that the species is known to have existed and isn't yet proven to still exist, whereas "likely extinct" requires us to make judgements on other things like how likely the species is to exist in unreleased areas. Failing a rename, I still say keep, since the category as-is is still following pretty straight-forward logic, keeping speculation to a minimum. --MarkGyver (talk) 02:30, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

[[wiktionary:likely#Adverb]], [[wiktionary:probably#Synonyms]]. "Probably" would still have the 'speculation issues'. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 02:37, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
I said [[wiktionary:possibly|possibly]], not probably. There's quite a bit of difference between the two. --MarkGyver (talk) 05:36, November 29, 2010 (UTC)
Opps! Lol Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 08:43, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I Support renaming it, but "possibly" is still a little too speculation-ish imo. I suggest "not seen anymore" or something.(or "not seen in year 169" or "not seen in 5th age" or "not seen current days" or something like that. If you have any suggestions, please do what suggestions are for. Suggesting. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 15:24, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Personally I still prefer the wording "possibly extinct" with a notice (if needed) on the category's page warning against adding speculation, but I would be okay with an alternative wording. The problem with your suggested wordings is they're a bit verbose. Also, the phrase "not seen" could be interpreted as applying to cities, items, and fashion styles, not just species. I guess "unseen species" might work. --MarkGyver (talk) 03:42, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
That might not always mean that they are extinct. The Thingummywut is unseen, but not extinct. Porp1 11:13, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
Unseen species: perfect. Porp: Thingummywut is seen. How else would we know it's examine option? His foot is seen, so he is seen. Oh and i am standing next to the WOM and the WOW.
Me: What did you see on your trip to the wizard's tower?
WOM/WOW: we thought we won, but then that thing, if i remember it correctly, the thingyummawut...
Me: Thingummywut, check the best fansite there is
WOM/WOW: ye... We suddenly saw it coming and we had to surrender.
Me: Good for you. You should just earn your money in a fair way. Oh and can i borrow your phat plz?
WOM: No. I lent it out to Zinny.
WOW: Ye, and it is wonderful, Dissy!
As you can see he actually saw the thingummywut, so it is seen. If you got a good example of something that is not seen but definetely exists, please tell me. Note that the player is not the only human in Gielinor. Other people can see things too. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:43, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
Unseen in-game means it hasn't been released outside of dialogue, or in the Thingummywut's case, outside a cutscene. Real Nub 11:55, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
Comeon. Use common sense. The thingummywut is seen in game. Oh and btw, that dialogue is made up. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 21:22, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Delete it, I really don't see a need for this category. Surely it is easy enough to find out for sure... ajr 23:23, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Renamed to Category:Possibly extinct. --LiquidTalk 23:26, December 14, 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 Move to Penguin Quest 3. ʞooɔ 04:09, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

Goldflipper

Another speculation article. I mean really, the only confirmed fact is that there will be a quest. "Goldflipper" being Nancy's favourite does not mean that the quest will be named that way. Mod Mark's favourite title for dung was "Spellunking", yet they called it "Dungeoneering". Moreover, the article has got no information whatsoever.

Away with it - As nominator. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 14:18, December 7, 2010 (UTC) Strong support - per nom. LordDarkPhantom 18:40, December 10, 2010 (UTC) Move to Penguin Quest 3 - The quest is confirmed, just not the name What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 14:11, December 13, 2010 (UTC) Support move - We should state what we know (that there will be another quest, possible titles, JMod quotes, etc), but not what we don't know (predictions of the title, etc). --MarkGyver (talk) 05:20, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Well, it does contain information, which should be kept, no matter how little, but I can see your point with the name. If anything, move it to Penguin 3, following the style in which we've done Myreque 5, but it isn't doing that much harm, and it can be moved for definite if the name is announced to be something other than Goldflipper. Real Crazy 20:08, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Support move - It's confirmed update, keep. Dontlietome7 20:25, December 14, 2010 (UTC) Comment - [[RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Goldflipper|First nomination]]. ----クールネシトーク 20:26, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Someone moved the previous discussion to RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Goldflipper 1. Basically, there was a lot of opposition to deletion and a few suggestions to move it to something like "Penguin Quest 3", but not enough people wanting it moved for there to be a consensus for any action to be taken. --MarkGyver (talk) 18:55, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Strong keep - Per the reasons on the first nomination, whatever they were. ----クールネシトーク 20:26, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

So you actually don't know why you want to keep it? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 15:25, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Speculation. And stop bulleting posts pl0x... JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 15:25, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

  • Only the name of the quest is speculation. We know that there will be a third penguin quest. As for bulleted posts, they make it easier to see where one posts ends and another begins. Unless someone digs up something on bulleted posts in the style guides, however, it's just personal preference. --MarkGyver (talk) 17:58, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - This should not be deleted as it is confirmed that it will be released but unless someone can suggest a better place to put this page then it should be kept here. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 11:03, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose -

Goldflipper is a possible title...
That's enough for me. Matt (t) 23:49, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose what? The deletion, moving, or something else? With how these proposals keep branching off to several different ideas, "support" and "oppose" start losing meaning after around the second or third post. --MarkGyver (talk) 05:44, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
Changed to delete - That was an accident. =] Matt (t) 01:17, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
Changed to Keep/redirect - Per Psycho and Sentra. Matt (t) 03:12, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect - The article content should be moved to Penguin Series Part 3 or something like that. There, all possible titles and every bit of info released could be added and cited. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 23:52, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

