RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Archive 19

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
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 Redirect. --LiquidTalk 17:20, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

POP Crew individual pages

Specifically siren Whalerider and feral chimera, and any others I may have missed. None of the other player-owned port crew have their own pages. As such, for consistency these should be redirect to Player-owned port/Captains and Crew#Crew members (ideally create redirects for all the crew member names).

Note that opposing this implies that all crew should have their own page.

Delete - as nom. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 13:47, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - them all being on the combined list is fine, per RS:GRANULARITY 5-x Talk 14:05, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Where on RS:GRAN does it say groups of npcs should be on a single page? cqm 14:44, 8 Feb 2013 (UTC) (UTC)
They're not NPCs are they? Aren't they just represented by text rather than actually existing? Though you are right in GRAN not saying that whatsoever. MolMan 19:35, February 8, 2013 (UTC)
They aren't NPCs, rather "minigame options". Perhaps I misunderstood the policy? What I meant was that in this specific case they aren't notable enough to have their own pages (the individual pages hardly bring anything more to their topic...) 5-x Talk 23:14, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - all info needed is on the captains & crew page Shinigamidaio (talk) 15:10, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - And redirect to the current crew page. Blaze_fire.png12.png 17:47, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Better in a table like they are now. They aren't otherwise significant. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 19:27, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Update - I've looked through Special:Newpages and I believe the only page that Gaz has missed is [[Dwarven Engineer (Player-owned ports)]]. MolMan 16:19, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - The three pages linked here will be redirected to the main crew page. --LiquidTalk 17:20, February 14, 2013 (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 17:26, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

Alt code

Cool. I'm trying to get a page deleted that has gone through the process once before around two and a half years ago. Unfortunately, it didn't pass and the piece of junk got to live because of the consensus based around a rather lame argument.

I guess the article might have been something back then, but the game has changed; a lot. No one gets giggly over a special character like they used to (and that wasn't even a reason to keep the article to be honest). The page has a next to zero history with RuneScape. The only thing major it was ever somewhat related to was the mu crash, but the only reason that was is because Alt-230 just happened to be the easiest way to enter it. It was the character that caused the crash and µ would crash the game if entered from a fancy keyboard just as well as an alt code. We already have the bug documented on the respective page, so don't worry about mu.

As for alt codes as a whole: they are useless in the game. They do absolutely nothing. They don't provide any increase in efficiency (like how Mouse keys is as mentioned in the last RfD); they don't actually facilitate communication. Did you know a majority of the codes don't even register with RuneScape? The page also has lousy traffic. Just sayin'.

I do however love the drama ensued by that one statement it has:

More are out there.

Epic! Woo! Makes me feel like I'm an adventurer on the search for esoteric knowledge. I wonder what will happen if I hold alt and keyboard mash the number pad?... I might find something cool... Σ

So all in all the page is pretty stupid and unworthy. As much as I hate it though, I can go for a compromise and giving it a redirect to Chat where it will say a little tidbit about how they are (minimally) supported and provide a link to the Wikipedia page on alt codes.

Delete - It's dumb.╚MolMan 23:23, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - It's dumb and it's also stupid. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 23:53, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth being merged for the same reason our Slang dictionary only lists RuneScape terms. We're not here to teach people about computers. Alt codes are not helpful in any way, in any case. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 12:36, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Not really a RuneScape feature. Could easily be contained in a section in chat What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 03:08, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

Merge - It is not dumb nor stupid. Like Kane above me said, it could be put somewhere in the chat article and I believe it needs to be because it gives people a reference of how to use them or what they are if they don't know them. Cheese Balls (talk) 03:16, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

Don't sign under the Rfd bottom template your narb. MolMan 19:38, February 4, 2013 (UTC)
Wtf are you on about? I don't recall signing anywhere but after my opinion. Also, learn to spell.Cheese Balls (talk) 00:08, February 5, 2013 (UTC)
It's named Rfd bottom for a reason. Also, everything is spelled the way that I meant it to be. Stop being sensitive about a casual reminder and don't try to escalate it. Just remember from now on not to post under that template, mk? MolMan 00:18, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - It's stupid and dumb. Blaze_fire.png12.png 10:02, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

Merge to another page - Useful, but not notable enough to be on its own page. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 10:47, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

Merge to chat - This page looks bad. I'm not fully decided between deleting or merging with chat, as through cheese and ciphrius' comments, but if it were to merge, what would we be keeping? I'll look through every so often and I may change to a delete if there's compelling arguments, but I think an alt code or two on the chat page can justify it. Achievements Coelacanth0794 Talk Contribs 16:56, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully the compromise I offered: a short tidbit that some alt codes are supported (I guess if you want, give an example or two) and a link to the Wikipedia page on the codes. I can live with that. MolMan 19:38, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

Merge - Only a handful of alt-codes work in-game. It would be good to keep them referenced somewhere (forums aren't quite as relevant as they accept most of the standard alt-codes) Sundays211 (talk) 21:31, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Same reason as what I said in the last RfD. --LiquidTalk 17:26, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - Yay, I get to delete it this time around! It was disappointing to have to close the last one as a keep. I'll add a note in the Chat article to tell doubters that these do in fact exist. --LiquidTalk 17:26, February 14, 2013 (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 17:32, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

High-Fidelity Graphics

Doesn't seem to have anything to do with RuneScape. We already have the RuneScape Next Gen page.

Delete - As nominator. Muhahaa (talk) 11:27, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Unless someone can convince me otherwise: whatisthisIdon'teven User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 16:38, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - What was the point of that page in the first place remains a mystery. 5-x Talk 17:12, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

Keep - We have Particles, Bloom lighting, Tweening, Z-buffering, and more, all on Template:Mechanics. I'm sure there will be more information on this type of graphics once they're released, so why delete them? Blaze_fire.png12.png 19:03, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Bring it back if needed then. Blaze_fire.png12.png 10:06, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

Keep/Move - What Blaze said. This page has as much relevance as bloom, or any other HD feature as the ones he mentioned, has to RS. Alchez 12:48, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Probably Delete - Is this actually a thing? If it's the name for an actual method of producing higher quality graphics, then we should keep it. or is it just some description?

From reading the article and its one and only source, the former seems to be suggested by the reading, but the source provided implies the latter. It contains only one mention of this anywhere: "2013 is the year that will allow you to play a faster, high-fidelity, pure HTML5-powered RuneScape -the first MMO to ever do so!" That statement actually implies that this isn't an actual thing and unless they explain what they're really doing, it doesn't deserve its own article. From the sound of it, we should give it a section on the HTML5 article which we've yet to write. We're making things up if we just take a common place descriptor like this and decide to write an article about it, we may as well have a page called "Really good looking and unprecedented Graphics" (o wait... NPOV).

Now before someone tries to use it: RuneScape HD was an actual thing that jagex advertised heavily and it was actually named RuneScape HD. Every article named by Blaze was a thing too. This, on the other hand, wasn't; if High Fidelity Graphics was actually its name, then it wouldn't have been in all lowercase letters like it was. Hell, I didn't even see the word graphics in the source, so this seems made up from foolish assumptions. But, feel free to convince me wrong. Either we need to find some verifiable source(s) that say this is an actual thing and not just some description, or we need to delete this made up piece of trash. MolMan 23:19, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - The thing with Particles, Bloom lighting, Tweening, and Z-buffering is that they actually refer to specific technologies and features. "High-fidelity" is just a generic adjective that can simplify down to "realistic". Keeping that in mind, all the article really says is "Realistic graphics look great but will ruin your GPU". Making an article on high-fidelity graphics because Jagex said RuneScape will have it would be just like making an article on "good graphics" for the same reason. It's nonsensical. Matt (t) 00:37, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

The page not having enough information, or details of what Jagex is planning to do with it, is making people not realise it's importance. The reasoning that you have used - 'high-fidelity graphics' being vague - should warrant an RfD for Graphics, a page for graphics in general, listing the specific changes and additions in rendering of the game.
January isn't even complete yet! Let's atleast get some more data before we decide what to do with this article.
Also, words being in lowercases doesn't lower their significance (bloom lighting, draw order) and assuming that high-fidelity RuneScape (long for 'hi-fi RS') pertains to mainly graphics, doesn't sound foolish. If this does get consensus, I would suggest moving it instead, to a sub-section on the Graphics page. Alchez 13:23, January 28, 2013 (UTC)
It's not about not knowing what Jamflex is doing with it per say, we know they're doing something; it's about whether it actually is something different from the norm. It's also not a "vague" term, it's a generic one and that's way different. You can see the term high-fidelity used just about everywhere in digital media. You can't make that graphics analogy at all. The graphics page is a completely different article, chronicling individual changes to the way we see things in the game. This article, however, does nothing more than use an overly long list of pedantic descriptors to describe redundantly what the article is and then attempts to sound smart once again by making a statement that has all us computer scientists saying "Well DUH." If anything, this would be, as stated above, most appropriate on that currently-non-existent HTML5 page because the news post seems to suggest that this language addition is what is responsible for the upgrade. MolMan 13:41, January 28, 2013 (UTC)
Well, I know that the article isn't what it could be at the moment, but once it receives enough elaboration on each feature I think it'd be a pretty good article. Honestly, the more I read about this, the more I'm agreeing that this may not deserve an article on itself (though HTML5 doesn't seem appropriate for this; two very different things). I know what the Graphics page is for; I was just using it to make a point. Also, my opinion is that vague and generic are synonyms at most times, if not all. Alchez 14:06, January 28, 2013 (UTC)
Reread the quote in my first text wall for why HTML5 is, for now, the most appropriate place. MolMan 14:11, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - As stated already High-fidelity (or Hi-Fi for short) appears to just be an adjective here. More importantly, the lack of citation here is alarming - the page appears to have been based off of one use of the term High-fidelity and any information on the page appears just to be a definition of the term High-fidelity. There's no real content here. --Henneyj 15:55, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing generic about it. It's a specific subject coined by Microsoft to describe newer features of DirectX some tool just deleted the refernece link which is here  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Keep but change & expand - The first change I would do is make it so that it's in the other section of the graphics template. It seems to be the start of a similar article to the RuneScape High Detail article which covers several subjects which in turn had there own section once added. You could probually even merge it into the RuneScape High Detail article as it's pretty much just taking that & going a step further.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Merge it into the RuneTek article it's likely to come with RuneTek7 & be the next big graphics overhaul.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Noobs - Okay, first off: You two narbinos need to learn how to sign your comments so that I don't have to troll through the page history to see who said what. Now that that's over with, I'll get to your actual points.

