RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Archive 2

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 delete.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 19:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


Pretty much every image we use in this wiki is copyrighted by Jagex. There's no reason to mark every one of them with this template. Being an encyclopedia, everything we use the images for is fair use. --Wowbagger421 20:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Aw man you're right. Dang I didn't think of that. Well, what about the other license temps: Template:Logo, Template:PD and Template:GFDL? I guess the screenshot temp can go, and maybe the GDFL one.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 20:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. I don't think we'd have any reason to use Unknown, No source, or PD, but I think we should keep them just in case. --Wowbagger421 21:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I hadn't noticed that you changed how images are uploaded. Now I understand what you're trying to do. Could you just leave it like it is but also keep the drop down for category? I've changed my mind. --Wowbagger421 21:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna delete all the temps, all the files are fair use.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 19:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was redirect to purple party hat with all necessary information added.. Dtm142 23:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Pink party hat

The information contained on this page is incorrect. It's implying that it's something like the infamous Black party hat myth and that there actually was once a pink party hat, while the truth is that the RuneScape community was wrong about the true colour of the purple party hat. This picture shows an example of a green party hat in a trade screen:

The item does not have a colour in front of its name. This is the case with all RSC party hats, capes, Halloween masks, aprons, skirts, and probably many other items. The purple party hat does indeed appear pink on RSC, so this is evidence that the rumour about a 7th party hat is false.

The page should be redirected to purple party hat with all untrue information removed. Dtm142 17:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Awww and I just made a spiffy new version of the image using Easy GIF Animator 4.... {{Signatures/Total Rune}}21:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Spiffy indeed... But the article's just up for deletion, not the image. Dtm142 21:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete sorry but it really is a non existing thing and i've never heard of the myth that pink party hats existed. --Whiplash 21:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep Just checked RuneVillage's WhatIs? page for RSC and on the list of P-Hats they have Party Hat, Pink ( ). Trying to obtain a clear picture of the Pink/Purple Party Hat in RSC. I've seen em in RSC, they are definitely pink. {{Signatures/Total Rune}}22:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
And you'll notice that there's no "party hat, purple" entry. This is more evidence that they were considered pink on RSC and that the article should be deleted and redirected to purple party hat. See here for a picture of the RSC party hat set and decide for yourself. Dtm142 22:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[[File:Pink phat RSC.png]] Ha. Pink. Keep this article. {{Signatures/Total Rune}}22:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Its official name is purple party hat, which we already have. Pink party hat doesn't deserve its own article, as the information is already contained in this article. Dtm142 22:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete Well I could take the 2 Pink P-Hat pictures I got and add them to the Purple party hat article and put in a little Pink Party Hat section to it. {{Signatures/Total Rune}}22:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep information about how people thought they were pink (even though they're really purple), but delete the page. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 23:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The necessary information has already been added to purple party hat. Dtm142 02:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, then I say Delete!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 03:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Yup, info has been added by me =) {{Signatures/Total Rune}}03:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah delete it and redirect it to purple party hat.

Well, if you delete it, then you have to create the page again to redirect it. The consensus seems to be redirect. ДҖ--Huanghe63talk 16:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Just needs the information merging between pink and purple in my opinion, we certainly don't need two pages for what is the same item. --Eucarya Talk 19:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
REDIRECTED - I've re-read the discussion, looked at both pages, and changed pink to be a redirect to purple. We certainly don't need two separate articles for the same item. Purple contains more than just a reference to that fact that it used to be pink. --Eucarya Talk 19:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Lol it was magenta anyway :P Onyx.pngMalestro 17:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was keep.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 00:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


It's way short and unnecessary, he doesn't play a role in any quests, and the meat shop is already covered in the Canifis article.--Atlantima 18:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely, but this leads to another question - Should we delete all articles that are just a few characters long with little expansion possibilities? --Eucarya Talk 20:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hes involved with the new quest, great brain robbery. The evil dude, 15:29 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep! Why can't we have pages for even unused NPC's? This is RuneScape wiki. I think we should have information of everything, simple everything in RuneScape. User page "Katshuma" Talk page 19:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, since he is a Quest NPC now, I see no problem keeping it. Atlantima talk trade contribs

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was keep.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 00:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


I just feel like all the info on redirecting is said in Help:Editing#Redirecting pages. We don't really need this page anymore.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 20:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep. RuneScape:Redirecting is the policy that must be followed. Help:Editing is a tutorial. Dtm142 16:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep - I don't see anything wrong with it. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 14:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep Uhhh... what they said. :) Dragon chainbody.pngEmosworldSysop crown.svg 10:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep it dosent hurt to have an article about redirecting. --Whiplash 11:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was keep.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 20:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


Current Votes

  • Delete - 2
  • Keep - 7
  • Neutral - 0

I have a couple good reasons that this page is not article worthy.

  1. It is opinionated and the word beggar can be used as an insult in some ways.
  2. It is an extremely small article, as of 20:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC), and really only tells one thing.
  3. The one thing it says, as of 20:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC), is an opinion.
  4. If we were to have such an article, it should be made like the Noob page.

Well, shoot your thoughts at me.Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 20:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote it a bit to make less stereotyping. --Whiplash 20:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah I say its a keeper!White partyhat.png Patcong talk White partyhat.png20:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Saying beggar is an insult...? Its a way to categorize 'noobs'. Besides, the beggars are the ones being annoying and offencive.