  • Yet another move suggestion. At this rate we won't conclude until the quest's released.... Also, why'd you redo everyone's indentations, randomly switching between bullets and tabs? --MarkGyver (talk) 05:51, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
Calm down. Consensus takes time. Matt (t) 01:19, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's been two weeks of discussion now and now that you've clarified your position, the only "keep" left is because of "the reasons on the first nomination, whatever they were", so maybe we do have consensus now. I'm requesting closure. --MarkGyver (talk) 19:37, December 21, 2010 (UTC)
What kind of "consensus" is there that you see? None, in my opinion. Also, about my reasoning behind keeping the article is quite justifiable. I simply stated that consensus to keep Goldflipper in the first nomination was strong, and that it should be kept per those reasonable reasons. ----クールネシトーク 02:23, December 22, 2010 (UTC)
This request for closure is complete A user has requested closure for Requests for deletion/Archive 15. Request complete. The reason given was: After two weeks, the only opposition is "Per the reasons on the first nomination, whatever they were."

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 Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 22:15, December 24, 2010 (UTC).

RuneScape:Quality not Quantity

The only content on the page has nothing to do with the page title. Its content can be taken elsewhere where it matters more (like RS:RFA). I also find it ironic that {{Essay}}, which says that the page's contents are nonbinding, is with the declaration of a binding forum result. --LiquidTalk 23:19, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Delete/Merge - As nominator. --LiquidTalk 23:19, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - I'm not really sure what this means. ʞooɔ 23:22, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - It's pure confuzzlement. ----クールネシトーク 00:31, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Keep and expand - I think this could be very useful if it was rewritten. Real Nub 12:44, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Pointless. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 22:31, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - I don't call 3 sentences an essay or policy. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 22:36, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Delete bad_fetustalk 12:50, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Move - To a subpage of User:Jeffwang16, the creator. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 18:40, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Keep for now. It's an essay, and the construction template indicates that it's a work in progress. If nothing comes of it, then we can consider deletion. Dtm142 03:19, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

The main editor of the essay has retired, so it seems unlikely he will finish it. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 02:08, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
So? This page, as with other project pages, is part of a collaborative effort. Other editors may improve it if the original author doesn't. Dtm142 22:08, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
Nobody got the slightest idea what could be added to it probably. I base this on the fact nobody edited it for 3,792 days and if someone would know something to add, they would probably already have done it. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 23:02, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - The author should finish it before posting it in the projectspace, anyhow. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 10:22, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - If the author finishes it, he can re-create it.Dontlietome7 20:02, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Yeah >_> Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 23:37, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Is there much else to say? 222 talk 06:58, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

This request for closure is complete A user has requested closure for Requests for deletion/Archive 15. Request complete. The reason given was: DUH

JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 21:33, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - RuneScape:Quality not Quantity has been deleted. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 22:15, December 24, 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. Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 07:00, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

Glitch/Gallery and all images therein

Originally, this page served a reasonable purpose. There were several glitch images that needed a larger home than the glitch page, so we moved them there. However, this page has become a trash-bin for many, many useless images that do little to educate the reader. Looking through the page, most of the images appear to be a result of a graphics error on the user's end, not the game itself. None of these images are notable, as only historical glitches need be documented. The fact of the matter is, if we have to create a new page to hold glitch images, we probably have too many. We don't need this page or any of the glitch images (with a few exceptions), so I feel all of them should be deleted. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 23:39, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - As nominator. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 23:39, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - If you do this, would you consider deleting all images from Category:Glitch images? ----クールネシトーク 23:55, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Frankly I don't think we need more than a tenth of the images in that category. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 23:58, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Oh, lordie lordie. We don't need this page. ʞooɔ 00:17, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

10%? I think it would be okay to keep a few, as others have mentioned. So where will we put those we keep?--Degenret01 00:49, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned in the proposal that a number of them should be kept, but if that number becomes too large to be contained on the glitch page itself, then some of them must be deleted. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 10:18, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Most, if not all of those images are incredibly minor glitches that actually don't really merit a screenshot whatsoever. Even though we aren't Wikipedia, their notability policy comes to mind. I looked at the page, and found the same glitch (Icon-less skillcape) repeated at least twice. Keep the ones you know are notable and mass-murder the rest of 'em. Real Nub 16:43, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

Delete 16px‎AtlandyBeer.png 16:45, November 30, 2010 (UTC)

Wow wait - Only delete images that are duplicate glitches, like twice skill cape icon missing, [[:File:Cathy fishing glitch barb-tail harpoon.PNG|pointless images]] and keep combo glitches([[:File:Really odd glitch.png]] is better than [[:File:Legs invisible.png]]) so basically use common sense. If the glitch is not duplicate, not very minor, and used on other pages, don't delete it but discuss it first. Maybe we should make a list on the talk page of what images should be deleted. But at least don't delete them all. [[:File:StretchGlitchFairy.png|Some]] are nice ones. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 19:28, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Umm... not sure what I should name my vote - Per Joey. I don't think the non-duplicate/non-extremely similar ones should be deleted. bad_fetustalk 21:09, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Well, you could say one of the 3 suggestions here: Wow wait, Partial delete or Half delete Lol JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 15:27, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Partial delete - First of all get rid of duplicate glitch images, second see what images combine glitches if any then remove any images of the seperate glitches, then see whether any of the images left are noteworthy, those that aren't delete. What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 21:32, December 1, 2010 (UTC)