IP starting with 58: you're basically making stuff up in saying that. High-fidelity is just some generic term that was used and then someone decided rashly for it to be something else without any real rhyme or reason. Okay, yes... high-fidelity does mean what you say it means in certain scenarios; prove to me that this upgrade is one of those scenarios, and make it something from Jagex.

IP starting with 210: I already refuted the RuneScape HD argument. I hate having to repeat myself but... RuneScape HD was an actual project by Jagex whereas high-fidelity was a term that they just happened to use. Adding it to the end of the RuneScape HD article would also be making stuff up because they haven't even hinted at it being an extension of it. I think everyone should understand that RuneScape HD isn't an article about nice graphics, it's an article about a project undertaken by Jagex. The current project that is discussed in the only worth-something source on the page in question here is HTML5. MolMan 15:45, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

To everyone out there - Can someone reread this for me? Maybe I'm just blind, but did you know the article's one chance at a valid source doesn't even use the word graphics, not even once? It does say high-fidelity though... but high-fidelity what? MolMan 15:51, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

Comment -  High-fidelity on it's own without the graphics part being added orginally refered to sound production. The first time I heard it used with graphics as a reference was from softpedia who pretty much copied that link from Microsoft when they did it before that I had not heard of the term at all  when refering to graphics not to say that Micosoft used it first or anything like that.. The article from Microsoft has little in the way of explaning what you can do & boils down to you can now make shinier graphics to run on more capable hardware which is kind of a no brainer it's of little use to us in this situation. The term being usto outside of sound & graphics is non existant so unless Jagex is going to create a new meaning for it it has to refer to either 1 or both.

While I think an article on high-fidelity would be useful in the future to explain it to the average Runescaper what the article is at the moment dose not do that at all & there for should be changed or deleted. It should be noted that Jagex themselves have said that under HTML5 Runescape will both look & sound better hinting at both a graphics & sound update. Now I presume that would be using the RuneTek7 engine which is susposidly under development in which case we may get high-Fidality graphics afterall but Jagex themselves have not made that link & RuneTek7 may launch as a seperate update after HTML5. 

If the article is recreated now it should be changed to just high-fidelity & it should mention the quote that Runescape will look & sound better under HTML5 that's the extent that it shound be. Naming features associated with high fidelity of either usage is a mistake as it may be misleading we don't know what features that are associated with it they will use it could just be a few of them or it could just be a sound and graphical update in Jagex terms which may not use any of what Microsoft mentioned but just look & sound better.

We should only go with what has been mentioned by Jagex themeselves.

CathyPayne (talk) 01:30, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - The page will be deleted. --LiquidTalk 17:32, February 14, 2013 (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 17:41, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

[[:Template:Infobox Bonuses]]

Normally I would have removed the template as it is somewhat superseeded by {{infobox bonuses beta}}, but this seems to fall into the history of the game debate I've noticed on several other forum topics. Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox Bonuses shows the template is largely used by either items that have not had their page updated properly or have been removed from the game. I don't think it's necessary to keep the template to show stats that will likely mean very little in a couple of years. Examples of the pages that would lose the bonuses template are Training bow, Training shield, Training sword, Decorative helm and Kayle's shortbow amongst others.

Many of the uses of this template are in the Beta: namepsace, sort of linking the actions after this RfD to the outcome of Forum:That Beta Space.

Delete - As nominator. cqm 17:05, 14 Jan 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

Keep - The template still serves a purpose for the items mentioned. True, the stats represented are no longer a feature of the game but the template does fulfill a purpose for the discontinued items and provide information about them. If the stats will be meaningless in a couple of years then they can be removed in a couple of years. There's no real harm in its continued use.

What I think is an issue is the fact that this template is hanging around in its original name and should realistically be moved. The beta pages can obviously go away. There are still a few pages that should be changed to the new system and these very much need correcting. Once this is done, we can look at moving the template to a more representative name (Infobox Bonuses Old) and should probably redirect 'Infobox Bonuses' to 'Infobox Bonuses Beta', because there's something just wrong about having to write beta on articles to add their current stats. --Henneyj 23:53, January 14, 2013 (UTC)

Something I forgot to mention is this was successful was moving {{Infobox Bonuses Beta}} to the more generic Infobox Bonuses, although the above suggestion works well should this fail. I only noticed when coming to create pages with infobox bonuses and realised it had no resemblance to the current template used. cqm 11:37, 15 Jan 2013 (UTC) (UTC)
My understanding is similar in that it's still around because the "beta" one will eventually be removed/redirected, replacing the regular one. Or at least I have been operating under this assumption for {{Infotable Bonuses header Beta}}, which has the same issue.
  1. REDIRECT User:Fewfre/signature.css

Keep - Indeed it still serves a purpose to those items, and it will allow us to view page histories with that template (a lot) too. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 16:37, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

Merge - Merge the Infobox Bonuses beta to Infobox Bonuses with a bot, it will be long but it will work! — Jr Mime (talk) 16:57, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - If we really want to keep this for historical purposes, we need to do what Henney said with the moving it to a disambiguating historical title to allow us to start accepting the fact that "beta" is current. MolMan 23:00, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus to delete this template. If someone wishes to move this to another title to indicate its historical status and to clear the name for the beta template, he is free to do so under UCS and/or BB. --LiquidTalk 17:41, February 14, 2013 (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. cqm 15:09, 18 Feb 2013 (UTC) (UTC)


Okay. So what's the point of this template? It basically just redundantly reiterates the fact that we're somewhat behind. Okay, us being not 100% correct in what we have should be assumed, we are a wiki after all. It also asks whoever reads it to update what may be out of date on the page. Well, once again: we're a wiki, that anyone can edit. So let's go with the assumption that when a random reader sees something wrong, they'll either point it out, fix it themselves, or ignore it and that their decision is entirely dependent on their nature. Speaking of which, is this template even doing its job? I don't see it roping in an unprecedented wave of eager editors trying to improve the wiki's accuracy; I don't see any change in activity at all to be honest. So really, why do we need it? It just restates what we're founded on and it can't honestly take credit for too many of the edits that it's been requesting. It's nothing more than a grayish blue block that is ignored by our readers. It's not thought of twice because it's been there so long, like that nevus on the back of your hand. It's ugly and it doesn't work. We either need to make it bright pink and obnoxious, or delete it. I'm rooting for the latter.

Delete - Rainbow Dash is best pony, don't try to argue MolMan 22:46, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - *goes to google nevus* cqm 00:31, 28 Jan 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

I didn't want to say mole because ya know. MolMan 00:36, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Sure. Hair 00:37, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - What about [[Template:Obeoc]] HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 01:54, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not as inclined to aggressively target that template, but since you brought it up, it might as well go. This template is more eye catching since it goes in the reading rather than the top, but then again we don't use these superscript templates too often. I'll latch this thing onto Beta's deletion and remove it if anyone can give decent reason. MolMan 02:14, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Kill them both. Also Rarity is best pony. Blaze_fire.png12.png 04:45, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

Rarity is undeserving and stuck up. In fact, she's worst pony. I told you not to argue. MolMan 13:46, January 28, 2013 (UTC)
Sisterhooves Social. And I will argue >.> Blaze_fire.png12.png 18:27, January 28, 2013 (UTC)
Sleepless in Ponyville MolMan 18:28, January 28, 2013 (UTC)
Friendship is Magic, Part 2 Blaze_fire.png12.png 19:11, January 28, 2013 (UTC)
Rarity doesn't even have her own meme; Dashie is far more than 20% cooler. MolMan 19:49, January 28, 2013 (UTC)
THE. WORST. POSSIBLE. THING. counts. Blaze_fire.png12.png 10:05, February 4, 2013 (UTC)


are you feeling ok Ronan Talk 08:35, January 28, 2013 (UTC)
The blue: It's implicit. And we all know that implicity is the best weapon. If you don't like the pink, then Vote Delete 2013. MolMan 13:45, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

Here's the prototype, fetus:

This topic has undergone changes due to the Evolution of Combat.
Some of the information on this page may not be fully up to date. Please help us by correcting anything missing.