2. Well I put the stub template in there, and lots of things are small, like the Ice Arrows.

3. Okay, it is sortof my oppinion, but it was changed by our fellow firemaster, whiplash.

4. It could be included in the Noob page, as a small section.

Side note: Beggars are the most annoying things in runescape. Everyone needs to know about them. I say we keep it. [[File:Pirys-banner-small.PNG]]

SupportWhite partyhat.png Patcong talk White partyhat.png18:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep - I don't see anything wrong with it. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!I have 12 friends. 01:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That was, when... A couple days ago. Look at the history.Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 21:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Ooohh. It looked horrible back then. But good now. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!I have 12 friends. 21:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ive added a few words onto the begginning. Would it be wrong to add examples of beggars? [[File:Pirys-banner-small.PNG]]

I say keep. Tesfan 13:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Beggars beg; anything else in that article is readily obvious...Make begging part of some other article, perhaps (a slight expansion to the Noob article mebbe), and refer the reader to Wikipedia. Begging isn't limited to RuneScape. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 13:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete or keep....hmm....that's a good question! I'll get right on it...with thinking! Then maybe I'll look at the article...with my eyes! {{Signatures/Total Rune}}07:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, the only people here that want it deleted are part of the Noob protectors society. Coincidence? I think not. [[File:Pirys-banner-small.PNG]]

No it's just that the page had nothing on it at the time.Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 14:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

keep - Like player killers and skill levelers, beggars are a "type" of player or people playing runescape by begging and, to some extent, annoying other players. The practice of begging is not limited in runescape but is also very common in any mmorpg game genre. By the way, although most begging players have low overall levels, they are usually own by a person who also owns a much higher level account or a much wealthier account, therefore they are not "newbies" or new players. Alternatively, there are also high level players (sometimes over 60 combat level) who also beg. Fatman4ever 04:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

SRTONG KEEP - Very good article! Should be kept! And if it's delete I may revert the delete since it's so good. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!I have 12 friends. 23:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think is should have some rules/exapmles of begging. It should also be explained on how it is looked down upon, along with people wnating to trade with you and then saying money pleaseAtlandy 02:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep - there is no real reason as to why this page should be deleted yes it could be considered an insult, but we are trying to run an informative website here, and the page is doing it's job. Matt2 05:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Are there beggars in Runescape? Is this or is this not the Runescape wiki? The wiki for ALL things Runescape! I think I've made my point... Also I just refurbished the article into a much more neutral point of view, so check it out before you keep ranting to delete it, ppl who support deletion.Obese Potato 23:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was delete. 23:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


Now that I think about it, it's not really needed. If we only put it on quest pages, what about the NPC pages that deal with the quest or the item pages that you receive as a reward? Should they not have the spoiler? We'd keep RuneScape:Spoiler policy, though just delete this template as there are so many pages that would need this template, it's best if we just got rid of it and said in the spoiler policy that spoilers won't be marked and blah blah blah.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 20:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Mabye we could have what like the the UespWiki does, and have something like the on the front page:

Because the site's purpose is to provide information, some of this content may contain spoilers. You may want to play the games our articles describe before exploring the site. Tesfan 20:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Err... now it says that every quest page is being Voted for deletion. Tesfan 20:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 20:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

They did this on WP: questioning the Spoiler template, whether it was actually needed. I forgot where, it's somewhere though. Huanghe63talk 00:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was delete. Dtm142 18:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


There isn't much to talk about deleting, but there is NO doubt in my mind that we should delete it. NO FANSITES ON THE WIKI! Blankothe3rd 17:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Tesfan 17:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep. Fansites are an integral part of RuneScape, why deny that? I'll admit I've never heard of this one, I'm just assuming it's not fake/tiny...May I ask; Why "no fansites on the wiki"? JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 17:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply: I think it's policy. Blankothe3rd 17:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh. (I indented that sentence since you were replying to me...) Where is this policy? JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 17:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The Runescape:Policy thing I think. Blankothe3rd 17:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. We should be writing about Jagex's game itself. Fansites are not recognized by Jagex. And if we allow one, tons of other fansite articles will be created. Some of those will have security issues or cheating problems. Clan articles too should be disallowed. Dtm142 17:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Allowing one doesn't necessarily need to set precedent for many more being made; we can limit which are considered major sites and which are not. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 17:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Still, I don't think it's really fair to include some and not others while in reality they're all just as much a part of Jagex's game (ie not at all), which is the focus of this wiki. I've had this debate before on Wikipedia and I really, really wouldn't like to have it again here. Dtm142 17:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
It's probably going to happen, sorry. but could you link me to the debate? JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 17:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
It can be found in various archives of Wikipedia:Talk:RuneScape and Wikipedia:Portal talk:RuneScape. Dtm142 17:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
"Various archives" here having the meaning of "half an hour of trawling, if you're lucky"? :p I might have to look later, things to do, TV to watch, you know how it is... JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 17:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
There are...what, fourteen archives? I'm not looking through all of those... JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 10:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I'm the one who nominated it for deletion. So the Delete things more than nessesary. Blankothe3rd 17:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete - We don't need to have articles on fansites.Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 17:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not? I don't get it. We're an encyclopedia for all things RuneScape. RuneScape fansites are, surprisingly enough, to do with RuneScape. What's more, a good article would be brilliant; instead of our normal articles it would actually have a history section, advantages/ would be one of the most encyclopedia-style articles on the wiki. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 17:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
You could say the same thing about player or clan vanity pages, or even an article about an illegal marcoing program. Dtm142 18:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Player pages - none are more notable than others; those that are are described, just not with articles with their own usernames. Clans - none are notable, I've never heard of any of them. The macroing program clearly and directly breaks the rules; most fansites don't. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 18:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that fansites are notable. Dtm142 18:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm gonna.... uh..... stay outta here. Blankothe3rd 17:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Why do you say that? I'm not obligated to doing that. In fact, if you think you know everything, you would know that this is a voting page where people can place their opinions, no?Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 18:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
*Laughs* Yes, I know... I just like to stay out of the arguements. Blankothe3rd 18:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete we've made an extra effort recently to segregate ourselves from the whole real-world buying issue, both from linking to sites that advertise it and advertising it ourselves. I think that by including articles on other fansites, we are definitely advertising those fansites, and it follows that we are inadvertently linking to whatever they want to link to. As for this article itself, almost all of the content was just copied verbatim from their forum page, which is pretty sad. So even without a policy of no fan-site links, I would still say that this one has to go.Endasil (Talk) @ 18:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