Half delete - Delete the ones which are plain useless and move the notable ones to Glitch. 222 talk 07:49, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - All of them except for the ones that are historical. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 04:00, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Most glitches get fixed after some time. If we delete all non-historical glitches(so glitches that occur now) we won't have them anymore when it gets fixed... That way, no glitches that are worth looking at can be added.
Delete - Pointless images that have no true way of helping our project except causing lag on the page and encouraging the upload of low quality images. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 17:02, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Proposal - I suggest we only allow approved images on the Glitch/gallery. That means: an user that has either rollback+ or cust+ must approve it to be added(else there will really be too much unnecessary discussion, and admins are busy enough already), and only then it is ok to upload the file here. Like at RS:CAPE/R, images have to be uploaded to a host site first. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 19:32, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Definitely not. Not only is that not part of job description, that actually does break AEAE. ʞooɔ 21:39, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, but closing a YG thread works exactly the same: you have to ask someone who has more rights than you to close it. As this is a small enough discussion, i think people with less rights should also be able to close it. And as there are anough people who dump their glitch images here while we already got loads of those glitch images, i think only people who are trusted should be able to tell if they are ok to be uploaded. If you want, i won't do it, it is not about that i will be able to do it but the rest won't, it is just to prevent us being a glitch image host. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 18:09, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Keep the images-delete the page

Move the images to glitch- delete the page itself.Defence-icon.png99 i fail Attack-icon.png 22:45, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

That defeats the purpose. It's a bunch of useless images, and Glitch is already an enormous page. ʞooɔ 23:04, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
I striked trough this vote, as you commented below with another opinion, so it looks like you changed your mind. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 18:09, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - No reason not to comply. ----クールネシトーク 01:20, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Delete duplicates-keep the rest- people need to know the current glitches. Delete the duplicates, keep the rest.Defence-icon.png99 i fail Attack-icon.png 01:32, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

Delete not important graphical glitches. There are many after each update, they cause no harm and the get fixed within a week or two. Because of their low importance, they should be deleted. However keep these wich were/are around for longer time (e.g combining emotes - not all possible combinations, just an example or two) and some really interesting ones aswell (but there aren't many interesting ones). And of course, delete duplicates. There's no need to keep 1 image of every shield when their holding position was glitched. Dontlietome7 20:19, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Keep - Kewl page. Why would you want to delete it? ajr 23:24, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Because it's a repository for useless images that are oftentimes not worth keeping? ʞooɔ 03:29, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
^ ----クールネシトーク 20:45, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
"oftentimes" not all images are. Therefore the gallery should still partially stay imo. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:28, December 17, 2010 (UTC)
The vast majority on the images on the page go something like "OMG I have a stretchy helmet I should upload a crappy JPG of it." ʞooɔ 20:10, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Magic User: It has some useless non glitch images and duplicate glitch images...I think the page just needs a good old fashioned cleanup. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.204.254.0 (talk).

Delete most - Almost all images, such as equipment stretch glitches, hat/hair related glitches, and interface glitches that are more likely caused by lag are pointless, uninteresting, and often times low quality/sd. I think that we should have one image for each type of glitch. For example, one stretching glitch, one hat/hair glitch, one interface glitch, etc. Its not necessary to have a million different pieces of equipment stretching. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 03:07, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Delete most - Per Psycho. So many of the images are unneeded. Suppa chuppa Talk 03:13, December 23, 2010 (UTC) Delete most - Per Psycho. Delete the duplicate images and other uneeded images.--Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 03:18, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Delete most - per Pyscho. LordDarkPhantom 13:43, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

'Delete a lot - 'A lot of the pictures in there are not glitches, and others are probably just photoshoped  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.93.241.242 (talk).

Closed. Images that are deemed to be actually worth keeping (which will likely be a small fraction of the slew of images this page contains) will be moved to the main Glitch article. Everything else will be thrown out the airlock. Use common sense when determining which images are worth keeping: If the image appears to be fake, is a client-side glitch, or is a duplicate, toss it. If you're unsure either way, lean towards keeping it and ask for a second opinion if necessary. The gallery page itself will be deleted once all the images have been processed; place it on speedy deletion with a link to this RfD. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 07:00, December 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 Keep. HaloTalk 22:02, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

Graphical improvements images

Before people get shocked and want to keep all historical files: Relax. I am only proposing to delete images that are in the file history of the current file. For those images, [[Template:R]] could easily be used. For people wondering what it does, after reading the documentation, please go to User talk:Coolnesse#Re:Template:R. With that template, we could simply fill in all fields with the url of the file history file, of the version that is historical.

Example:
we want to add File:Bal'Lak old.png but it is also in the file history of File:Bal'lak the Pummeller.png. Then add {{t|R|images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100912150107/runescape/images/archive/3/3b/20101103011409!Bal'lak_the_Pummeller.png|Bal'lak the Pummeller.png|150}} and we have the exact same as adding [[File:Bal'Lak old.png|150px]]. I know this is more code, but it is the same, and requires less file pages on the wiki.

Note that {{t|r}} can also be used without resizing, despite [[Template:Resize|it's name]], for example {{t|R|<nowiki>http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20091029051761/runescape/images/archive/1/10/20100119180931!Abyssal_Whip_Icon.png|Abysal Whip Icon.png}}</nowiki> is {{R|http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20091029051761/runescape/images/archive/1/10/20100119180931!Abyssal_Whip_Icon.png|Abysal Whip Icon.png}}

So:

We delete all files that are exactly the same as in the file history of the current file, and use {{r}} to include it. This should not be done for images that had a cleanup after the improvement though.