I think it looks good. MolMan 21:57, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

leave forever --Iiii I I I 03:36, January 31, 2013 (UTC)
Needs more neon. cqm 10:45, 1 Feb 2013 (UTC) (UTC)
Kinda reminds me of the London olympics colour scheme. --Henneyj 15:47, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Perhaps we can make a new featured section called featured templates; of course, this will be the first FT. MolMan 15:57, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - i believe this would be a useful feature to the runescape Wikia, and that it would help our users to use the pages they're reading and perahps edit some pages while they're reading and/or using. Ronan Talk 08:35, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

Wait if you think it's helpful then why do you want it deleted? Blaze_fire.png12.png 06:40, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
I think he's implying that the template turns off anons, and so they don't read the article because they think it's out of date (well, most are). The "useful feature" he is describing is us without the template. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 08:57, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
He's satirically using the negation of what I said the template fails to do as an ironic support statement. L2, Haidro, L2 MolMan 22:01, January 30, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - KILL IT ALL, useless since beta is gone and beta is away. — Jr Mime (talk) 02:02, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

Keep - Maybe it could be moved, per Jr Mime, but I think it should be kept as a warning to people that the article might have some misleading information. This is especially the case for articles related to combat, monsters, quests, et cetera, because if information is wrong and isn't labelled as possibly being wrong, people might rely on that information, take it as a fact, and get themselves killed if they go in, say, magic gear to fight [insert powerful monster that used to use melee but now used ranged]. Michagogo (talk) 19:54, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

We could just use Template:Obsolete for that. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 19:57, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
What's stopping them from thinking that it's not just a disclaimer? The template only states there's a chance that something could be wrong, not that something is. And even when something is, it doesn't say what. If what you're using as an example were that frequent or important, we'd have noticed something by now. But we haven't because the template is absolutely useless. Actually, most of the important articles are relatively up-to-date. If you really want this sort of identification of beta-obsoleteness, there's another template that's been discussed here and not been argued for keeping. MolMan 20:17, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

Keep - it's been few months since EoC happened and people might expect wiki to be correct, while in fact a lot of combat-related pages still have mistakes. Also Fluttershy. 5-x Talk 13:57, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Well, okay. How does this template help? The template is probably at its maximum helpfulness (which is still infinitesimal) but is still pretty vague and unpromising. We'll either have readers assume that's it's all correct, all incorrect, or that because everything is ambiguous in its obsolescence that they're entirely responsible for what to believe. So that factor of helpfulness is out. What about it asking for people to edit? Well, and I already said this: where's all those editors? I don't see a new wave of editors (Hell, our traffic has actually been down!). If anything, it could probably be driving them away a tad. No one knows for sure, but they could see the wiki as obsolete as a whole
You said EoC has been out for months. You're right. We should be up to date (and we kinda are for anything that's actually important in terms of what's important). Why not the rest of the stuff? No one changed too many of those pages since they were created as beta pages many months prior to EoC. Do you really think people will change them now? Who do we expect to change them? Well, someone else obviously. No. This template doesn't work as a disclaimer nor does it work as a plea. It already served its original purpose (which was actually to redirect readers to the Beta namespace pages) and it sucked at that too! Not as badly though but a lot of people apparently missed where to edit beta-related information. So what does that tell us? That this template not only can't do its second job that it got because it lost its first job, but that it's pretty much ignored by a majority of readers. We're expecting our anonymous audience to provide most of the information we've neglected to get. I say we should delete this template then get off our asses to update the pages ourselves. But not me, because why should I do it when someone else can? MolMan 20:08, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

This request for closure is complete A user has requested closure for Requests for deletion/Archive 19. Request complete. The reason given was: Complete

Closed - Template:Beta has been deleted. cqm 10:23, 18 Feb 2013 (UTC) (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.

Category:Dungeoneering armour bonuses templates

It's outdated and I don't think it's used anywhere. Let's get rid of it.


Delete - As nominator. 5-x Talk 20:59, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

Umm... RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Armour/Best Slash Accuracy hasn't been closed... though if this category doesn't get deletion in that closure, I guess I'll support here. MolMan 21:01, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - Pages deleted per RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Armour/Best Slash Accuracy. cqm 03:34, 3 Mar 2013 (UTC) (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.

Armour/Best Slash Accuracy

There's no such thing as 'slash accuracy' any more, just slash weapons and the accuracy stat. Doesn't have much content, only lists 3 weapons total. Not really relevant at all after EoC. Also I don't want to clog up the page with so many deletion requests, but the pages Armour/Best Crush Accuracy, Armour/Best Crush Defence Without Revenant Reward/Degradable Armour, Armour/Best Slash Defence Without Revenant Reward/Degradable Armour, Armour/Best Stab Accuracy, Armour/Best Stab Defence Without Degradable Armour, Armour/Best Summoning Defence, and Armour/Strength are similarly outdated.

Delete - As nominator. 21:07, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - All obsolete and isn't really needed anymore. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 02:04, January 19, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Slash this page from the wiki. Blaze_fire.png12.png 21:19, January 19, 2013 (UTC)

Question - Wait so, all the pages you listed there need to be deleted? sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 06:29, January 21, 2013 (UTC)

I would imagine all of the other pages transcluded onto Armour/Highest bonuses too. --Henneyj 18:40, January 22, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - As all of these are redundant pages with stats that do not exist in the game any more (where historical versions make little sense), I would just delete them as artifacts or the pre-EoC combat, in the same way other things were updated, such as Recover special. cqm 01:19, 23 Jan 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

Speedy D - I never got around to marking them for that myself. MolMan 23:01, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

He wants the speedy D! Blaze_fire.png12.png 10:04, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

This request for closure was denied A user has requested closure for Requests for deletion/Archive 19. Request denied. The reason given was: Some pages included within the request are still relevant to current play (see below)

More - We have an entire category to delete: Category:Dungeoneering armour bonuses templates MolMan 20:57, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Intent - From what I can see, the category above is full of templates transcluded onto Armour/Highest bonuses/Dungeoneering, which was not included in the list within this RfD. Since no one has expressed any objection to deleting the various listed pages with the reason they are all outdated post-EoC, I will take that as a precedent for deleting this and other pages that fall into the same category of obsoleteness. I'll close this when it's completed. cqm 01:32, 5 Feb 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

I have come across an irregularity whilst deleting the various pages. Whilst pages relating to stab defence are largely outdated, as there is no longer any visible way to distinguish between them (there may be some behind the scenes values remaining) the pages relating to stab attack are relevant, for instance drygore rapier is a stab weapon against a drygore mace which is a crush weapon. I do not feel these pages are beyond help and do not believe they fall within the reason of the page being irrelevant post-EoC. As such I am leaving this open requesting further discussion on this topic. cqm 03:13, 5 Feb 2013 (UTC) (UTC)
Because this is solely dependent on the weapon, they could be fluently (and probably more accessibly) placed on the respective weapons page. i.e. Stab weapons would have a highest bonuses section. I think that'd work for better fluency's sake than having them off on their own isolated page as well as adding some more content and information so that each weapon class page is their own one-stop-shop of weapony goodness; I mean, the "best X accuracy" pages are already small on their own, so fitting them at the end in their own section won't be a hassle. MolMan 19:49, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

Strong keep - The best Crush/Stab/Slash accuracies pages are (almost) up-to-date and still relevant. The defence ones like Armour/Free-to-play_Ranged_defence and so on need deleting, as well as the entire category of Dungeoneering highest bonuses pages that Mol Man mentioned. Or alternatively, we can delete them all and start new clearer pages, in order to avoid the mess which exists now. 5-x Talk 15:52, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

I still believe that the accuracy pages are best suited on their respective weapon class pages. I mean, if the only factor in your accuracy is the weapon, wouldn't it make the most sense to find the best choices on that page rather than a nubby article of its own? MolMan 19:38, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
It's probably worth noting these pages regarding weapons are found on a subpage of Armour. Considering the armour pages have been deleted, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to have attack equipment on a subpage of defence equipment. cqm 20:57, 7 Feb 2013 (UTC) (UTC)
Is that for or against my merger? Also, an amendment to my merger (kinda), if we want to keep all the best bonuses together on a page via transclusion, that can still be done by using <onlyinclude> tags around the particular section, rather than having redundant, extra pages that are essential a repeat of something. MolMan 20:17, February 8, 2013 (UTC)
That's a it's-misleading-to-have-a-page-about-weapons-on-a-subpage-of-armour. I'm not really interested where the information goes, rather that it stays somewhere and in an obvious place. Having a dozen redirects (I've deleted something like 130 pages already from this RfD) point to a page so someone can find it is largely a waste of time when searching "Best stab weapon" should probably take you to Stab weapons in the first place. cqm 00:14, 9 Feb 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

Strong keep - ... =_=... will still be more or less valid for launch. iN008talk 10:25, February 17, 2013 (UTC)

Whilst this is a possibility, Forum:A Blast from the Past is currently discussing where the information can be found. Regardless, I've already deleted the vast majority of the pages concerned. This is more for where to put the information that is still relevant to the game as it stands currently. My apologies if I didn't make that clear. cqm 10:35, 17 Feb 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

Delete - if it's obsolete, there's no real reason to keep it. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 14:04, February 17, 2013 (UTC)

I think it's less about the deletion now and more about where to put those accuracy and defense pages. I think all the truly obsolete pages have been deleted barring the templates in the category. To be fair, I did just kind of bring those up out of nowhere. The category has been discussed here a tad and I honestly think it can be speedy D'd, but the merge talk may have been inappropriate to discuss here. I will create a separate discussion for one and/or the other if they are what's been keeping this discussion open and no one feels like my points for whatever is concerned have any particular strength. MolMan 21:03, February 17, 2013 (UTC)

This request for closure is complete A user has requested closure for Requests for deletion/Archive 19. Request complete. The reason given was: Delete the remaining obsolete pages that Cam opted not to finish up on as well as the dungeoneering category and templates; make a decision on Best Accuracy pages or a decision of needing more discussion

Closed - Despite a largely mixed response to this request, the pages in question are largely out of date/obsolete. As such, I have decided to merge the various highest stats tables onto their relevant pages, assuming they do not have them currently. The remaining subpages of Armour relate the ranged, magic, prayer and melee armour, which contain the relevant information, albeit less directly. Weapon stats can be found on their relevant pages, such as Ranged weapons.