STRONG DELETE Last time I checked, we were running a wiki on Runescape facts, not an ad site. Matt2 06:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep fanistes do offer alot towards RuneScape. Many players distinguish themselves as part of a fansite community. --Whiplash 10:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Many players consider themselves members of clans. Some players even have usernames, ut we don't have articles about those. Dtm142 17:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete If there was an article on, Zybez, or RuneHQ, then I'd keep it, since I've actually heard of those fansites. But I have never even heard of this one. Currently obsessed with...Cashman286talk contribs editcount my RFAATTACK (60) STRENGTH (50)!!! 11:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Just cuz you haven't heard of it means nothing... =/ Syugecinspam 11:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC) Delete
So if I make those articles, you'd change your vote? The only reason they haven't been made already is because I don't know anything about them. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 15:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete - If you really believe that we need a page on fansites, but don't wish to advertise what they may or may not be doing, why not have a List of known Fansite or somesuch - and include a disclaimer that none of the information contained in them is sponsored or condoned, and that if any of them are actively encouraging people to break game rules, they should be reported, and removed from the list? Whether we do that or not, I still suggest removing this one - we should not have entire pages devoted to each and every fansite out there. Yleron - (Talk)(Contribs) 16:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

DeleteRedekopmark 04:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete User page "Katshuma" Talk page 15:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ugh... sorry Blanko, my short temper is something I'm working on but I thought it said "you better stay out of here".Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 00:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I hate to be rude. But, there is simply more Deletes than Keeps. So, I think we should delete this soon. The King of Fakes 05:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Notice of Intent - The article will be deleted on June 20th. Oddlyoko talk 07:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Test, The King of Fakes 09:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Oddlyoko talk 18:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was delete. --Sαcrε (edit my sig) | (edit my user page) 00:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Super stub

Current votes:

  • Delete: 15
  • Keep: 3
  • Neutral: 1

There's not much to say here. This page has no real purpose, as template:stub already gets the point across. No offense to Chiafriend, but this template is completely redundant. --Sαcrε (edit my sig) | (edit my user page) 03:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete Per above. Tesfan 03:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Mildly leaning towards delete Per above which pers above making no sense, no one can per me now since I've said this, I'm assuming this is spam so I'll stop soon, but why... Why... Why no offense to Chia? What happened? =O Syugecinspam 03:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I see. =/ I guess I'm a total idiot. (Again, making per above impossible. But I guess per Tesfan or per Sacre would still work >_<) Syugecinspam 03:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete - It's either a stub, or it's not. Chaoticar 03:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete. As stated above, it's redundant with Template:Stub. Dtm142 19:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete or Redirect (if needed). Unless there is something that makes a "super stub" different from a regular stub, this template is useless and redundant. Skill 22:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete. We dont need more useless stuff on the wiki (see fakes above)Scythe.png Atlandy 00:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Earthere 04:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Earthere
Delete. I never understood the difference between stub and super stub. Sticking to just stub keeps it simple. Amaurice talk 09:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete, too much of a Clone to Stub, in fact it is. I'm on the side of Saving Bandwich and say Delete. Mr. Reeves 09:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete. It is redundant. Steelhorse66 17:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep. For those of you unable to comprehend the matter, a stub is a short article, but it has a decent amount of content, while a SUPER stub is like a 1-2 sentence article. There's the difference. Now I'd like to see some more keeps here! --Blue partyhat.png Master Stewieofdoomworship me!
21:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment Stub tags are supposed to be used to identify and categorize pages that are missing information, need more detail, etc. An article could be missing information even if it is long, and a very short article could be complete if it has a small scope. Length has little to do with stub status. Since you say that the only feature distinguishing a "super stub" from a regular stub is length, "super stubs" are really no different from ordinary ones. Skill 12:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep! Super stub is an article that has got almost no content in it, where a stub at least briefly covers the point. For example, a monster article with just an infobox is a super stub, but if you add in some sentences like "These are frequently killed with cannons." or "You can have this monster in your player-owned dungeon.", then it's upgraded to a stub. Atlantima talk trade contribs16:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The other two supporters above me say everything. Definite difference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hrrpttr854 (talk).
Comment - Stubs do not need to be missing information; they can be nearly empty too. As far as I know, they're being used for the same thing. --Sαcrε (edit my sig) | (edit my user page) 05:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Neutral, it’s not harming the wiki in any way. =S The Nifty One, Speckle 05:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not helping, either. >_> --Sαcrε (edit my sig) | (edit my user page) 05:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete. If it's long enough not to be a super stub, it's not a stub either. It's just incomplete, which isn't the same. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 07:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete if we can Merge. The reason im suggesting a merge is that there are a lot of plages that have this template it may take hours changing them all to stub templates. Other that that not exactly useful. --Whiplash 11:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
If it were redirected to Template:Stub, wouldn't every use of the "super stub" template be replaced with the normal stub one (not in wikitext, but in how the server expands the template at runtime)? Skill 04:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete: I see no reason to keep. And there aren't too many pages using that template. [1] It wouldn't take long, I don't think. I'd be willing to do it if no one else would. ChristineTalk 12:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete - There's no need for this. As Sacre said, already have the stub template, which gets the point across. This template is the exact same thing, we don't need 2 of the same template. If it's a stub, it's a stub. We don't need nimber 1 priority stubs over others, a stub's a stub. If you were to create a new category for this template, that would be pointless and for those "keeps", please note that these still go under the normal stub category so if I were to try to get rid of stubs by monitoring the category page, they would show normaly.Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 15:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete - It just causes confusion, it's simpler to stay with just stubs. --Themurasame Hiscores 15:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was keep. --Sαcrε (edit my sig) | (edit my user page) 22:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Fake image