Delete - As nominator. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 17:46, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

  • Support - About time, but who's going to replace everything. Not me. Lol User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 18:18, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
I'll do it if needed... If admins are lazy again Lol JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 18:37, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - I proposed something like this on the talk page, but it ne'er got off the ground. ʞooɔ 21:38, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

I checked it, that template doesn't work. It resizes the image here, so might have some difficulties/problems when wikia changes something. For me the example image just shows one line of the image. With this new template, it doesn't change the size here but on the host site, resulting in bugless resizing. Why it ne'er got off the ground is probably because of the lack of {{RfC}} and because the template bugged. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 18:14, December 12, 2010 (UTC)
Keep - Makes image maintenance hard if not impossible. ʞooɔ 00:25, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - What does deleting those really accomplish other than making maintenance harder? What if the old version of the image needs transparency, what will we do? Tag that image? Sorry, but that's a completely unneeded change and it's idiotic. bad_fetustalk 13:59, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

If the old version needs transparency we will make a new file page with the old file, and tag that, just like it goes now. It is just unnecessary to have so much files, while it can be so easy too. I am calling uploading seperate files for each image a lot of work, which is definetely not needed. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 13:15, December 7, 2010 (UTC)
The files are already uploaded seperately, this is a deletion request if you didn't notice. I still do not see anything wrong with having them on a different filename, and what you said still makes maintenance harder. Also, since you haven't been able to come up with a reason, I change to Strong Oppose. bad_fetustalk 20:58, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - I agree with Chess. There's no real benefit to doing things this way, and again it just makes maintaining the old files more difficult. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 21:05, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - All these images are great as there is no way to see what some of these things used to look like. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 11:01, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Read the proposal please, as i am saying the images from the history should be used, meaning the images will still exist as much as they do now. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 08:54, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Does nothing useful. Real Crazy 10:53, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Maintenance difficulty, period. 222 talk 06:57, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus to delete. HaloTalk 22:02, December 31, 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 23:52, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Template:If defined

The templates {{If defined}}, {{If defined2}} and {{If defined else}} are actually duplicates of {{#if:{{{1}}}}} so i think these could simply be deleted. They were probably made because the creator didn't know of {{#if:{{{1}}}}} but now about evryone knows about this, the templates are obsolete so should be deleted.

Delete - As nominator. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 22:52, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I'm sure the creator knew of the {{#if:{{{1}}}}} or else he would not have been able to create the template in the first place. My main concern is that this template may be required for some others to work. I'll poke Gareth and ask him to look at it. --LiquidTalk 12:48, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

The template doesnt use {{#if:{{{1}}}}} so why do you think the creator wouldn't be able to create the template in the first place? I am replacing the template with if at Template:Infobox Hunter now, because i'm sure it doesnt need the template, as it works with if for other infoboxes too. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 12:53, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - It has been confirmed by Gaz that this is unneeded and won't affect any templates. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 15:35, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Lolwut? Matt (t) 23:51, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Death to it! - Seeing as nobody will miss it. PS What's with the bullets? Real Crazy 14:13, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, that MarkGyver guy did it.
As for bulleted posts, they make it easier to see where one posts ends and another begins. Unless someone digs up something on bulleted posts in the style guides, however, it's just personal preference.
Matt (t) 03:16, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Go away. 222 talk 06:57, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - No need to keep if it has no use. bad_fetustalk 15:01, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - This template will be deleted by someone with more knowledge of code so that it can be certified that nothing will be broken. --LiquidTalk 23:52, January 2, 2011 (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 modify. --LiquidTalk 23:55, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

File:5thage religion.png

This image is essentially useless. Religion is based on individuals, not kingdoms. Yes, misthalin and kandarin are mostly inhabited by saradominists, and the citizens of ape atoll appear to worship Marimbo, yet these concepts do not require an image to illustrate them. Not only that, but this map is too crowded to do any good. It is nearly illegible. One house with one zamorakian gets marked on the map, and all these minor markings crowd the map beyond all hope. This map does not fill any need, nor communicate any useful information that is not already said in a few words in articles all over the place.

P.S. Its also inaccurate. Fremennik isn't a religion. The Fremennik tribe worships guthix. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 02:46, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Nope, they have their own idols. Fossegrimen, The Kendal, Draugen? Real Nub 17:20, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - As nominator. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 02:45, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - To crowded to be useful. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 11:20, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Fan art is nil. ----クールネシトーク 12:44, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Its as much fan art as [[:File:Romeo npc.png|t]][[:File:Sir Prysin location.png|h]][[:File:King Roald location.png|e]][[:File:Aeonisig Raispher map.png|s]][[:File:Duke location.png|<u>e</u>]] files. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 10:01, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
Those images are horribly displeasing to the eye anyway. ----クールネシトーク 21:20, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Actually, I think Joey was working on a new one. PS: The really inaccurate bit is the Zamorakian wilderness. IT WAS ZAROSIAN DAMMIT! (And it's got pretty much no gods now) Real Nub 17:20, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Changed to Keep - It can be used to visually show where gods are favoured most. Not everyone wants to read a text wall, or browse through several articles, to see that. Real Nub 00:01, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
I was working on it, and i am gonna upload it asap now i see it has been nommed 4 del. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 08:58, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - But clean it up and make it much more general. As an example, just mark all of Misthalin as being Saradominist, all of the desert as being Menaphite, etc. Don't specify each and every minor house or camp that possesses an alternate religion. The image has the potential to be useful, so long as it is kept basic and clear. And, on a separate note, the Fremennik do have their own religion, centered on the worship of deities such as the Kendal, Fossegrimen, etc. Quest.png Morian Smith Saradomin crozier.png 19:39, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

