RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Archive 25

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current project page or contact an administrator for aid if no talk page exists.


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Keep. --LiquidTalk 01:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Money making guide/Cutting granite

Feedback from MMG review OSWF task:

How long did it take for the required items for the method to buy at the GE price? If you were not able to buy some or all of the items required, please state which items you were not able to buy: Were you able to create the listed number of items in one hour of using the method? If you did not create the listed number of items in one hour, please state either how many were made in one hour/how long it took to create the items: How long did it take for the items obtained from the method to sell at the GE price? Are there any improvements that you can suggest to improve the quality of the current guide or to make the method more effective?
30-60 minutes I created less than the listed number of items 6640 Instantly sold Putting the granite on my actionbar defaulted to drop the granite rather than craft, which made it unhelpful for speeding up the method. The guide should also include the 1 crafting exp/process, adding up to 1800 crafting exp/h (or 1660/h in my case).
I was not able to buy the required items at GE price 2kg granite does not buy for anything close to GE price I created less than the listed number of items 6580 Instantly sold Usability of this guide is highly dependent on margins; a decent method even with low margins as skill required is low to nonexistent.
Over 1 day I created the listed number of items Instantly sold
Over 1 day I created the listed number of items in less than an hour 2200 5-30 minutes
8-24 hours I created the listed number of items Instantly sold If it is possible to change the left click option on granite to "craft", then mention that

Comment - The feedback wasn't super clear, but 4/5 people seemed to have considerable difficulty in buying the 2kg granite required; this may or may not mean that the guide should be deleted, depending on whether we think that these guides should only be for methods which can be completed without having to wait for items to buy/buy over GE mid price. If the guide is to be kept I would suggest changing the input to 1650 2kg granite > output 6600 500g granite based on the feedback. Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 21:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Probably keep - GP/hr wise, it doesn't cost any time to wait for GE offers to complete. Perhaps a better disclaimer is needed. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 12:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Closed - Article will not be deleted. --LiquidTalk 01:10, 8 August 2019 (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.

Max hit calculators

([[Calculator:Combat/Magic/Max hit]] and [[Calculator:Combat/Max hit melee]])

These calculators haven't been meaningfully updated since 2011, and haven't been useful since 2012. With abilities having well defined damage ranges, and with damage caps being a thing that exists (and is mostly consistent), there doesn't seem like a generic "max hit calculator" would be useful to have even if we did have one that was up-to-date.

If this RfD passes, [[Template:Melee max hit]] and [[Template:Magic max hit]] should also be deleted as they will become unused.

Delete - As nominator. -Hourglass (2011 Hallowe'en event) detail.png I Am Fendse Talk III The Spark.png- 11:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete/Meh - I think they could maybe see benefit of being updated to EoC formulae, but I'm not certain that'd be super useful. Nericat (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Closed - Judging from the lack of discussion and the fact that the calculators have been outdated for 7 years, the calculators will be deleted. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 09:38, 10 August 2019 (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.

Money making guide/Making soft clay

Feedback for MMG feedback OSWF task:

How long did it take for the required items for the method to buy at the GE price? If you were not able to buy some or all of the items required, please state which items you were not able to buy: Were you able to create the listed number of items in one hour of using the method? If you did not create the listed number of items in one hour, please state either how many were made in one hour/how long it took to create the items: How long did it take for the items obtained from the method to sell at the GE price? Are there any improvements that you can suggest to improve the quality of the current guide or to make the method more effective?
5-30 minutes I created the listed number of items in less than an hour 2040 1-4 hours
30-60 minutes I created less than the listed number of items 2044 Instantly sold Depending on patience to acquire clay, and source of water chosen, this can be a highly effective low level method. It should be noted, as the primary users of this guide will be either new to the game or lacking knowledge of merching, that patience is an utmost virtue for profitability here.
I was not able to buy the required items at GE price Clay I created the listed number of items in less than an hour 2400 I was not able to sell the items produced at GE price soft clay didn't sell at mid even after dropping significantly during a GE update after I put the initial offer in. normal clay was like 60% above GE price. At the prices things bought/sold at, this method is a loss. Soft clay mining in Prif probably killed it.
Tried to buy it for a day at 105% of its value but wasn't able to buy. Bought it after 1-4 hours at 115% of its value. (624gp each) I created less than the listed number of items 1932 4-8 hours Buying the required items for some more than GE price recudes the profit but is probably the only way to buy it, since hard clay available quantity in GE is low, with clay ring or direct soft clay mining in Priffdinas are better options for the money making.