Current Votes: 32

Delete: 12

Keep: 19

Neutral: 1

ATTENTION - the vote closes on August 1st! --Whiplash 15:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, I never understood why we had this in the first place, so I'm nominating it for deletion. When I go to RuneScape wiki, I expect to find articles on quests, on items, on skills; not some little 12-(or 14 so Chia doesn't get all pissy on me..again..)-year-old boy's fantasy version of the game. This information could really be found somewhere on the net if one so desired, but I can't think of anyone who would actually come to the wiki site and say "Oh, man I really need an article on fake images, I'm positive the RuneScape wiki would have one." What normal person immediately associates RuneScape with fakes, then RuneScape wiki with the same thing? I don't expect any other fansite to have anything about fake images, and I dunno why we do either. Not to mention that this article encourages users to upload fakes to the wiki, in direct opposition to our new policy. I dunno how many people will support this (because obviously all the fake-makers will oppose) but here goes nothing. ChristineTalk 15:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete I agree with most of what you've said, however, there are many fan sites who hold contests for fake RuneScape images. I think it's pretty pathetic myself, like you, I don't go on the wiki looking for fakes, I look for useful information that can help me, not fake images that usually aren't that well done. Fletching TIRRIANGANT (TALK) 15:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I added in a vote count (oops) and I assume you support it for deletion Tirrian. But change it if I'm wrong. Do we really need a "neutral" count? And we don't hold contests, so I see no reason. ChristineTalk 15:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, fakes are not directly related to RuneScape. Second-abyssal-whip.png Spitfire Dragon sq shield.png talk 15:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - If we should not have an article on Fake images then it is easy to say that we shouldn't have one on wtf. They're both not real things/words. Both part of the community. It should stay because many players in RuneScape create them and they are, or should go, under the community category. However, if it might tempt or encourage people to upload fakes there should be a note on the page telling players not to do so, reminding them of the policy. Don't say "oh well your vote doesn't count because you're a fake maker" because that's a stupid thing to say. I do not see how an article would effect a person's making fakes nor do I make fakes anymore and so I feel the entire idea of this is... idiotic. Perhaps they're not part of the game but they still do mean something to many users who play RuneScape and I think a few other sites have articles on fakes.Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 15:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. I think the whole slang category is pointless, and would love for that to be deleted also (but it won't happen).
  2. I wasn't going to say that your vote didn't count, don't just assume you know what you're talking about; you don't.
  3. Don't call anything I do "idiotic"
I can nominate the RuneScape article for deletion if I really wanted. There are no guidelines. If I think this article should be deleted then I have every right to nominate it. I have stated my reasons, and they aren't idiotic. However, you insulting me was. ChristineTalk 16:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I've never made a fake in my life but I think that fakes are a part of the RuneScape community. Lots of fansites have things about fakes. RuneHQ even has a whole forum and tutorials dedicated to them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mario Freak4 (talk).
Ugh, I hate this. Everyone always say that. We are not RuneHQ. We are a wiki, a version of Wikipedia, which is like an encyclopedia. We aren't like every other fansite! Anyone can edit here, we can have discussions here, that's what's good about us. Don't say that just because RuneHQ has something, that we automatically have to. And sign your posts. ChristineTalk 16:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Below I will list the examples shown in the Good Cases section of the RuneScape Wiki Deletion policy, then give my explanation:

  • A page which contains information that has very little chances of becoming a real page. For example, a page with just "wow i love runescape so much don't you? lol" isn't helping anyone. Pages like this will be deleted. - It has real, useful, helpful information.
  • Pages containing original research or a large bias. For example, "According to a poll I conducted among my friends, RuneScape member subscriptions are too expensive." This doesn't help at all and it's personal opinion. These pages will be deleted. - It doesn't contain original research or bias.
  • User pages can be deleted only if the user requests it. It is impossible to delete an account, though the user page can be deleted. - It isn't a user page.
  • Vanity pages. For example, "hi my name is Bob and i play RuneScape every day. my main character is lvl 100 and i have ten other characters, also." These pages are pointless and contribute nothing to the wiki. - It's not a vanity page. None of the fakes shown make anyone's RuneScape character look amazingly powerful. In fact, none of the examples even display any individual's character!
  • Advertising and spam. Posting random websites or things like "Google is awful; try Brand X Search Engine free for 10 days!" aren't contributing anything to the wiki. - It doesn't advertise or spam. Although it names a variety of programs which may be used to create fake images, it doesn't advertise these programs as exceptional or advantageous over other programs, nor does it name websites where these programs may be bought/downloaded.
  • Pages that are nonsense. For example, pages with titles such as "dahoshagohfoug" or "haovhauhgbovaov" have no point in being on this wiki. - Ok, it isn't nonsense.
  • Copyright violations. Taking images/pages from a website that say they are to be used only on their sites should not be used. These include fan sites. - None of the images or information on the page is taken from another website, besides the in-game images, which Jagex gives permission for.
  • Useless or incorrect redirects. For example, one like #REDIRECT: That one guy in RUneScape isn't helping anyone. - It isn't a redirect.
  • Useless or incorrect categories, like a "poop" category. - It isn't a category.
  • Useless or incorrect templates, like a "poop" template. - It isn't a template.
  • Pages in another language. This wiki is English, no other languages are allowed. - It's in English.