That means the fremenniks are selected right now. But, should towns with different religions(seers is guthixian) still be guthixian then? and the monkey village in the desert? But, okay, i will change it so small things are not marked specially. But some last things, should the entrances of the chaos tunnels be marked Zamorakian, and should chaos temples etc. be marked Zamorakian? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 14:08, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
I personally think the image would be most effective if its labels were kept to a very general regional basis. For the most part, I'd say shade in a nation (a nation being a very large area, like Misthalin, Morytania, Tirannwn) or island with its main religion, and leave it at that, unless there's a very major exception somewhere in there. This is probably something that should be handled on a case-by-case basis for the most part. In response to the specific areas you brought up, though, I don't think any are big enough exceptions to merit being marked separately. Seers is the only one large enough to even possibly consider, but it's actually a mostly Saradomin city anyway (the Guthixian seers that established it are now a vast minority). For the sake of the image's usefulness, I think we need to avoid getting too specific. Quest.png Morian Smith Saradomin crozier.png 00:53, December 28, 2010 (UTC)
What I think is best is to select it per city, and i'll make one version with it selected per city, and one version per region. Then we can compare, and select which one is best. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 09:28, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

What is this? I don't even... - Delete Matt (t) 23:52, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Strong keep - It is very useful to see what religion is followed where, atleast, if it is accurate. I have been working on a new version with very much more accurately marked areas, and a lot of others helped in the IRC. The version i am going to upload will be very accurate, so also useful. I think this does add to the articles it is on. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 08:58, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

Too much accuracy makes it look terrible. Who cares if a house in Varrock is Zamorakian? The rest of the town isn't, and the little red dot just looks bad. ʞooɔ 09:06, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
The newest revision, if that's the one you're talking about, is far worse than any other version, as it apperas to have completely random guesses and, quite frankly, nonsense. I noticed that greater demons are marked as zamorak. Is that even true? I can see how demons could be associated with zamorak, but do they actually worship him? can zaros use demons too? The fishing platform and witchaven is marked as zamorakian too, but I'm failry sure that the slugs don't worship any god... Even the area full of ghosts in west ardougne is marked as zamorakian. The version appears to take a very basic idea of "good or evil" and paints good blue and evil red. But if the good guys are confirmed to worship a different god, its painted a different color. Its speculative, unhelpful, and contains no useful information that cannot be expressed in a zillion other ways. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 09:24, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
Look at Armies of Gielinor. There are a lot of monsters shown to worship specific gods. Sea slugs and greater demons are Zamorakian there, and ok, indeed, the part with zombies in Ardougne should be uncolored. the rest is based on facts(for example, northern morytania is saradominist The exact date when Port Phasmatys was built is unknown. But it is widely believed that Port Phasmatys was created somewhere around the year 1777 of the fourth age, when many Misthalanian settlers left their homeland for a new life in Morytania.) If you have any other places of which you think it is just based on "good or evil" please tell me, because i'll fix it then. Totally no reason to delete it. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 09:49, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
I fixed the zombie pen. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 10:01, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
We can't do things that are that incredibly speculative. ʞooɔ 08:37, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

Weak keep - I can see its benefits, but as of now, it is an incredibly confusing, sprawling mass of colours which are very difficult to use. 222 talk 06:56, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

Keep, but change completely - Per Morian Smith. bad_fetustalk 16:58, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

What ^he^ said - User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 18:59, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per Psycho. Not every single individual in each kingdom believes the same thing (as much as some would like for them to..). There has been so much debate on this single picture that I think it should just be done away with and we should accept that NPCs are in fact individuals and all have their own personal beliefs. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 19:06, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

Which is why it should stop trying to identify every single individual's religion, as it currently is doing by labeling small houses and camps. The image could be very useful were it changed from representing individuals to something along the lines of "Religious Majorities by Region." This would be much more factual and not create issues with individuals and smaller groups. Quest.png Morian Smith Saradomin crozier.png 22:13, December 26, 2010 (UTC)
See my post above JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 20:42, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I like the new version. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 13:43, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - The image will be kept but generalized, which someone has already done. --LiquidTalk 23:55, January 2, 2011 (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 23:36, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

File:Vyerwatch Flight Upclose.PNG

This is an unneeded image, and also not used in mainspace. This was rejected as speedy deletion, which means it should be rfd'd, but i think that is unneeded. This image is just useless, and ugly.

Speedy delete - As nominator. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 20:39, December 27, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - I can't see this image doing anything but detracting from the quality of any article it's put in. Quest.png Morian Smith Saradomin crozier.png 01:05, December 28, 2010 (UTC)

What is this I don't even...oh yeah, Delete. Real Nub 14:36, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - LordDarkPhantom 14:57, December 29, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Pointless. 222 talk 02:32, December 30, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - If unused, it must be destroyed. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 00:29, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Smite the thing with the incredibly long nose. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 13:36, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

Delete it - It's not used for anything anyway. -Hourglass (2011 Hallowe'en event) detail.png I Am Me Talk III The Spark.png- 18:12, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

{{Closure|Per [[RS:SNOW]]}} JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 06:22, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - Image will be deleted. --LiquidTalk 23:36, January 3, 2011 (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. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 04:57, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Jadinko

Please consider deleting this page.