RuneScape:Requests_for_deletion/Category:Dungeoneering_armour_bonuses_templates has also been closed as a result of this RFD. cqm 03:47, 3 Mar 2013 (UTC) (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.

Template:None selected

Seriously? Seriously?!?! I shouldn't have to explain this one at all. We have RuneScape:Uncategorised pages and Special:Uncategorizedimages for this. You are wasting everyone's time if you see an uncategorized image and decide to place a template on it instead of a category.

I would probably have nominated this for speedy D, but the fact that it's gone through this before made me choose to create RfD. Better safe than sorry, amiright? I don't even know how the hell it managed to stay that time.


Seriously? MolMan 20:30, February 21, 2013 (UTC) Strong Delete - Been waiting almost 3 years for this. I received absolutely no good explanation as to why we need this template. --クールネシトーク 21:00, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - It doesn't even do what it's supposed to do any more. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 21:46, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - It appears to be some default setting if you didn't select a category when a new image was uploaded. Suffice to say, I've seen more than a few images done without that instead using {{DII License}} as the original upload summary. It simply doesn't fill a need anymore. cqm 22:32, 21 Feb 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

Delete - Obsolete What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 22:38, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - What is this, I don't even... User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 09:49, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Do I have to give a reason? Blaze_fire.png12.png 21:34, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

yes Ronan Talk 21:54, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Pointless, unnecessary, redundant, whichever. Ronan Talk 21:54, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - Template will be deleted. cqm 21:49, 3 Mar 2013 (UTC) (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 Facial features.

Obsolete images templates

Hi, I'll try to keep this short.

I'm looking at Template:Facial features (and its category Category:Needs facial update) and Template:Oldscreen for this request.

To me, an obsolete image is an obsolete image, and it should be updated. I don't see what's so special about not having a new face is and why that gives it more need to be updated from the rest of the obsolete graphics. I'm not talking a small change. Frankly, these old faces are just as important as images with an old model weapon. Nothing special.

Oldscreen is a different story. It could honestly be qualified for speedy D, but I'm interested to see if anyone has any case for it.

Since Facial features has pretty heavy use, this RfD being successful will of course have it redirect to [[Template:Obfile]] instead. Its category should still be deleted, however. Oldscreen, on the other hand, will have its references completely removed and deleted as it has no uses on any files at all... Which makes me wonder why I don't just speedy it.


Support as the nommernater. MolMan 20:43, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - t|Facial features has a mere 328 members in the associated category, compared to the 5000+ uses of Template:Beta I had Cåmdroid remove, which took something like 5-6 hours to complete. 300ish is less than half an hour by bot. Why would we redirect this instead of replacing it properly? Oldscreen has but one legitimate use and frankly could be subst'd and subsequently deleted. cqm 22:43, 21 Feb 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

Well, in beta's case, the template was being deleted with no replacement; not much need to send a bot when we could redirect it. If this is successful and you really want to delete it completely, I won't stop you. I just don't see a point in deleting and replacing when we don't really have to. MolMan 22:46, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

Keep Facial, Delete old screen - Frankly, Old Screen is a horrible duplicate of [[:Template:SD]] for Hitpoints. It is also unnecessary, since a hit of 1 with HP is still a possible hit with LP and with EoC. However, I want to keep the Facial Features template. This is because labelling a fine, large, AA, etc. image with old facial features as obsolete would be wrong, because it isn't obsolete; only its face and model have changed. Therefore it has a lower priority than really obsolete images. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 07:16, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

Nearly every use is on files from when we were stick figures. MolMan 14:54, February 23, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus to delete the templates at this time. cqm 22:32, 3 Mar 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

After looking at Template:Oldscreen I have elected to subst the one legitimate usage of the template and then delete it. A template is designed to be used repeatedly, which is not the case here. cqm 22:40, 3 Mar 2013 (UTC) (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.


I'm honestly surprised this thing has never been through an official RfD. If you look at the talk page, you'll see that someone questioned its existence (good for them), but the response was that it was "okay" and ummm... lol.

I'd like to first point out another RfD which I've nominated and had passed successfully: RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Alt code 2. The same idea applies here as it did there, only much more so.

First, let me pretend like 1337Speak is a legitimate language which people actually appreciate.

It's nothing more than player vernacular that isn't even RuneScape exclusive. Take it from our rules on the Slang dictionary — we should not be providing this sort of information on the wiki.

That was hard, now time to vent...

Leetspeak is fucking stupid. It's completely laughable that we decide to have such a page. To even acknowledge this collection of dingbats exists is ludicrous. Does anyone even like leet? It's a trash language made for trolls and twelve year olds. I think this page is just an excuse to have as many funky symbols on the wiki as possible. All the information is presented like it was written by a crack team of zoo monkeys on a single computer in a crappy table that includes unusable symbols in the in-game chat. "∂"? Seriously? You can't type a partial difference in RuneScape. "[email protected]|<" doesn't know how to language, it's a mess of random crap. Also, "[email protected]|<" looks like a duck. 3@|<

[)31373 - MolMan 01:57, April 3, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - kekeke Blaze_fire.png12.png 03:52, April 3, 2013 (UTC)

D373+3 - W1+h f1r3. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 13:28, April 3, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - It's not a dialect, it's not "elite". Begone! 222 talk 07:31, April 4, 2013 (UTC)

...Or is it eLEET? Geddit? Geddit? Anyone? Real trudges off to his cave in shame Oh, and delete because what is this I don't even. Real Nub 17:40, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
I am now campaigning for an infinite block of you. MolMan 19:04, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

Redirect - to Elite. That is what it stands for after all What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 17:54, April 4, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Silliness. Ronan Talk 17:56, April 4, 2013 (UTC)

Redirect - Per Ciph and because this is a stupid page. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 06:04, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - As I see it, it would just encourage others to speak ingame/elsewhere with an overabundance of obnoxious symbols and characters. Surely we shouldn't be condoning this behavior? <--Hypute--> 06:18, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

No. No we should not. MolMan 13:53, April 6, 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Page has been deleted cqm 12:30, 10 Apr 2013 (UTC) (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.

Fish Flingers/Combo table

Why do we need this? Every single game has a new, randomized combo. Infact, that's one of the reasons why there exists FC's dedicated to finding them quickly every game. There are 6 fish, each with their own different bait/hook/weights. That alone, is already 1296 entries not including the locations. Not to mention if you were to group them into 6 fish per group, it'll be even larger due to each member of the group has over 1 thousand different combinations possible. Finally, let say, someone managed to group them all. Good luck searching for the correct combinations in such a huge list within 10 minutes.

Delete - As nominator. Jlun2 (talk) 18:44, April 21, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - This page is useless. Combos are mixed. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 07:55, April 22, 2013 (UTC)

Pwn it - Lol, let's create a page listing each tile a guard can spawn on as well. Real Crazy 20:53, April 22, 2013 (UTC)

That would actually have a larger applicability than you've satirically set it out to have. Before the Evolution of Combat, this would seed like something ludicrous to keep track of because monsters had an easy to distinguish wander radius. While that is still true for the most part, there are actually certain tiles which certain monsters (including guards) avoid. It's part of some hidden update to make certain monsters seem more lifelike by giving them a fake conscience of sorts. There are monsters whose idle animations are slightly off when their position is comprised of an even number and a prime number, there are monsters that seem to adhere to the general Champion Ship level rules for The Floor is Made of Lava. There's a plethora of different behaviors, and, whether you were joking or not, I hope we can eventually document the important ones on the wiki. MolMan 21:01, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
The more you know... Real Crazy 21:10, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
The Mol you know~~ MolMan 21:23, April 22, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - A large amount of potential combinations make this page ineffective What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 20:56, April 22, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Pretty sure the original point of this page was to keep track of the combinations in the game as you were playing it (kind of like a light-table). It just never got off the ground. I don't know about since the rework but it used to be difficult to keep track of the combinations as you played. Whether it's practical to code / anyone can be bothered to actually make it workable is a different matter. --Henneyj 17:12, April 24, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - After the rework, you can now simply click on the "ratings" button at the corner to see which combos you've found for the game.--Jlun2 (talk) 17:46, April 24, 2013 (UTC)
In that case a tracker wouldn't be all that useful here :) --Henneyj 16:53, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - The page will be deleted. Hair 15:53, May 5, 2013 (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.

Bird's nest/Egg nest log

Important: For some reason the name does not display properly because it's a subpage. The page in question is [[Bird's_nest/Egg_nest_log]].

This is not what we are trying to log. We should log what is received from nests on the moment of their opening. This is relevant to seeds nests and ring nests. Only in this case the log will present any factual value. An egg nest visibly shows what it will give, and we can't log a "droprate" of nests because this is a completely different issue that possibly varies between nest sources.