I believe Fake image should stay on the RuneScape Wiki because:

  1. It doesn't violate any of the rules in the RuneScape Wiki deletion policy, so there's no real case to delete it in the first place.
  2. It is a well-organized, helpful, how-to article which gives a basic guide to an integral part of RuneScape, just like our guide to avoiding cheats and scams. We must keep in mind that RuneScape is only a game, but its vast community has a culture similar to any real-world community, and important elements of that culture, such as fake images, are as relevant to the RuneScape Wiki as the article on the game itself. Not only should we have an article on fakes, but we should have articles on other fansites as well - as long as they remain neutral and factual. Those fansites are equally important to RuneScape culture.
  3. It describes a fairly complex topic in a simple and concise manner; it describes advanced process such as making animations, but it doesn't go over a beginner's head.
  4. It represents a large contribution made by its authors who put a significant effort into creating and uploading the examples and writing and revising the article.

I don't make fakes. I'd have to have a guide in front of me to even start making one. A guide such as our article - simple and helpful. Fake image is truly one of our few high-quality articles. This has even been recognized when it was nominated in the spring for Featured Article of the Month. I believe it's even a better article than some of the articles we have featured, but has been snubbed because of criticism about being irrelevant or useless. In actuality, it's quite the opposite. It has room for improvement, sure, every article does. It could use a few more examples, and could go a little more in-depth. But there's certainly no reason to delete it. Slayer-icon.png Gangsterls Divination-icon.png talk16:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

How do fake images benefit the wiki? ChristineTalk 17:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

How does any article benefit the wiki? A wiki is about a topic. Our topic is RuneScape. Fake images of RuneScape are within our topic. I'm not saying we should include random fakes from across the web. Why do I have to spell this out?

Some excerpts from an argument in the IRC:

  • [12:46] <ChristineV> I told you I read your reasons
  • [12:46] <Gangsterls> so then why did u say there was no reason to keep it
  • [12:46] <Gangsterls> i gave like 4
  • [12:47] <ChristineV> And I say that it is not directly related to RS, anything can be made into a fake
  • [12:47] <ChristineV> And my stupid apple tree died again
  • [12:47] <Gangsterls> and then i said that the article was about RS fakes and that it's a part of RS culture
  • [12:47] <Gangsterls> there's a reason
  • [12:47] <ChristineV> How is it part of RS culture?
  • [12:47] <Tesfan> What's wrong with using imageshack?
  • [12:47] <Gangsterls> nothing
  • [12:47] <ChristineV> I've never heard of anyone on RS talking about fakes
  • [12:48] <Gangsterls> how come like 20 users have subpages full of fakes?
  • [12:48] <ChristineV> THIS ISN'T RS
  • [12:48] <Gangsterls> because it's part of the game
  • [12:48] <ChristineV> They have fakes because the article is on the wiki!
  • [12:48] <Gangsterls> it's a fansite it's part of rs culture itself
  • [12:48] <Gangsterls> no they had fakes before the article was made
  • [12:48] <ChristineV> Its not really a fansite
  • [12:49] <Gangsterls> they wrote the article because they liked fakes
  • [12:49] <Gangsterls> oh no?
  • [12:49] <ChristineV> We're not like everyone else
  • [12:49] *** mode/#rswiki [+o Tesfan] by ChristineV
  • [12:49] <Gangsterls> just cuz we aren't like other fansites doesn't make us not a fansite
  • [12:49] <Tesfan> Sorry for repeting my self, but what's wrong with using imageshack?
  • [12:49] <Gangsterls> i said nothed
  • [12:49] <ChristineV> Nothing
  • [12:49] <Gangsterls> nithing*
  • [12:49] <Gangsterls> nothing*
  • [12:49] <Tesfan> So then whats the argument about?
  • [12:49] <Gangsterls> if we aren't a fansite then what are we
  • [12:50] <ChristineV> Deleting the ARTICLE fake image
  • [12:50] <Tesfan> ahh
  • [12:50] <Gangsterls> it's a good article
  • [12:50] <ChristineV> Its not needed
  • [12:50] <Gangsterls> nothing you say makes it a bad article
  • [12:50] <Gangsterls> it is it's part of the culture
  • [12:51] <Gangsterls> there's an entire internet culture that's what user-generated content is all about
  • [12:51] <Gangsterls> wikipedia, youtube, myspace are all about ugc
  • [12:51] <Gangsterls> and so are fakes and gaming culture
  • [12:51] <Gangsterls> we're a wiki. we're all about ugc
  • [12:52] <ChristineV> No, we're all about RS
  • [12:52] <ChristineV> To be technical
  • [12:52] <Gangsterls> everything on the wiki is user-generated content
  • [12:52] <Gangsterls> it's the RS WIKI
  • [12:52] <ChristineV> The fakes that people make are not BENEFITTING the wiki
  • [12:52] <Gangsterls> there's two parts to that
  • [12:52] <Gangsterls> 1. RS
  • [12:52] <Gangsterls> 2. WIKI
  • [12:52] <Gangsterls> wiki - user-generated content
  • [12:52] <ChristineV> The fakes that people make are not BENEFITTING the wiki
  • [12:52] <Gangsterls> RS - game
  • [12:53] <Gangsterls> RS + WIKI = Fakes, fansite, forums
  • [12:53] <Gangsterls> they're benefitting our visiters
  • [12:53] <Tesfan> If I may offer a sugesstion, the Slang pages have nothing do to with RS
  • [12:53] <Gangsterls> who are rs players and might want to learn how to make fakes
  • [12:53] <Gangsterls> yes they do!
  • [12:53] <ChristineV> Have you read the discussion page Tes?
  • [12:53] <Gangsterls> culture! culture! culture!
  • [12:53] <ChristineV> Ilyas brought that up too
  • [12:53] <Gangsterls> those words are used in-game all the time