  1. The information in the main Herblore Habitat article is identical.
  2. It is redundant to have this page.
  3. It makes it hard to keep both pages consistent

I would support a merge too. Everything is already there though.

Delete Oppose - As nominator. J22f 02:27, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - We still need a page about Jadinkos. If anything, perhaps remove the information from the Herblore Habitat page so that it isn't so long. Suppa chuppa Talk 02:33, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Of course we need Jadinko articles. But don't worry, each and every jadinko has its own page. The only purpose of compiling some jadinko information was tables and catching strategies. These are most useful to readers on the Herblore Habitat page, on which they are already anyways. J22f 03:03, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose per RS:G. If it's improperly or suboptimally written, rewrite it. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 02:35, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point. No, a jadinko is not the same as herblore habitat, and a jadinko does not have the same function as herblore habitat. But consider this information to be merged with Herblore Habitat and at the same time all the individual jadinko pages. By including these other pages, then yes the jadinkos are the same, and yes, they have the same functions. J22f 03:03, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - We definitely need a page for them. A sidenote is that originally we intended to have this (and the other pages you're RfDing) to be subpages of Herblore Habitat, and not actually have the information on the main page. ʞooɔ 02:56, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Is an epic failure ---> J22f 03:03, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Per RS:G and all. I too would suggest that information on Jadinkos in the Herblore Habitat article be removed. 222 talk 07:03, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Removing the information from the Herblore Habitat page doesn't make sense either. Lets just leave it as is. J22f 13:18, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
I see this as a withdrawal. Could this be closed now? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 09:45, January 7, 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I withdraw. What do I do to withdraw; I can't seem to find directions... J22f 04:47, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Per others. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 09:45, January 7, 2011 (UTC)


Oppose - I was originally for separating the subpages of the Herb Habitat page sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 21:41, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - Nominator has withdrawn the nomination and it's pretty much decided anyway. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 04:57, January 8, 2011 (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. ʞooɔ 18:17, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

Herblore Habitat/Farming

Please consider deleting this page.

  1. The information in the main Herblore Habitat article is identical.
  2. It is redundant to have this page.
  3. It makes it hard to keep both pages consistent

I would support a merge too. Everything is already there though.

Delete Transclude - As nominator. J22f 02:00, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Why not just transclude it? ʞooɔ 02:59, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

I support this. I don't know how to do it though. J22f 17:14, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

What I said in the other thread - 222 talk 07:06, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Did you actually look at the pages? J22f 17:14, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose of the most extreme kind - Transclusion is much more efficient. Real Nub 17:18, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Ok. J22f 17:34, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Transclude - This is more useful. It is done by adding {{/Farming}} on the Herblore Habitat page, or adding {{:Herblore Habitat/Farming}} to any other page. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 09:40, January 7, 2011 (UTC)


This request for closure is complete A user has requested closure for Requests for deletion/Archive 15. Request complete. The reason given was: User withdrawal
J22f 14:17, January 11, 2011 (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. ʞooɔ 18:16, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

Herblore Habitat/Construction

Please consider deleting this page.

  1. The information in the main Herblore Habitat article is identical.
  2. It is redundant to have this page.
  3. It makes it hard to keep both pages consistent

I would support a merge too. Everything is already there though.

Delete Transclude - As nominator. J22f 02:14, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Why not just transclude it? ʞooɔ 02:59, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

I support this. I don't know how to do it though. J22f 17:15, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

What I said in the other thread - 222 talk 07:06, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Did you look at the pages? J22f 17:15, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Transclude - This is more useful. It is done by adding {{/Construction}} on the Herblore Habitat page, or adding {{:Herblore Habitat/Construction}} to any other page. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 09:41, January 7, 2011 (UTC)


This request for closure is complete A user has requested closure for Requests for deletion/Archive 15. Request complete. The reason given was: User withdrawal
J22f 14:18, January 11, 2011 (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. ʞooɔ 08:55, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

Fairy Tale III - Orks Rift/CB70 Method

Just because they're 70 Combat, doesn't mean they get their own strategy page. See RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Dragon Slayer/Pure's Guide for an example of this coming up before.

Massive oppose Delete - As nominator. Real Crazy 21:00, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - ^ --クールネシトーク 00:51, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Terrible guide, useless. ʞooɔ 00:58, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - If we keep this, whats next? Are we going to do, add guides to each fight for every 10 combat levels for every quest? Besides, plenty of them on YouTube. No need to have 10 pages each with different strategies, just some paragraphs in the main article about the general strategy that works for pretty much every level. Delete it.Guthix1110 01:33, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Totally unnecessary and useless. As said above we have a good amount of information in the article for generally every level that it is possible to defeat the boss on. Mining cape.png The Last Pun Talk Aberrant Spectre Champion.png 01:43, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Can I make a guide for level 71's as well? 222 talk 07:04, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - Or else I won't be able to resist my urge to make a 138 method for every quest that involves overloads and yaks. Korasi's sword.png Archmage Elune  TalkHS Void knight deflector.png fetus is my son and I love him. 19:02, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete - I am gonna make a guide for the combat level i have for every quest! and then im gonna do it again with another acc and make a guide for that too! I'm gonna make a cb lvl 70 guide for nomad's requiem saying "GL with it!" Nty, just keep it as 1 guide. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 09:37, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

Delete *roflmao* User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 07:26, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete. ʞooɔ 19:17, January 19, 2011 (UTC)