Delete - 2/4 people had significant difficulty buying and selling the GE price, seems that to complete the method you would have to buy the products at more than the GE price and sell at less than GE price. Profit margins are already low assuming GE prices work, and feedback would suggest that making around 2,100 further decreasing profitability. Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 19:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete/eh - Seems like cutting granite is a better alternative, but I wouldn't mind keeping this because it has a lower upfront cost. As I said in the granite RFD, the only bottleneck here is waiting for GE offers to complete, which isn't really an issue. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 01:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete - Even if we only look at non-combat f2p guides with no requirements (a pretty small niche), and if we exclude the tanning guide(s) as being "technically possible but", right now there's six guides that are listed as being more than twice as profitable as this one, most of which have lower upfront costs. Plenty more if we include guides with requirements you could get in an hour or two. Probably won't improve much since it relies on hard clay supply, and anyone who'd mine hard clay could just buy some cheap bracelets and mine the soft clay people actually want. -Hourglass (2011 Hallowe'en event) detail.png I Am Me Talk III The Spark.png- 14:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Closed - MMG will be deleted. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 13:37, 10 August 2019 (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.

Power levelling

A heavily outdated page, every bullet point is (and should be) on the respective skill's training guide. This page is so ancient it doesn't even have Divination/Invention on it. It serves zero purpose by today's standards.

Delete - As nominator. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 11:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete - As denominator. Choose OptionTalk-to MitcheII Slayer of Imps (skill: 2,695). . . . . . . . . . real life easter egg, :wowee: don't tell anyone though! Talk-to MitcheII Slayer of Imps (skill: 2,695) 11:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete - Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 19:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete - As numerator. 7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko) 19:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete - As procrastinator. Dalek Sec (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete - This page hasn't really changed since I joined the wiki. ʞooɔ 20:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete - Meeeeerds msg 20:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Closed - Page will be deleted. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 08:12, 21 October 2019 (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.

The Church of You

Your reason(s).

Delete - As nominator. Should redirect to Nonexistence, articles don't need to be made for every RF reveal as they don't always pan out, this one just got through the cracks and is barely a line long anyway. Choose OptionTalk-to MitcheII Slayer of Imps (skill: 2,695). . . . . . . . . . real life easter egg, :wowee: don't tell anyone though! Talk-to MitcheII Slayer of Imps (skill: 2,695) 10:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Redirect - Just move the info to RuneFest 2013 if not already there and redirect the page to there. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 10:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Keep - Yeah, let's just keep as per everyone below. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 15:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep, and add a couple sources if we can - What's wrong with covering unreleased or scrapped content? We have plenty of pages for this sort of thing. This one has gotten > 10,000 pageviews over the course of its existence, and a quick Google search shows a fair amount of continued Reddit/RSOF/Twitter interest in it. ʞooɔ 19:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Redirect - We can cover it fine in the RuneFest article, it doesn't need it's own page. Talk to Kelsey 19:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Giving details about updates announced at RuneFest on the RuneFest article is not something we have ever done. I'm not sure why we would start now. 2620:0:1009:201:3A5B:A181:4F90:DE56 19:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Redirect - Page has barely any content and not really much word on it lately, redirect as per others jayden 19:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