RuneScape slang, fakes, and this entire wiki and all other fansites are all part of the game's culture. As an encyclopedia about the game AND a part of its culture, we should have articles on not only the in-game elements of RuneScape, but the elements of its community which give it its culture. If you've heard of Web 2.0, you've heard about user-generated content. This entire wiki and all of its content was generated by us - its users. User-generated content is a huge part of internet culture, and includes sites such as Wikipedia, YouTube, Myspace, Facebook, and countless others, including ALL WIKIS. And since wikis are encyclopedias with a given topic - ours being RuneScape, we should include its culture as well. For what other reason would you guys sit in front of a computer every day than to play games or do whatever else you want? And everything that people do for fun on the internet is just another part of internet culture - wikis included. Don't go all psychologist on me. Slayer-icon.png Gangsterls Divination-icon.png talk17:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

How was I going all psychologist on you? ChristineTalk 17:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The people who were on IRC right now might have seen my arguement with Christine. I'm in no mood to copy it but it seems pointless to be so technical. Saying that fakes aren't technicaly part of the game that Andrew Gower and his staff actualy designed is like saying that chocolate is bad for you because it's a drug, which is true but not how most people look at it. Fakes are part of the community of the game and the player built culture, not what jagex themselves put in the game. Christine, open your eyes and look at this from all viewpoints, not only one.Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 17:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep - But I think the article should have information at the top of it as to where people should put there fake images (links to other servers that can be used). That way, if there are discussions about fake images in future, then the article can be used as reference as to what people should do with them. If hightlighted adequately, then it can be used to discourage people uploading fakes to the wiki server itself. Amaurice talk 17:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

KEEP! - I'm not opposing as a fake maker, I'm opposing as an editor, a reader and a player. Fakes are fun. The article has A LOT of information! Why delete such a nice article? It has a step-by-step how-to, it explains what a fake is, and has been nominated for featured article. 3 times! Why? Because it had a lot of information! The buddies article is more worthy of being deleted than this. Why is it not being put up for deletion? Because buddies has plenty of information there. The fake image article has 4 times the information. Of buddies, an article that has plenty.

Christine, I got "pissed" at you earlier for calling it a "little" boys fantasy, then made a refernce to me. And I'm not 14 either... Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 00:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

=/ Syugecinspam 00:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Anyways... See below =/ meh...

I think we should keep the page, but move it to something like, [[RuneScape:Fake Images]] or summat. I think it is something to keep, but not on an article page. It deserves a page accordingly. My reason stated, it's neither opp or sup. I think articles should only be directly related to RuneScape Syugecinspam 00:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep, don't hurt me, Christine.. 0.0 The Nifty One, Speckle 01:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete: I really don't see the relevance to RuneScape and the wider community.

Ilyas:As much as I hate the slang category, it is by-and-large a dialect in the game. Are 'fakes' in RuneScape?
GangsterlsThe fakes are not like avoiding scamming, making money etc.Also I highly doubt that fakes are part of the culture. Also 'argument by non-existance' doesn't work:Just because it's not specifically mentioned in the 'Good Rules' part of the Deletion Policy means that it should be there.

What if I created an article on how to 'hack' RuneScape, which many people contributed to? And don't respond with 'Well it's against Jagex rules', because 'hacking' RuneScape is an integral part of the community that hacks.Also it's not informative whatsoever to the average RuneScape player. While money-making and scam avoidance guides will help the player 'advance' so to speak, and slang guides will help them understand the 'lingo' of RuneScape fake images are basically useless.

Chiafriend The buddies are approximately as relevant to RuneScape as the buddies. Either delete them both, or create an article on how to make buddies.
Lastly the 'community' thing is kind of overblown. Should we make an article on Non-Existant Articles because certain communities believe that they will be released soon. We're an encyclopaedia aimed at helping those who play RuneScape guys. And chill. It's just a Vote for Deletion for crying out loud...  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chaoticar (talk). 01:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete: I really don't have much to say here. It's simply not relevant. --Themurasame Hiscores 01:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

KEEP. This is a wiki. It is for information about the Wiki's subject matter. However, it is also a COMMUNITY, and RuneScape fakes are as much community as the Wiki-Fest. 7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko)

Delete i support its deletion as even though using its instructions doesnt break rules but it is simeral to guide that tells you how to break rules in my opinion --Tjayh913 01:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep, but the article does need refocused to eliminate many of the issues expressed. Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 02:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep Great article, don't delete :(--Iamzezima777 02:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep I like this article, if you delete it, you make me sick--Tealclock] 10:54 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment -Tjayh913, what's "simeral" mean?Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 14:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I don't think that Iamzezima777's vote should count as this is the only contribution he has ever made. ChristineTalk 15:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments: Christine, even if a user has few or no contributions, they still have the right to vote (I don't need to remind people of RuneScape:All editors are equal). Iamzezima777 took the time to make an account and unless someone can prove he is a sockpuppet his vote will count. I think that Tjayh913 meant 'similar', Ilyas. Also, people are voting without explaining their reasons (I like this article, if you delete it, you make me sick - That's not much of a vote... neither is Great article, don't delete or Oppose - don't hurt me Christine or It's simply not relevant.). Moving past the woefully short and unexplained votes, at least those voters declared support or oppose. Mariofreak and Spitfire's votes were assumed to be oppose and support respectively, but I have removed them from the vote count because we can't be sure of their position until they declare it. Maybe they meant to be neutral by giving comments but not declaring either way? If so, please insert Neutral or Comment before your post. Until a vote has been announced, I have removed those two votes from the vote count. I'd like to thank Syugecin for leaving his comments although he clearly stated that his vote is neutral. RuneScape:Votes for deletion really needs to explain the voting process better to avoid unexplained/unclear votes. Despite any confusion, I appreciate everyone who's commented or voted here for at least taking the time to do so and pay attention to the vfds, which are a common issue among our wiki community. Thank you to all who posted ~~ Slayer-icon.png Gangsterls Divination-icon.png talk15:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Iamzezima777 is MattDegoth BTW. He forgot his pass on MattDegoth. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 17:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete Let's say people start getting Runescape tattoos; should we create a page showing them? Fakes are done in tribute, more or less, to runescape. They have no place on the wiki. Yes, they do use runescape images, monsters and the like, but if you let them in you have to let everything in involved with runescape. Scythe.png Atlandy 23:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep As the article in question is not going against the RuneScape Wiki Policy of Deletion, and as fake images ARE a major part of RuneScape culture, along with slang and glitches, which by the way also have articles on the RuneScape Wiki, I'd have to oppose the idea of deletion. Yes, I am aware that plenty of sites have fake images, and that you believe the Wiki should only have articles on things found in-game, but as the Wiki is about all things related to RuneScape, I believe this article should stay.