File:Fionn HD.png

I saw a thread on the RSOF about this image (it was about how it's possible since HD was released after 2006). And really, the only way that this is possible is if this was taken on a private server; and should therefore be deleted. I wasn't sure if this warranted a speedy deletion or a community discussion. ɳex undique 20:55, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - As nominator. ɳex undique 20:55, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

Question - Could you link to the forum please? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 21:03, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

Sure, QFC:15-16-65-62198194/or here. ɳex undique 21:05, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

Okay - Fan art/non-game client. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 13:28, January 19, 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete - From private server. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 13:36, January 19, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Delete - I saw the thread as well and was going to nominate this myself. There is no way this was taken legitimately. (Btw, thread QFC: 15-16-65-62198194) Armadyl symbol.png Nightgunner Talk Illuminated Book of Law.png 16:38, January 19, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - Against RS:IMP. I thought a quick resolution to this would be good. ʞooɔ 19:17, January 19, 2011 (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. Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 23:07, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

Tome Raider

Normally I wouldn't ask for the article to be deleted... I asked the question in the first place, but recent confirmation from Mod Mark on my thread about it has said this quest is cancelled and may be partially re-used in a low level quest... My biggest guess would be, why is this not low level? But mainly and mostly, Tome Raider no longer will exist. Thanks guys Amascut symbol.svg Amascut Ia Morte 13:43, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

(proof is at QFC:16-17-567-61360202 page 17) Dontlietome7 19:42, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I agree that the article has no use now. There's a slim chance that this quest will be released in the distant future and that's not enough to keep an article. Dontlietome7 19:42, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Thanks! I'd also like to mention that Mark said they were reusing some of the graphics, so I don't think this quest will ever show up now. Just more Ewain quests. Amascut symbol.svg Amascut Ia Morte 19:59, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Well, they said they were going to make it at one point, so it could be kept for that reason, but Deepstone Keep comes to mind, and there's no article on that (as far as I know)... Real Nub 20:12, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Changed to Keep per the fact that it's article-worthy, and does no harm. Real Nub 23:17, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Delete - It's cancelled? Boo. ----クールネシトーク 20:32, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

I've linked it so it's less confusing. Dontlietome7 20:05, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - I'd delete the page, but have the sysop offer a reason like "cancelled quest" when they go to delete. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 23:36, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

I got advice for you: Don't watch the small things(name change of a namespace when we want drop logs for all monsters, summary when deleting) but watch the big changes: drop logs and deleting. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 22:58, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Partial delete - I do want some kind of mentioning somewhere. I don't know where it fits though. best is, like Ciphrius Kane said below, on Signature Heroes page. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 22:58, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Signature Heroes - Like Joey kinda said, it needs mentioning somewhere. As Sir Ewain is a Signature Hero, put it there What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 00:03, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Ye that is a good place to mention it. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 15:26, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, but be sure to mention the quest will no longer exist! Amascut symbol.svg Amascut Ia Morte 18:54, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - I have partial re-written the page. It should be kept as a historical page as it is confirmed it was a planned quest but was cancelled and that deserves it's own article. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 11:17, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

So? There are so many cancelled quests, and we haven't a single one of them as an article, or even mentioned in an article, for that matter... ----クールネシトーク 02:38, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
That's not a good reason to delete this. Just because a mistake was done somewhere else doesn't mean we should do the same here. bad_fetustalk 19:28, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
How many quests can you think of, that Jagex stated to be in the works but then cancelled? I can think of one - Tome Raider. Real Nub 07:44, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Keep - It's part of the history of RS. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 16:03, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Yay, another request to delete information! bad_fetustalk 15:02, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Chess, what information? The quest is never going to exist, and here's what we knew about it: It was called Tome Raider, it starred Sir Ewain, and we're rescuing from some prison. not alot of information there... deleting it makes sense, as it is a canceled quest, that we know next to nothing about. Amascut symbol.svg Amascut Ia Morte 17:56, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it's a lot of information. I said it's information. Then, I don't see how it makes sense. We are the wiki about everything about RuneScape, I believe that includes cancelled quests which have previously been confirmed, which makes them a part of RuneScape history. bad_fetustalk 19:23, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

Delete it - It has been comfirmed that it was cancelled, so there's no point in keeping it, seeing as it won't be released and never was. -Hourglass (2011 Hallowe'en event) detail.png I Am Me Talk III The Spark.png- 00:14, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

Changed my opinion to Keep - Per everyone else who woted keep. -Hourglass (2011 Hallowe'en event) detail.png I Am Me Talk III The Spark.png- 14:16, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Per Zamorak. Just because it was canceled content doesn't mean it should be deleted. We still have the Eye rewards from Dungeoneering even though they were canceled. ɳex undique 02:06, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Keep - We have articles for other cancelled content, and why not this one? It's all part of compiling information as an encyclopaedia. Do you see other encyclopaedias deleting content that never eventuated? 222 talk 07:05, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Keep - There are a huge number of articles on the Wiki about information that exists beyond the game of RuneScape itself. Were the information from this merged into another page, information about its plot and development history would have to be condensed. The information can be covered more thoroughly and effectively, not to mention less intrusively, on an independent article. Quest.png Morian Smith Saradomin crozier.png 22:34, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - but make sure you Delete the article for Romeo and Juliet as well! After all, even if it was in game for a while, it was cancelled and removed! (Note; this is actually a Keep) Armadyl symbol.png Nightgunner Talk Illuminated Book of Law.png 17:25, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Ye, that's different. R&J was in game actually. Tome Raider wasn't. That's a difference. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 00:14, January 10, 2011 (UTC)
Compare it to Lizardmen, Mammoths, or Wilderness Tag, then. ʞooɔ 02:00, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

Keep- We should keep it since its historical and its interesting to know what made it into the game and what didn't. Not too many people know that Sebastian Gno or the Eye of the Warrior were ever planned for example. If we don't keep it, then we should make a page that lists all of the cancelled content. Krayfish 02:16, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - This article will not be deleted. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 23:07, January 20, 2011 (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. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 23:27, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

Juju potion

Please consider deleting this page.