Delete - As nominator. 5-x Talk 18:24, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

Strong oppose - See Forum:Bird's nest Loot Log where I discussed in favour of this; and today's chat logs (where-ever those are kept). IP83.101.44.209 (talk) 18:29, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

I believe he's only talking about the egg nests, not the whole log in general. Suppa chuppa Talk 18:31, May 29, 2013 (UTC)
I am aware, we just had a lengthy, and on his side heated, discussion about it in chat. IP83.101.44.209 (talk) 18:32, May 29, 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Are his claims true that you always receive the egg that is shown in the inventory icon? Suppa chuppa Talk 18:34, May 29, 2013 (UTC)
I strongly agree with logging the outcomes of opening seeds nests and ring nests. What this log is trying to accomplish is to establish a "droprate" of nests that appear to players. We have no proof that such "droprate" is uniform across all nest sources. What really needs to be logged is when we open the ring/seed nests, because then is the moment where the seed/ring is decided. More can be found in this YG topic. 5-x Talk 18:35, May 29, 2013 (UTC)
I hope you realize it's impossible for us to get a practical sample size without any significant bias for tree nests; so what you're complaining about is ludicrous. MolMan 18:59, May 29, 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's why I insist so much on logging the loot (seeds/rings) you obtain from nests! And this is where the egg nest log becomes useless because each type of egg nests gives a specific egg. Logging the process of obtaining nests would be troublesome and accuracy of such log would be disputed. 5-x Talk 20:06, May 29, 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand the problem at all then... It's just a log of the frequency of each egg for all nests that were eggs?... MolMan 20:08, May 29, 2013 (UTC)
Yes, what you describe is the log's form at the moment and that's the reason I want to delete it. The thing which is supposed to be logged ąre the chances for loot types from nests. And here: the chance for a red egg from a red egg nest is 100% and the chances for other eggs are zero. Similarly for all other egg nests. I repeat, it's the loot that is supposed to be logged, not some "droprate" for nest types as suggested by log creator. 5-x Talk 20:14, May 29, 2013 (UTC)
Yes, a nest with a green egg will always give you a green Bird's egg. However, that does, in my opinion, not make the distribution of the possible eggs-log redundant, bad or inaccurate. Pre the data gathered so far, there was no proof at all that all eggs were just as (un)common (rare) as the other variants. Now we can conclude they sort-of are, even if I'd rather have more data before calling that a fact. Also, strictly, he only requests the egg log deleted, but by the same arguments he gives, he should also request the nest type distribution log deleted. And I see that as very relevant information. IP83.101.44.209 (talk) 18:38, May 29, 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to log the types of nests that appear to you, I want to log what you get from nests. Isn't that the more sensible thing to do? Nests aren't monster-like drops. They are more like a crystal chest which you open and have a chance for some loot, and every loot has its percentage chance. That's why the egg nests don't have to be logged because it's obvious what you get from them. Also, thanks for fixing the request page name, something wasn't quite right with it. 5-x Talk 18:43, May 29, 2013 (UTC)
I definitely do want to log the chance of getting each type of nest. This data clearly shows how much rarer it is to get an egg nest than to get a seed or ring nest, for example. IP83.101.44.209 (talk) 18:50, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

Keep - If the logs are to be kept, they should allow logging of all relevant raw data. Raw data can always be ignored at a later date, but cannot be recreated if it was not logged. Qloque (talk) 19:43, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

Have you actually read my reasoning/the comments here and the comments in the preceding forum topic? The way data is gathered for the logs at the moment makes their accuracy poor, at most. 5-x Talk 20:00, May 29, 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I read the entire forum topic. My response here was short because I see no point in repeating positions already stated on the forum, but I largely agree with IP83.101.44.209's arguments.
You are interested only in the two questions from your comment at 14:17, May 18, 2013 (UTC). A complete log allows the seed and nest probabilities in which you are interested to be extracted—how does it hurt to also collect egg nest data? You argue (although I disagree) that it is without value, but not that it corrupts the seed and ring results. Qloque (talk) 20:16, May 29, 2013 (UTC)
So you suggest that the rings and seed tables should log the loot from nests and the egg table should display the following~: "if I get any nest with egg in it, what's the chance that it will be a particular egg nest?" The first thing is a log of loots, the second is a log of something similar to a "droprate". Two completely different concepts. But in their current forms the seeds/rings logs are fine! The problems comes from the fact that there's no such thing as a universal "egg nest". All egg nests are different items (4 of them), while seeds nests/rings nests form 1 stack each. Thus we can have a seed nest loot log and a ring nest loot log, but not an egg nest log. I hope you understand now. 5-x Talk 20:28, May 29, 2013 (UTC)
You keep assuming that the only question of interest to you is the only question of interest to anyone: Given that I know the nest type, what will the nest yield?
Here's another question: I currently have 223 nests sitting unseen in Ghrim's storerooms. What is the expected number of egg nests? Qloque (talk) 20:42, May 29, 2013 (UTC)
And this is where a very important question appears: are the ratios between seed/ring/various egg nest identical in the Kingdom and while woodcutting? Are they even the same between different types of trees? And what about maples in Kingdom vs mahoganies in Kingdom? Not to mention the effect of Rabbit foot's necklace... Don't get me wrong, having some known universal "droprates" for all nests would be nice, but there's (in my opinion) too much uncertainty to set up this type of log, therefore focusing on loots only is worth it and will yield concrete results. This is where I'm coming from. 5-x Talk 20:51, May 29, 2013 (UTC)
If the distributions are identical across all gathering methods, then a complete all-in-one log will (over time) converge on that distribution (i.e., will be helpful). If different gathering methods have different distributions, the nest egg portions of the log may fail to be helpful, but will also not be harmful.
My suspicion is that the distributions are identical (or nearly so), based on logs I kept on about 8000 nests (split roughly 90% from maples on Miscellania, and 10% from willows and oaks) some years ago (pre-raven egg). [They were all contributed towards an RSOF thread keeping similar logs, which may or may not still exist.] There is an overall ratio which—in practice—will be strongly weighted towards the Miscellania maples distribution (if distinct) anyway. Qloque (talk) 21:45, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

Keep - The discussion did not specify which method of collecting bird' nest data would be implemented. Temujin 14:56, May 31, 2013 (UTC)

The method should have been discussed prior to creation of the log. Somehow this has been omitted. 5-x Talk 20:18, May 31, 2013 (UTC)
The manner in which the data will be logged should be agreed upon before anything is deleted. Temujin 10:31, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
I have an interest in logging both; but unlike Regis' argument on the matter I see no reason why the ratio of nests should differ from one tree to the next; just like normal gems don't from Mining, to my knowledge. IP83.101.44.209 (talk) 11:26, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

Strong keep - Nothing on that page is unnecessary, nor is it harming anything. Some players might be interested to know the probability of getting a certain egg from a nest, such as if they wanted a certain cockatrice variant or a god bird for GWD protection. There are too many potential applications of this data for it to be deleted solely because you can see the contents. Hey, while we're at it, let's remove the 100% drops from monster pages, and the end rewards from quests! After all, it's guaranteed, who cares? Real Crazy 16:10, May 31, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you understand the difference between logging the process of obtaining nests and logging the contents of nests, the difference which in fact is the key to this entire discussion. 5-x Talk 20:18, May 31, 2013 (UTC)
Erm, so you're saying that nests differ from tree to tree. Okay, let's consider the implications of this - we would need separate logs for every variant of tree in the entire game (so 20 different logs, 30 if you count fruit and special Farming trees), each one would have 3 nest logs for seeds, rings and eggs, so we'd be looking at potentially starting up 90 new logs, with absolutely no way to check submissions for vandalism, since we have absolutely no way to do a rough check on the rates of seeds from every single tree in the game. Also, let's consider something else. Seed nests from willow trees stack in the bank or while noted with seed nests from Miscellania, seed nests from Mahogany trees, and seed nests from Arctic Pine. Now then, if the seed rates were different, how does the game track this? Consider that Wyson's nests look visually identical, but occupy a separate bank slot, since they have different drops. If it were possible to track the source of the nests, every tree would use a separate slot, and there would likely be examine info along the lines of "A nest found in a willow tree" or similar, not a generic message like there is right now. Before making accusations about the accuracy of the data in the project, I suggest testing your assumptions yourself, instead of thrusting them at us and claiming it's now our job to test them.
On a more related note, this discussion is about the deletion of the egg logs and I have not seen a single good reason to remove the egg logs. This is devolving into a discussion on the accuracy of the nest logging project and if having the project refurbished is your aim then the Yew Grove is a more appropriate place than an RfD, unless you plan on nominating [[:Category:Nest logs]] and its contents for deletion as well. Real Crazy 14:18, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
Maybe there was a slight misunderstanding here; Regis' point is that the rate of getting a seed/ring/(one of the variants of an )egg nest differs per tree type; not that the content of the nests would be somehow different based on its source (with the exception of Wyson's nests). This would be similar to how each monsters drops summoning charms at a different rate, but they are still the same items. (That said, I understand Regis' point, but do not concur that the rates would differ per tree type). IP83.101.44.209 (talk) 15:03, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
Mk, still no evidence of differing rates exists. Perhaps Regis would like to prove us wrong through his own research? If not then there is no basis for his differing nest rate theory. 15:14, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Almost a week has passed and all I can see is the support for the nest log in its current form. I still think the premises on which the method of gathering data is based are false, but I won't protest further. Sorry for causing trouble, IP83.101.44.209. At least I know you understand my point now (and I hope others do as well). Can I request this to be closed somehow? 5-x Talk 13:43, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - Nominator withdrew. Suppa chuppa Talk 19:39, June 4, 2013 (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.

File:Wall Beast Map.png

Image duplicates information in [[:File:Swamp Caves map.png]] (and, by extension, Map:Lumbridge Swamp Caves). Orphaned since my most recent edit to Wall beast.