--JalYt-Xil-BicycleCat 00:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: I am NOT against you, nor am I against anyone. I just believe the Wiki should stick to its motto, "The Wiki for ALL things RuneScape".

Comment If it is for "all things runescape" then should there be a page if I name my child Sir Tiffy, or my boat The Slug Menance?. All things runescape is quite a broad term. Real world gold trading sites are "part of Runescape" They are illegal, but should we have references to them? Lets say David Letterman makes a reference to Runescape one night..does he get a page?Scythe.png Atlandy 00:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be for all things Runescape that affect the actual gameplay. David Letterman saying something would not affect it, but a monster ingame would, for example. For individual players, they must be notable by most (50%+) of the Runescape population. That's my thoughts. Butterman62 00:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
By your agrugment; "all things runescape that affect gameplay" do not include fakes. They have no effect on gameplay.Scythe.png Atlandy 00:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Response: Atlandy you're distorting the concept. Fakes are certainly noticeable in the RuneScape community. We aren't talking about making articles about real people or personal possessions in the real world. We choose to exclude content which is against the rules of the game, a near unanimous decision, as the content is illegal, and inappropriate for our wiki as our goal is to inform others about elements of the game and its community without encouraging them to break the rules. Even if we wanted to include content about illegal elements of the game, if we encourage rule-breaking, Jagex could have us shut down. The [[wikia:darkrunescape:main page Dark Runescape Wiki]] does have articles about these illegal elements to educate players on what not to do, just as there are article on scams to teach players about scams which should be avoided. The main idea is that your boat, child, or David Lettermen aren't part of the game or its community. A personal view of mine is that there are legal community elements which we exclude (albeit after much debate) called other fansites because we don't want to advertise, yet they are still part of the community, and if anyone made an article on another fansite and it was well-written and unbiased, I wouldn't be the one to delete it. Bicycle Cat, I think the reference to the motto shows that you really pay attention to what the RuneScape Wiki is all about, and I applaud you. Slayer-icon.png Gangsterls Divination-icon.png talk00:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, the whole boat etc, was in response to the arguement "all thing related to Runescape". What my point is, is that if we allow fakes to be a part of the Runescape wiki, where will it end? What about fan art posted on the site? To say that fakes are noticable in the runescape community is pretty presumptous. Fakes are nothing more than a tribute to runescape, using thier images to create another image. As far as fan-sites go, we should be the only fan-site referenced. Tip-it, runehq and the like are littered throughout the wiki and it just making the wiki look weak. The wiki should stand up on its own. Scythe.png Atlandy 00:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete Slang like Lol Is used all the time on Runscape. However, saying that fakes are a part of the RuneScape community is disputeable. I have never heard of fakes mentioned on RS ingame or on the forums. However, A lot of user's here seem to like fakes, So I kinda like the idea of a Runescape:Fakes, page.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tesfan (talk).

Keepfake r gewd  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dagoth62 (talk).

Delete What is even the point of this page? It does not contain any important information relating to the game AT ALL.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by B4rr4g3 You (talk).

It has come to my attention that many of the people voting for deletion have little reason or very small explainations. It's ok to say per above but don't just say "fakes are good" or "fakes aren't in the game". Please, explain yourself.Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 22:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not just the supporters. At least four or five opposers have done the same. --Themurasame Hiscores 00:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete - I'm not against fakes, but I don't see how it's a crucial part of the community. I didn't even know about fakes before coming to the Wiki. Please, put it under another namespace or something. --Sαcrε (edit my sig) | (edit my user page) 22:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep. I liked that page, now don't let me down! 100% made by monkeys. talk|editcount22:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ilyas, wtf? Per your edit summary: Cashman had the exact kind of vote you were telling everyone NOT to have. ChristineTalk 00:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, that's not a very valid vote. Favoritism to one's work and compelling others to agree with you based on this arbitrary favoritism, IMHO, should be discounted...maybe a longer and more articulate reason? =S CHeers, RelentlessRecusant 'o the [[w:c:halo:Halopedia:Administrators|Halopedia Team]] TALKSPEAK 14:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment - WTH?! "If what Chiafriend says is true, then I smell a sockpuppet." What is that supposed to mean? Dagoth62 IS NOT a sockpuppet! And what the Hell did I say that could make someone think that? Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 06:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep. It is indeed part of the game's "culture" if not part of the game itself. However, I think it needs to be defined more clearly what is and isn't within this wiki's scope. If there were a policy that said what should and shouldn't be in articles, or whether topics should have articles at all, these long debates could be avoided entirely. Note that this keep is weak because while the topic is in my opinion worthy of an article, the content of the article itself is questionable. I don't think a lengthy how-to is really appropriate for something like this.