  1. The information in the main Herblore Habitat article is identical.
  2. It is redundant to have this page.
  3. It makes it hard to keep both pages consistent

I would support a merge too. Everything is already there though.

Delete Oppose - As nominator. J22f 02:27, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - It's a disambiguation more than anything. Rewrite it if you want, but that's like wanting to delete Summoning pouches. ʞooɔ 02:58, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. J22f 13:21, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - We can't delete it outright. It's an important page that serves as a general information page for all of the juju potions. We have many other pages like this, such as the Daemonheim summoning familiar pages. --LiquidTalk 03:00, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. J22f 13:21, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Liquid. 222 talk 07:06, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. J22f 13:21, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Per kewk and helm. Oh and J22f, you don't need to comment on everything others say. It is only needed if someone asks someting, or says something you disagree with, or if it changed your mind(like "let's do this! :hmm, yes, okay, that's good too". Saying "agreed" doesn't really add a lot. Oh and you can also withdraw your nomination so this can be closed now. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 09:44, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. What are the steps to withdraw my nomination? I also noticed its roughly the same handful of users who do all the housekeeping on wiki. How can I get involved and learn to not do (what you probably view as annoying) things like this again? J22f 04:54, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
Ah, we all make mistakes. I once RfD'd Burnt mushroom...anyway, to withdraw, all you do is put a comment on the bottom of the discussion saying that you withdraw, and if you want, put the {{Closure}} template on it as well. I've put it here for you =D Real Nub 13:56, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - I was originally for separating the subpages of the Herb Habitat page sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 21:42, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Disambig. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 07:28, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Its a disambig page. Also, why is this still going on? The person who originally suggested to delete the page has changed his mind. No one wants to delete it. End the discussion. I'd do it myself, but I have no idea how to.Guthix1110 18:23, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

I fixed chur coding in the bold text. Real Nub 13:56, January 9, 2011 (UTC)


This request for closure is complete A user has requested closure for Requests for deletion/Archive 15. Request complete. The reason given was: User withdrawal
Real Nub 13:56, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Closed. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 23:27, January 20, 2011 (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. Santa hat.png Powers38 おはようヾ(´・ω・`) 15:12, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

User:Cartermac4/what do i do for this wiki|User:cartermac4/what do i do for this wiki

Your reason(s):This is my userpage. I've found what I can do for this wiki. And besides, I made this two weeks ago and there is no response on it. Also, please tell me if this is the wrong place to do this.

Delete - As nominator. Defence-icon.png99 i fail Attack-icon.png 15:05, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - Deleted. Since it's your page, you don't really need to do RfD. Just ask an admin is all. Santa hat.png Powers38 おはようヾ(´・ω・`) 15:09, January 22, 2011 (UTC)


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

Userbox-only images

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Keep. HaloTalk 05:41, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Some images are userbox-only (not used for anything else) and some don't even deal with RuneScape. Should they be deleted?

NOTE:Deleting the ones that don't directly deal with RuneScape (e.g.) [[File:Max trade limit icon.png]] is also a position.

Delete all- they can be uploaded to an image hoster like ImageShack.Defence-icon.png99 i fail Attack-icon.png 20:53, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Keep all - They're on the wiki servers, and they're used by an official wiki project. What part of RS:IMAGE is this against? Real Mad 21:01, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Comment- It's not against the IMP, but I thought these images (especially ones like dollar signs) would be better hosted off-site.Defence-icon.png99 i fail Attack-icon.png 21:04, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Dozens of images would have to be deleted and uploaded to another host. Dozens of userboxes would have to be modified to use external images rather than internal. That's a lot of work... is it really worth saving the small amount of space that these images take up on the server? --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 21:06, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
Deleting never saves space here, just makes it hidden from view. But I'm sure you knew this. Not to mention that there are at least two other former discussions like this but I am unsure what namespace they were in. Ryan PM 21:55, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
Deletion doesn't even hide stuff. It just limits the usergroups who can see it. I can still see all the deleted images fine, though it's a few more clicks to access them. --LiquidTalk 22:13, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Keep all - Easier to just leave it alone. --Aburnett(Talk) 22:18, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

You sure you want to leave that mess alone? --クールネシトーク 23:13, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral - If there is an editor willing to do it, by all means delete, however if there isn't keep. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 22:20, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral - Nom is right, but RNP's point is a good counterbalance to it. --クールネシトーク 23:13, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Close- As the nom. Now learning that deleting doesn't save space, there's no need to delete. Besides, this category would be hundreds of images, and that would take up lots of time.Defence-icon.png99 i fail Attack-icon.png 02:18, January 23, 2011 (UTC)


This request for closure is complete A user has requested closure for Requests for deletion/Archive 15. Request complete. The reason given was: Withdrawn
Matt (t) 02:44, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - Withdrawal. HaloTalk 05:35, January 23, 2011 (UTC)


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