"This page sucks" has never been a particularly great reason to delete (and for that matter, neither is "this content isn't coming out"). It's missing concept art, a link to the relevant YouTube clip, and a semi-detailed explanation of what the content was supposed to be. 2620:0:1009:201:3A5B:A181:4F90:DE56 20:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
It's not really "this page sucks", it's that the content of the page is easily mergeable into another page (the aforementioned RuneFest page for example). As far as I remember, the concept of "church of you" didn't really take off after the RuneFest reveal. It was never really mentioned again. I don't think something that never actually seemed to have any development time should have a dedicated page to it. You also say it's missing a "semi-detailed explanation" of what the content was supposed to be, but beyond the RuneFest reveal, there isn't really any info that is readily available to write this. jayden 10:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
It's not really easily mergeable with another page, because giving great details about revealed content on RuneFest pages is not something we've ever done. Merging it with the RuneFest page also makes it harder to find from wiki search and Google search. Mark spent four minutes talking about it, and in the very simplest case we could just have a transcript of what it was supposed to be. Right now there's nothing except useless meta-information. ʞooɔ 18:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - If something is announced at RuneFest then it is notable enough to have its own page. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 20:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Support - Jesus is the only one worthy of a church. Redirect tho Meeeeerds msg 20:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Soft support - imo kinda lame to have a one line article on something that's never coming out but also i don't feel super strongly if it were to stay as it's not harming anyone i guess. alternatively what about something like a 'Scrapped content' page which compiles all the tiny pages like this on it Star Talk ayy lmao ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 02:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Who is it helping to have all that stuff on one page, as opposed to spread out so each concept maps to a single page? ʞooɔ 02:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
me so i don't have to go to 10 different articles to read 10 lines of content Star Talk ayy lmao ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 02:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I feel like "I want to read about every piece of scrapped content right now" isn't a super common use case. And if it is, having everything neatly wrapped in the Category:Scrapped content is a whole lot nicer than having some of it in random RuneFest articles (which, by the way, wouldn't really fit in a Scrapped content category...) ʞooɔ 02:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Cook/Haidro Nericat (talk) 11:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Keep - It should be okay to have small pages, as long as the page describes something that is noteworthy in its own right and not inherently subordinate to something else. It seems from discussion above that the "Church of You" is notable in its own right. It was announced at RuneFest, but that does not make the concept subordinate to RuneFest. Oddlyoko (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Hairdo dDbvitC.pngScuzzy Betahib8CAd.png 04:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - It's still part of runescape's history, whether or not it was ever actually realized. Rwojy (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - per Cook and Haidro. iN008talk 15:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Closed - the page will not be deleted. Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 20:23, 30 November 2019 (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.

Valley of the Dead

Your reason(s).

Delete - As nominator. Should redirect to Nonexistence, articles don't need to be made for every RF reveal as they don't always pan out, this one just got through the cracks and is barely a line long anyway. Choose OptionTalk-to MitcheII Slayer of Imps (skill: 2,695). . . . . . . . . . real life easter egg, :wowee: don't tell anyone though! Talk-to MitcheII Slayer of Imps (skill: 2,695) 10:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Redirect - Just move the info to RuneFest 2013 if not already there and redirect the page to there. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 10:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Keep - Yeah, let's just keep as per everyone below. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 15:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - If something is announced at RuneFest then it is notable enough to have its own page. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 20:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Redirect - As per Salix Dalek Sec (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Haidro Nericat (talk) 11:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Haidro, same reasons as the Church of You thread. iN008talk 15:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Closed - The page will not be deleted. Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 20:29, 30 November 2019 (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.

Human technology tree

The human tech tree was a concept during Invention development that doesn't appear to have made it into the game. As far as I can see it's never been referred to in-game, and it seems that Jagex settled on the majority of things not being in a technology tree (what would have been the default, human tree?). We kindof tried to show horn the human tree in on Technology tree - but that doesn't seem accurate to how the trees actually work. I would suggest either:

1) Keep page, but indicate that it is scrapped content. 2) Delete page, move to trivia on technology tree page.

Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 14:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Support either option - My contributions Dalek SecTalk to me 14:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

2 - It's pretty confusing to call it a technology tree when it's (supposedly) the default tree and never mentioned anywhere in-game. None of the objects in the concept art are in-game so I assume this was designed to be a separate tech tree like goblin and dwarven. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 01:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

2 - From what I understand, tech trees were going to also have vampire (ran on blood), elf (ran on crystal) and gnome (ran on clockwork) tech trees, but since none of the tech tree stuff came to fruition in that manner, I would be fine with mentioning the human one as trivia. 7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko) 18:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Leaning towards 1 but w/ counter proposal for 2 - Instead of trivia, is theres enough information regarding the actual development of invention where it can be expanded on in the existing history section of the skill page, for example like a development history subsection? This would essentially be a merge. iN008talk 15:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete - --LiquidTalk 21:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

2 - Star Talk ayy lmao ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 22:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Leaning towards 1 - Isn't this similar to the discussion about keeping pages for content that was announced at RuneFest but later scrapped? Seers headband 2 chathead.png Elessar2 (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Eh, I'd say this is a different situation as it's basically just sub-content of something preexisting Star Talk ayy lmao ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 22:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

2 - I don't see a reason to keep the scrapped term around. Srylius (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Closed - the information from the page will be added to Technology tree and the page will be deleted. Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 20:36, 11 December 2019 (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.

Money making guide/Buying dragon bitter

We had 10 response for this method in the recent money making guide testing OSWF task. 7/10 indicated that the dragon bitters could not be sold at ge price. There does not seem to be enough demand for the method to be done reliably, and there are other methods which have no requirements that could be done instead.

Delete - As nominator. Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 21:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete - EX-TER-MI-NATE My contributions Dalek SecTalk to me 21:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete - HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 11:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Closed - MMG will be deleted. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 03:46, 4 January 2020 (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.

[[:Calculator:Summoning/BlueTest]]

Was only a test page to test fixing issue at main page without excessive editing. Please, also remove [[Calculator:Template/Summoning/BlueTest|template page]].

Delete - As nominator. Dem (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Closed - As it should have been a speedy delete. Seers headband 2 chathead.png Elessar2 (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Post closed comment - Template has also been nuked. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 15:44, 23 January 2020 (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.

Money making guide/Collecting swamp toads

This isn't a very effective method - the profit per hour is low compared to others, including methods available in f2p. The MMG feedback suggests that the output number is a little too high as well, with testers averaging more like 527 per hour.

Delete - As nominator. Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 22:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete - HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 11:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)\

Keep - the only reason this is not high profit anymore is because of the Instant Growth Beans that used to be used on Hops Patches for Grapevines/Reeds for profit. I expect that with the instant growth potion replacing the beans and the requirement of seeds that the value of Swamp Toads is going to increase, and this money making method will become viable again. Choose OptionTalk-to MitcheII Slayer of Imps (skill: 2,695). . . . . . . . . . real life easter egg, :wowee: don't tell anyone though! Talk-to MitcheII Slayer of Imps (skill: 2,695) 04:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete - The nomination was done a few months ago, and even to this date the gp/hr is fairly small compared to pretty much anything else. Even if this becomes a thing again, it will for sure still be under most of the other Money Making Methods out there --Rederdex (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep - Just set the threshold for displaying a MMG in the main table higher instead. Deleting a MMG is making the assumption that it'll never be profitable in the future, ever. There's (relatively) no harm in having a ton of bad methods documented on the wiki, as they may become good some day. If the current page rate of 544/hour is too high, set it to something like 500-520 and call it a day. -Towelcat (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep - Agree with comments that it may be even more profitable in the future, and it was a common method in the past. The better move for these mmgs might be adding a default filter to the mmg overview pages to only display methods over a given threshold. Seers headband 2 chathead.png Elessar2 (talk) 08:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus to delete. The argument that prices are likely to change especially in the light of recent updates to the game is a strong one. Users are reminded to check current prices for MMG viability. --LiquidTalk 21:32, 28 January 2020 (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.