On an unrelated note, this page would be easier to understand if it were "delete" and "keep" instead of "support" and "oppose". And maybe easier to read if the delete and keep votes were put into different subsections. Just a thought. Skill 09:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep - I think that Fake Image is a useful article that provides alot of info. I loved going around and looking at all the players fakes before they were removed. I wanted to make them, but I couldn't figure out how. Then, I found the Fake Image arcticle. Now, I can make fakes, thanks to that arcticle. They are part of the runescape community just as much as slang, just you don't here about them as much. But, I think it should say not to upload them to the wiki.--Pandared1 15:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Based on some of what has been said, I've changed my vote. I don't agree with having actual fake images on the site, but the information is very useful. Fakes don't have a part in the game-play of RuneScape, but it does have a standing in the community of RS players. Keep the fake images away from the wiki, but leave the information on how to make them. If you don't want to see that information, you don't have to go to that page. Fletching TIRRIANGANT (TALK) 20:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete. As Christine said, RS Wiki is about quests, items, monsters etc. not learning how to create fakes. Dragon chainbody.pngEmosworldSysop crown.svg 22:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep The information is very useful, i totally agree with Tirrian. please keep it. 1diehard1 03:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment:Can you guys opposing at least change your arguments? 'It's a great page' doesn't work. I could create a stunning, beatuful Wiki page on why the Dragon Shrimp Knife will be the next Dragon weapon, but, as I and others have said page quality does not equate with page relevance. Also Gangsterls I'd rather have people with very little contributions NOT pay attention to the VFD's than create inane votes. Chaoticar 04:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep, please, do not blame me that I was The King of Fakes for this wiki, or a fimilar title. I have "given up my crown", although it's not because I like fakes at all. In fact, the reason I'm keeping it is that it's apart of RuneScape, although not in the game. It has a similar popularity to that of Fan Sites, such as or others. If you google "RuneScape Fakes", you get 698,000 results. Mr. Reeves 04:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment - 698,000 results?! Wow. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 17:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
'Commnet Hardly a good judge whether to keep or delete. If I google "runescape cheats" (Which there are none) I get 252k worth of items. Using google as your measuring stick doesn't work Scythe.png Atlandy 18:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment - As some of you have noticed, I haven't made an edit this week. Instead, I've been burried in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Anyways, I've just got back because I'm tired of reading and my eyes hurt and it seems that Sacre Fi has decided that Dagoth62 is a sock puppet. Christine, before saying anything, know that I am not biased because he voted to keep but that I know what I am saying. If you read my edit summary, it says... Dagoth is not a sockpuppet, Sacre Fi. As many of us who have been around for some time (which should include you, Sacre) will know, he is a friend of Chia's who moved away, supposedly." ........ Now as you can see, Dagoth is not a sock puppet without good proof that he is, his vote will not be erased. Thank you.Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 22:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
"fakes r gewd" is NOT a valid arguement! ChristineTalk 23:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Nonetheless, all votes count.Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 00:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Proposal - Why not move it to a User Page? With a redirect to the particular User's page, the inaccesiblity problem would be solved, the page would still be intact and it would be off the main Wiki. Suggestions? Chaoticar 05:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments & Vote

I'll start out by saying that I haven't used an article heading to make my vote more important, just to make sure it was obvious what my comments were.

Keep - Fakes are an integral part of the game and have been featured on the Letter's pages before. Commenting on above points:
  1. '"Fakes are gewd" is not a valid argument' - no but it is an opinion which is what this page is asking for.
  2. Christine makes many points. However the real question this vfD is asking is: Is the RS Wiki about the game with or without the community?
  3. If it is about the game without the community then fakes are clearly not worth an article. Nor are articles on language or even pures (which are creation entirely by the community and not built into the game - if anything they are 'built out of it' by quest requirements, etc) apart from a general overview as to what is acceptable.
    1. However I believe that the wiki should include the community. As such, articles on fakes, fan art and, as one user said, even tatoos if they become a key/notable part of the community, should be given pages in my opinion.
  4. Googling a term is not an appropriate way of testing for notability and inclusion in the wiki. We don't cover 'how to build a macro for runescape' but it will have thousands of hits. As does Zezima and N0valyfe, but nor do they get pages (as far as I know)
  5. Please lets keep away from personal attack and stereotypes as to who creates a fake. It's really not relevant to the vfd.
  6. As a word of warning, the amount of time spent by author(s) is irrelevant as to whether it should be kept. I could spend 4 months on an article about how ridiculous it is that the Number 1 player has got loads of GP and I haven't, but it still shouldn't survive a vfd. You agree that your work will be changed when you submit to an article, so we shouldn't use this as a barrier to progress.

All of above King Runite1 15:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I still stand firm with my belief that Fakes are not part of the RuneScape community. They are part of the RuneScapeWiki community; therefore, I think that it should be a RS: Fakes, page, or something of the sort. Tesfan 15:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - Christine's argument really dosen't prove that this article breaks anything in the deletion policy. As far as im concerned there is no problem having a fake image article. It is a well done article may I note. As far as im concerned the nomination could be struckthru. However it should be noted that it should be linked to out guides section. --Whiplash 15:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete, don't really need it on the wiki. Mostly just trivial to me. I mean, if you must post it, do it on an off-site place like what we did to the forums. They're just pop-culture to me. Fakes are art to you? Then make a site about it. Just not here on the wiki. Mkay that's all. Thieving-icon.pngMomento Mori Real PainNot Champagne11:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep, fakes are a fun part of literally any video game that exists. They show individuality, and, really, there's nothing wrong with them. People should be free to do what they want, this article has information on that subject. ALOT of information. Besides, what's wrong with fakes if we don't post them on this website..? Drksrpntdrgn02:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Weak Keep This is a RuneScape "Wikipedia", not a Photoshop fansite. Since photoshopping Runescape appears to be popular, I'm going against that and say 'keep'. Don't know... it just appears to be a well-written article anyhow.Earthere 01:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Eathere

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