Delete - As nominator. Qloque (talk) 20:03, May 27, 2013 (UTC)

Weak support - I see your point about it being a dupe and by that alone it should really be deleted, but I do kinda like this one showing only the beast locations, it's less cluttered than the other two. Still, a dupe is a dupe I guess. Real Mad 22:21, May 27, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - For folks who just want to know where wall beasts are, this map is much cleaner and more efficient at delivering that information. The other map is smaller and more cluttered; it is harder to spot the red dots among all the others. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 22:36, May 27, 2013 (UTC)

It's smaller because it's the correct size for maps. ._. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 23:56, May 27, 2013 (UTC)
You realise it's image mapped? If you can't figure out what it is from the key, you can just hover/click on the red dot. cqm 10:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

Comment - If it's an issue seeing where the wall beasts are on the normal map, perhaps the red icons could be replaced with something more eye-catching like a small image of a wall beast like I've done on other maps, or even just a brighter color of the red icon. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 23:56, May 27, 2013 (UTC)

Why are we making this an actual discussion when a duplicate, orphaned file is, by definition, worthy of speedy deletion? MolMan 18:58, May 28, 2013 (UTC)

Because I misinterpreted a request which was probably intended as "tag with {{D}}" to mean "tag with {{Rfd}}". Qloque (talk) 14:35, May 30, 2013 (UTC)
Not to be rude, but this isn't the first time either (though that first unneeded request was forever ago). I was never sure if you had a problem with being bold or if you just didn't understand policy or something. I guess you just got the wrong templates :P. Though that comment was more meant for everyone except you, who should know that this file should be speedy'd. Frankly, this RfD should have been closed the moment you created it. MolMan 14:44, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - The red dots are easily distinguishable in the main map. This is just superfluous. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 09:35, May 29, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - I was about to delete it for being unused. It's lacks the standards we have for maps today. cqm 10:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

Weak support delete - I agree with Real Not Pure. I also added this to the list of pages on RS:RFD, as suggested in point 4. of the guidelines for nomination. 5-x Talk 15:16, May 30, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - The other maps are far superior. Blaze_fire.png12.png 19:09, May 31, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - Image will be deleted. Suppa chuppa Talk 21:26, June 4, 2013 (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.

Cultural references

Okay, let me start this off by saying that this is just an awful page. Absolutely awful. It has the same amount of literary prowess I'd expect from a sleep-deprived 6 year old. "Reference" is a buzzword on this page and the unavoidable repeated use of it makes for a dull and tedious read.

It's just a list. A boring, unorganized list. I'll get it out of the way now and blindly paraphrase from our trivia policy that only trivia directly relevant to the article should be on the article. Unfortunately, this slippery article's title makes literally every allusion relevant. Which is the real beef I have with it. It's kind of an unwritten rule in the trivia policy that there exists a point where there is "too much trivia". Whatever that threshold may be, this article sure has broken it. And guess what... It ain't even close to complete.

Beyond me being upset about the lack of acknowledgement by the page that there are PoP islands named after ponies, is that there exists an unfathomably long list of more appropriate trivia that could (and if we don't delete it soon, I'll need to say "should") be included on the page. For those of you actually reading my blatherings: I challenge you to read this article right now. Seriously, stop reading this and read the article. Hopefully you realized that this can never be nothing more than a list. A long, boring, tedious read of a list. Now realize that each entry cannot be simply be a "∵this ∴that". While that doesn't make for a worthwhile read either, a bulleted list of mini paragraphs is actually worse. Now realize that this list can only get longer with each update. But wait... no one's actually updating this.

So there's the problem that this page is updated extremely infrequently. There's an interesting alternative that will exist if, for some god-forsaken reason, we decide to keep to list: obsolesce. If we keep it, one of two things will happen: we'll either have this eyesore of a trivia bore or we'll have a page that is constantly and terribly out of date. You decide. * cough * "did you know" * cough *

So I guess the main idea behind this back in the day was that it would be a great place to see all the funny things that Jagex has done over the years. To be quite blunt, it fails to do that. Look, I get it, Jagex likes making Monty Python references. Don't get me wrong, he's a funny guy, but we sure do beat the dead horse with that on this page. We have enough problem with what trivia to keep on legitimate pages, but at least that trivia works well there. If you think there are actually avid readers of this page, you're wrong. With under 40k views, it hardly ranks amongst any of our more visited pages. No tears will be shed if we delete this mess.

Anyways, it was fun pontificating; hopefully you're all in agreement with me. Frankly, I feel any opposition could only exist somewhere between droll and ludicrous, but feel free to prove me wrong.

Delete - ffs MolMan 21:16, June 21, 2013 (UTC)

Comment -

<cancerpass> ever watched the monty python show/movies?
<over-thurr> yeah he's a very funny guy!
<cancerpass> i'll take that as a no

Suppa chuppa Talk 21:26, June 21, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - But we can't just delete all the trivia. Low readership isn't a good reason for deleting the page. I think we should keep it and maybe someone could make some kinda bot that just pastes in all the trivia sections from all the other pages on the wiki? Then a person can go through and organise it into sections and stuff. Then afterwards we can easily update it with the new updates. There hasn't been a new quest in months and the last content update was this triskelion thing almost 2 weeks ago. 04ismailjj6 (talk) 21:33, June 21, 2013 (UTC)

Low readership is relevant in this case where the page is meant to be a collection of otherwise segregated information. Though that point was just icing on the cake. The page is terribly redundant and unsightly. Also, rethink the bot idea. It's overly complicated and just more pointless work. MolMan 21:36, June 21, 2013 (UTC)
A bot would never work considering not all trivia is about cultural references... Also no one is going to spend hours organizing a million bullet points of useless information. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 22:54, June 21, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - When talking about the worst pages on the wiki, this one always comes up. It's a useless list of crap that can be found on their relevant articles. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 22:54, June 21, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - "The levers in the lever puzzle room in Dungeoneering have the symbol 五 carved into their left sides; this is the Chinese character for "five", which is the number of levers found in the room." "Gielinor is an anagram for Religion." These aren't even cultural references. This page is terrible. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 08:04, June 22, 2013 (UTC)

Damn you; I lost my two-paragraph-comment in an edit conflict and somehow it wasn't saved. >_> User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 08:08, June 22, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I just found this page now and I think it's an entertaining and interesting read. I never knew a lot of the stuff that's been written in the page. I like it and think it should stay, even if only in archive form. Aviansie throwing star detail.pngMareDo-Well Rune platebody (Saradomin).png 08:26, June 22, 2013 (UTC)

Delete (second try) - Upon reading the first sentence, I know it had to be Mol nominating this. ;) To business - I actually heeded your request and read the page (that would make it the third time ever for me). I laughed, some of the stuff there is quite funny. That being said, KILL IT WITH FIRE! It's horrifyingly obsolete, this "article", and written quite badly. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the page, "badly" is the best we can have. Try to improve it by removing repetitive phrases and it will become even worse. All of the points on the page should be on their respective articles. So, throw the thing into the Chasm of Death, make in an ex-article and have it join the Jewish Suicide Squad. BUT WAIT! Is there more? Yes there is!


Okay, there isn't. But we should scan the thing before deleting it to make sure there are no trivia that are only on that page and not on an actual article. Now, yes, let's kill the page that has less viewers than a baby bunny licking a rainbow (to put that into perspective, bunnies are fairly adorable and characteristically non-listy). User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 09:41, June 22, 2013 (UTC)

My rhetoric is recognizable anywhere. I actually reread it again last night. I found myself banging my head backwards against the couch in pure frustration with the stupid 4 times. I did notice a few that I found interesting but for which I had no recollection of them being on the appropriate page. There's no reason not to salvage it now, but even if you're lazy, Fswe, you're a custard. MolMan 13:47, June 22, 2013 (UTC)
Audio options icon.png
Fearus custards.
User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 17:18, June 22, 2013 (UTC)

Delete It was awful 5 years ago 16px‎AtlandyBeer.png 14:32, June 22, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - But all the trivia has to be kept, transferred to respective pages. 5-x Talk 14:47, June 22, 2013 (UTC)

All good* trivia. Some of the stuff there is just total crap. MolMan 14:48, June 22, 2013 (UTC)
No, All the trivia needs to be moved to it's respective page. By definition, trivia is useless and unimportant facts. So you can't have crap trivia. The crappier it is, the more trivial it is, and the more it should go on the wiki. 04ismailjj6 (talk) 15:22, June 22, 2013 (UTC)
Ismail had problems loading the editor for this page. His comment was moved from my talk page. MolMan 15:33, June 22, 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand this logic. The crappier it is, the more reason to keep it? We have a trivia policy, we actually do have standards for trivia. Not all of the trivia on the cultural references page has to be, or should be, moved to their respective articles. If it was important enough, it would already be there anyway. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 04:03, June 23, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - This page will be deleted. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 15:24, June 28, 2013 (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.

Ana Steiner, John Ayliff and Mod Tytn

As awesome as these people are, they are hardly notable people. It made sense having articles for people like Andrew, who created the game, Mark Gerhard, who is the current CEO of Jagex, and Mark Ogilvie, who is in charge of what direction the game takes. But these three people are not notable, they are just content developers, and one of them hasn't worked at Jagex for years.

Honestly, it is quite stalker-ish to be providing their full name, place of birth, personal websites, ect. I doubt they actually want this information being publicized, and honestly, we don't need to know what X mod's favourite colour is :P.

Delete - As nominator. Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 12:02, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - I don't think any of these developers are notable. The information we have on them is extremely weird. I would suggest putting any useful information (such as the content each person has developed) on a single page. Also refer to RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Mod Ana. ʞooɔ 12:05, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Keep - We can (and should) have Jmod articles as per this; they must be notable and there has to be decent information. All of the above are notable (look at the list of updates. In addition, the majority of random players in-game (members at least, who have played RuneScape for more than a month) will know of their existence) and the information is quite decent. They aren't, and will never be, of Lord Drakan-adjacent length, but the articles contain some information on their studies, their occupation at Jagex and where we know them from and stuff. Also, John A has quite an extensive infobox. @Cook: That would be okay, for now, but imagine if we have like 30 sub-articles for Jmods like that. We might as well give them their own articles then. Another solution would be to Jagex Moderator/List, but that would be quite, uhm, cluttery and, erm, list-y... User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 12:13, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Also: "Hhonestly, it is quite stalker-ish to be providing their full name, place of birth, personal websites, ect. I doubt they actually want this information being publicized" - if they wouldn't want it to be publicised, I think they wouldn't publicise it. :P Anyone can access their profiles by googling "mod john a jagex" or something. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 12:20, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - I don't see a point in having pages for content developers without any further special roles at jagex. Dragon dagger.png AmoVos 12:09, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Btw, previous nom: RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Mod Ana User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 12:14, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

πρέπομεν θείνειν Mod Tytn - He no longer works at Jagex and is therefore irrelevant. However, I believe that we should keep pages of senior/significant jmods/developers. Temujin 12:42, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Another comment (yay) - Would User:Fswe1/Blah be agreeable? 'twas Cook's idea to make an article named Content developers containing something like that, and cabbage. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 12:43, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

User:Battleben/Litterbox2 is more to the point. Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 13:03, June 17, 2013 (UTC)
I prefer Ben's. 04ismailjj6 (talk) 14:57, June 17, 2013 (UTC)
"Looks adorable" - I lol'd slightly. Real Nub 21:59, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I disagree with deleting all 3. I think Mod Tytn and the other Former Empioyees should be deleted, as they no longer work at Jagex or have any hand in the development of Runescape. As to Mod Ana and Mod John, they're both senior Content developers, but don't deserve their own pages. I think something like what Ben recommended, User:Battleben/Litterbox2, is more appropriate. Other Senior content developers could be added as neccessary. I would suggest that the table be added to Mod Mark's page as he is the Head content developer. 04ismailjj6 (talk) 13:18, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Question - Can we keep the picture of Ana? She's really cute. MolMan 13:53, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

We're trying to be less creepy. :) 04ismailjj6 (talk) 14:57, June 17, 2013 (UTC)
What's wrong with creepy? Creepy is good. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 11:43, June 18, 2013 (UTC)

πρέπομεν θείνειν Mod Tytn, Ian Gower, and Vince Farquharson - Keep the rest and create "Content developers". Temujin 13:58, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Can you stop with the Greek? Congratulations on knowing a little bit of it, but it's annoyingly pedantic and I have no idea what the hell you're saying. MolMan 14:04, June 17, 2013 (UTC)
So do you propose merging them into a page called "Content developers" page similar to User:Fswe1/Blah or User:Battleben/Litterbox2, or do you support keeping them unmerged? Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 14:05, June 17, 2013 (UTC)
So what does that Greek say?04ismailjj6 (talk) 14:57, June 17, 2013 (UTC)
I propose that Ana Steiner and John Ayliff be merged into "Content developers", which should then be expanded to contain information on other notable developers. I prefer User:Battleben/Litterbox2 to User:Fswe1/Blah, but I agree with Cook's suggestion (from S:C) that sections would be better than a table. Temujin 06:54, June 18, 2013 (UTC)

Keep - Keep it simple. What content the developer did is nice to know (quest, skill, area, etc), but we do not really need their personal info (name, college, etc).Deltaslug (talk) 14:13, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

So you're agreeing with something like this?04ismailjj6 (talk) 14:57, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Hair 14:54, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose all - They've all contributed a ton to RuneScape. Mod Tytn may no longer work there but he is the father of the Myreque series. ._. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 19:23, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

So he wants his personal information put on the wiki? Okay? Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 19:32, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I personally don't think the privacy argument is relevant here since all that information was public anyway. Unless the individuals in question have specifically requested that it be removed, in which case I think it can take part in this debate, their privacy was not violated and we are under no obligation to remove said information under privacy concerns. --LiquidTalk 19:34, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Legally, no. But I still think it's pretty stalker-ish. PLus their personal details aren't really relevant to RuneScape. Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 19:44, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - Perfectly notable, they worked on significant amounts of the game. Moving the information to [[Content developer]] or a subpage of Jagex Moderator would be acceptable though. Real Nub 21:59, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - I got no idea what makes these 3 more special than other JMods like Mod Chrisso or Emilee.--Jlun2 (talk) 07:20, June 18, 2013 (UTC)

And I see no reason not to make articles for those. Unless there really isn't anything to say about them... User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 12:30, June 24, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - The articles will be redirected and merged on content developers. Suppa chuppa Talk 17:23, June 29, 2013 (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.

Category:NPCs with multiple Examine options

I just don't see the point of this. Categories are supposed to make finding related things easy (like browsing stuff related to Mahjarrat, dragon weaponry, things that give prayer XP, images of caeks or goblins) - I hardly see how anything in this category is related to something else in it. Basically, it's useless. Oh, and horribly incomplete/obsolete. I say we kill it.

Speedy kill - As, uh, something. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 09:56, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - Just add in any NPCs that aren't listed. It's a perfectly legitimate category. Real Nub 21:24, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

But what's the point of listing NPCs with multiple examines? There's no benefit at all. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 05:55, July 8, 2013 (UTC)
If that's your only reason, this won't pass. We don't need another "why?" v. "why not?" argument. MolMan 13:51, July 8, 2013 (UTC)
It's useless. We might as well create Category:NPCs with black moustaches or Category:NPCs that switch locations if this fails. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 13:55, July 8, 2013 (UTC)
Do it! #YOLO  :P --Jlun2 (talk) 15:55, July 8, 2013 (UTC)
#YOEO - You only edit once. Blaze_fire.png12.png 07:14, July 13, 2013 (UTC)
This site is not a guide and categories are not for the sole purpose of finding gear or specific lores. This is an encyclopaedia and it is notable that the NPCs in that category have multiple examines, as that is not something all NPCs have and so it is "unique" <!-in a loose sense, not the dictionary definition--> to those pages. Category:NPCs that switch locations would actually make a good category by the way. Real Nub 15:11, July 8, 2013 (UTC)

Some pages that need the category - Not hard to find. MolMan 21:36, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - No consensus to delete. Suppa chuppa Talk 14:05, July 13, 2013 (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 author withdrawal of keeping the page.

Goddess of Woodcutters

RS:NOT#CRYSTAL etc. This is just getting pointless really...

Delete - As nominator. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 18:34, July 17, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - This is just a redirect. Come on Joey. ʞooɔ 18:36, July 17, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - Ben redirected the page now, so this kinda counts as an author request for deletion. This nomination is no longer needed. Also cook is a noob JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 18:38, July 17, 2013 (UTC)

Opposure this closure MolMan 18:38, July 17, 2013 (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.

File:Squeal of Fortune riot.png

User:AnselaJonla requested a speedy deletion with reasoning "not really necessary". I believe the image may have some merit on its article, thus it should go through the RfD process for community determination. 222 talk 03:08, July 27, 2013 (UTC)

Keep - As nom. 222 talk 03:08, July 27, 2013 (UTC)

Keep - Useful as it illustrates SoF controversies better than just text. --Shockstorm (talk) 04:19, July 27, 2013 (UTC)

Keep - It illustrates how many people hate/hated the squeal extremely well. Also, looking at it gives me nostalgia, it was taken back when I had 84 HP, 71 Prayer, 70 Summoning, and before Yelps gave me 200m. A lot can change in a year. Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 11:12, July 27, 2013 (UTC)

Keep - I see no reason to delete only this particular image of a riot, especially since it is of good quality. To be bureaucratic, an image is supposed to illustrate and complement the text and this does that well. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 11:36, July 27, 2013 (UTC)

Keep - Per Shockstorm. Temujin 12:20, July 27, 2013 (UTC)

All riot images suck. They are all just clusterfucks of people that are only representative of the bitching vocal minority. What merit does it have? None, to be quite frank. The petulance of the butthurt whiners wasting their time spamming en masse does nothing but stupefy an otherwise potentially intelligible article. It's a picture of a bunch of people who are too immature to try to actually inspire change. Oh wow, you're crying with a bunch of other children in town square? Well... your @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ does make a good point. MolMan 23:33, July 27, 2013 (UTC)

I'll put you down as "delete". Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 00:06, July 28, 2013 (UTC)
What's a "delete"? MolMan 22:01, July 28, 2013 (UTC)
Your comment is more about belittling the merits of the rioter's opinions than the usefulness of the image. Frankly, your comment completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. However, I do agree that rioting has a spectacular history of failure on RuneScape, and there are definitely better avenues to communicate your opinion to Jagex. 222 talk 12:08, July 29, 2013 (UTC)
That's why there's no stance in bold. MolMan 23:18, July 29, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - I can hardly make out what they're saying. A bunch of them seem to be using toy horsies, another lot seem to be setting up cannons. If we cannot tell what they are saying, then why keep it? If it weren't for the title then there'd be virtually no way to know what they were rioting about - the removal of dice perhaps, or maybe the altering of things like flowers, or even the plague of ingame gambling scamming. That is what I get from that image. If it's not clear without the title, then it's not a good image What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 00:13, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Why do we need an image for each big riot.. It's just more players complaining about changing content. I honestly don't see the point of keeping another riot image. Just replace it with one of the others, there would be no difference for the little use it provides on the page. Hair 03:00, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - We don't need an image for riots. It's a big mess. Blaze_fire.png12.png 10:20, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - It is really just one big chaos. I don't think it contributes to the wiki to keep it as it only displays a load of spammed toy horse messages and cannons. It doesn't even specifically show anything related to the SoF. Dragon dagger.png AmoVos 22:19, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Oh look, a massive load of cannons and horse spam, this is really useful and illustrative. Actually we could just use one image and put it on all riot articles, can anybody really see the difference between one cloud of @@@@@@@@@ and another? Real Nub 14:02, July 31, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - If this image truly did complement text in some way or provided a meaningful representation of "how hated" the Squeal of Fortune update was, then we could keep it. However, it does neither of these things as the text is difficult to read without enlarging, and the riot could very well be caused by a number of updates. Suppa chuppa Talk 17:08, August 6, 2013 (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.

File:God empires.png

Honestly, this map is not good. First of all, territories heavily, heavily shifted during the Second Age, so it isn't even accurate. And that can't be improved by saying which year in the age this map illustrates, for we don't know that. We have no idea when Saradomin arrived, when Zaros arrived, when Tumeken arrived... Additionally, it's wrong. Armadyl has Kandarian territory for some strange reason, whereas this has never been stated to be the case, Ullek is half-Zarosian and, frankly, at least half the map is based purely on speculation and assumption. It should just go, since this can only mislead people.

Delete - As nominator. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 06:51, August 18, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - All of it is speculation. Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 08:19, August 18, 2013 (UTC)

Keep - Well, yes, admittedly much (most definitely not all, Battleben) of this map is speculation, but that doesn't mean it's worthless. In my opinion, even a partially inaccurate map gives a better idea of what the different gods' territories looked like than a vague description like: '...stretching from Ice Mountain in eastern Asgarnia, to Kharyrll in Hallowland, and from Ghorrock in the north, to as far south as Ullek...' (quoted from the wiki page on Zaros), while also providing an overview of all the gods' territories, rather than an article providing information on only one god's empire. Also: if you believe anything on the map is wrongly indicated, post something about it on the discussion page, rather than going straight for a deletion. -- DavidB96 Zamorak staff.png 20:57, August 18, 2013 (UTC)

Problem is that, even if all the blatant inaccuracies (Ullek, Armadylian territory, etc.) are fixed, the rest is still largely based on speculation and the map can't be dated. It could as easily be the end of the Second Age as the middle, or somewhere in between. And since we have no idea of all the territories other than Hallowland, the Kharidian Lands, most of Forinthry, Entrana and Tirannwn, there really is no point in keeping it. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 06:22, August 19, 2013 (UTC)
That first territory in your last list has been banned. MolMan 06:24, August 19, 2013 (UTC)
D: User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 06:28, August 19, 2013 (UTC)
Firstly: Yes, I know it is based on speculation. I acknowledged that already in my last post. Look there again if you want to know what I think about it. Secondly: You're right we can't date it. I'll have to think about that one. Thirdly: we do actually have an idea about the territories outside of those you mentioned (and of course Ape Atoll). That's the speculation/assumption bit. Yes, I know you think that is evil at its worst, but if we point out it is in fact speculation and/or assumption, and why we assume the gods controlled those particular areas, I believe it won't do any harm at all. By your reasoning, we should wait with making a map like this until we are 100% sure about what gods controlled what parts of the world at what exact time. I have a strong suspicion we won't be for at least five years, if not, never. -- DavidB96 Zamorak staff.png 09:04, August 19, 2013 (UTC)

Support - Like Fswe said, we don't know what period this map is based upon. Also, we're supposed to be a cyclopaedia of knowledge, not guesswork, so speculation is to be avoided What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 13:21, August 19, 2013 (UTC)

Exterminate - Ew. That's...bleh. Blaze_fire.png12.png 05:16, August 20, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - It's just speculation, why isn't it speedy deleted? Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 10:50, August 20, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Per Fswe1's reply to DavidB96 Temujin 12:11, August 24, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - The maker even misspelt Kharyll. Real Mad 23:30, August 25, 2013 (UTC)

This request for closure is complete A user has requested closure for Requests for deletion/Archive 19. Request complete. The reason given was: I think we're there
User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 06:32, August 26, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - File will be deleted. cqm 23:00, 26 Aug 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

Are you sure? MolMan 23:02, August 26, 2013 (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.

Rockshell Platebody

Your reason(s). Duplicate entry.

Delete - As nominator. Dark Lily (talk) 21:56, October 3, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - Seems that you are referring to rockshell platebody, which is a redirect. There's no point in deleting redirects, especially useful ones like this. Suppa chuppa Talk 21:59, October 3, 2013 (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.


This is another one of those old community retardations from back when we were all young and naive, and the wiki had a whole ton of stupid. Rather than have it deleted in secret by one of my many admin toys, I thought it would be more fun to treat it like a legitimate article and put it through the RfD process. Afterall, it went through it once before. How did that fail...?

The entire article is ambiguous and wishy-washy, totally not up to par with the information we should be keeping. There are too many "often"s and "usually"s for me to believe this is nothing but original research. The probably situation is also incredibly biased or excluded. I may be a bachelor myself, but why does this article only pertain to religious, heterosexual, rich couples.

I'm thinking this was entirely written by some rich, white guy his butler. Look, I know we're not Wikipedia, but we should follow their rule of "no original research" here. To be honest, I'd love to find some sources to make this page great (we have none), but my Google search backfired.

The first part was finding some images that would appropriately suit the article; unfortunately, I only found weird stuff like this. I figured instead that I'd fake some pictures of a marriage with other Wikia editors. I planned to marry Spineweilder; this was mainly because I think extending the scope of the article to include homosexual marriage would greatly benefit its merit. So after that, it was find some legitimate sources to get a general idea of everything that is commonplace so we could include it in a to-be-fully-complete article. I only found more bad news: An article on Tip.It about a RuneScape marriage leading to sex offences.

My main point is that such news is genuinely scary. Should we really have an article that makes light of something this dangerous? No, we shouldn't.

p.s. No Be bold or Speedy D; this is a serious issue and I want it discussed thoroughly.

Delete - I don't want to feel responsible for any more such crimes. MolMan 16:12, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

Be bold AND speedy D - Marry me. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 19:20, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

Support Mol marrying Spine - They'd make a cute couple. Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 20:02, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - I see no purpose to this page whatsoever. Dogfoger (talk) 20:13, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Why are we even discussing this? The page should be speedy D because it's original research. 04ismailjj6 (talk) 20:21, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - I don't think this is a fair candidate for speedy deletion, considering it's been around for so long and has a substantial number of edits. But still, that page really doesn't belong here. Matt (t) 03:21, September 28, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - Why is this a conversation. Blaze_fire.png12.png 03:29, September 28, 2013 (UTC)

C-c-c-combo breaker - I'm going to have to disagree here. This is an encyclopaedia and not a guide; it is not encyclopaedic to delete things because of some idiot(s). You don't see Wikipedia removing the page for Al-Shabaab because of the attack at the mall in Nairobi. Regardless of whether there is bad news associated with the article, deleting it removes legitimate information from the wiki. I can actually remember two users from the wiki getting married ingame. If there are no pictures, just stage some with a few users. A great deal of users will remember weddings and I'm willing to bet there are still weddings at the moment. Why remove a legitimate page? Real Crazy 16:06, October 2, 2013 (UTC)

So are you completely serious? I'm not sure if you caught that most of this was trolling... I'll just assume you're serious and give you a little text wall. First things first: I don't give a second shit about the lack of coverage of homosexual marriage nor do I give a third about the rape. I'm not a terrible person, but this stuff just doesn't concern the wiki. I actually planned to write a lot more, but I got bored and decided to end my little charade early. "That escalated quickly." As for the article itself, I don't care what sort of spin you can put on this or what kind of analogy you can make, this is not a "legitimate article" in any sense. Basically what this is is a remnant of some thousands of articles that could fall under a roleplaying category that I'm sure none of us want. Players can do just about anything in the game, but that doesn't mean we need to document it all. We have role-playing, feel free to buff it up, but if you want to keep this article, you need to have an article on everything roleplaying. We need articles for furries and domination and all the fun stuff. I hate these "if you have this you need this" arguments, but gametes sex sells, and it's going to sell my point here. MolMan 11:28, October 4, 2013 (UTC)
Right OK, I guessed the non-gay stuff was trolling, I wasn't so sure about the sex offence bit and thought this was being deleted on those grounds. Changing to merge with role-playing since I'm a moron and was being retarded when I wrote that. Real Crazy 15:55, October 5, 2013 (UTC)

Delete - It cause more trouble when the article remains, than when we simply get rid of it. Dragon dagger.png AmoVos 11:34, October 4, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - Consensus to delete this page. If someone really wishes, he/she can redirect the page. Suppa chuppa Talk 04:15, October 6, 2013 (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.

Mort myre fungus/Gathering

We already have a MMG page for the Mort Myre Fungi collection. This page only offers information on how to reach the swamps. It doesn't offer any beneficial information. We can extract some useful info and add it to the collection guide as additional detail.

Delete - As nominator. Shoyrukon (talk) 03:21, November 24, 2013 (UTC)

Support - The number of methods is unnecessary and doesn't make me want to read the page. The MMG is much simpler and efficient at conveying the information. cqm 23:38, 26 Nov 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

Support - The MMG serves the same purpose and is better made. The MMG is also already linked to in the article.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nex Undique (talk) on 06:16, 28 November, 2013 (UTC)‎.

Support but - Make sure no information is lost that is not already elsewhere. It should be merged into the MMG and maybe a very very concise version should be on the Mort myre fungus page itself if it isn't yet. My contributionsTHARKONMy hiscores 00:29, November 29, 2013 (UTC)

It shouldn't necessarily be merged. The MMG is about efficiency, and it already has the most efficient method. MolMan 00:49, November 29, 2013 (UTC)

Support - BEGONE. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 15:02, November 29, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - The article will be deleted. -- Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 21:33, November 30, 2013 (UTC)

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