Emotes/Operating

Having a page which is just a list of things is an extremely outdated concept for the wiki these days. This is a particularly bad example, with a large number of animations making the page laggy. A category is a much better way to capture this information, and I have created Category:Items with an emote to replace it.

Delete - As nominator. Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 20:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete - That page scares me My contributions Dalek SecTalk to me 20:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete - Does give me a bit of a fright but, i feel it would be better off so that it removes alot of the lag from pages Shenz (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Neutral - A category is better in theory, but consider the situation where someone is trying to figure out what item does a particular emote; they know what the emote looks like but can't remembere the name of the item. It's far easier to scroll through the gifs than it is to click through each individual page on a category just to see the gifs. If deleted, I think there should still be somewhere that shows all the gifs for easily finding an item via the emote if you don't already know the item name, possibly a separate category for something like images of items with an emote. Californ1a (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - I kinda agree with Californ1a. I definitely see the merits in a category being much better for organizational purposes, but I think a lot of players would like to be able to see these different emotes all at once, and don't want to have to parse through a whole category. It's not transcluded on the emotes page so no one sees it unless they want to. ɳex undique 02:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - There's no need to delete the page entirely. People might want to look at the animations. Just make it look like Solomon's General Store/Animations. There, the tables the animations are in are initially collapsed, saving room. The gifs are also a lot smaller, but still easy to see. NeutralinoTalk?This is a pale wisp. 02:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Neutral - The page is very laggy and takes a relatively long time to load, do to all the gifs. On the other hand I agree that it's a nice page to have if someone is looking for a specific emote, or an item that causes it. Either way I think the category should also exists. Seers headband 2 chathead.png Elessar2 (talk) 08:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion - If we keep the page I'll write a quick gadget so that instead of all the giffs loading there's buttons to load each gif, and a button at the top to load all. That way the page loads fast, and someone whose looking for a specific emote can still load all of them, and someone perusing can just load ones they want to preview. Seers headband 2 chathead.png Elessar2 (talk) 08:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - per Neutralino, a cleanup of the page would be better than deleting it. Chen (talk) 09:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - per Neutralino. Choose OptionTalk-to MitcheII Slayer of Imps (skill: 2,695). . . . . . . . . . real life easter egg, :wowee: don't tell anyone though! Talk-to MitcheII Slayer of Imps (skill: 2,695) 09:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Closed - The page will not be deleted. Elessar has been contacted regarding his comment about writing his quick gadget. --LiquidTalk 21:49, 28 January 2020 (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.

Java

It is difficult to identify any additional information that should be placed on this page, keeping in mind that this is a wiki for Runescape and not for programming languages. As for the existing content:

  • The majority of the technical information is partially inaccurate, outright wrong, or plain nonsense. Most of the information can never be sourced (including all of the current 'source needed' tags) as they refer to client/server internals.
  • The update history is a partial duplicate of Game client and should likely have never been placed on this page.
  • The trivia section contains one entry (which is not in fact trivia), and Game client includes this information.

The reasons underlying the maximum values may be of interest to some users, although these are all consequences of developer decisions and not inherently a restriction of the Java language (e.g. it would be possible, and feasible, to have stack sizes above 2.1bil while still using Java). If this information is preserved, it should likely be elsewhere.

Delete - As nominator. Toes for Tea (talk) 11:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete - Most of the things on this article are not related to Java and could be placed as trivia points on more relevant articles instead. Chen (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Redirect - Assuming a lot of this information is already on other pages, and whatever is unique to the page is purely bad information, it would make more sense to have this page be a redirect to Game Client, since that is what it's also referred to as. Although, is there any evidence that Jagex uses java anywhere else? Badassiel 15:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Merge - Merge the contents into Game client and RuneScript, the latter of which is interpreted with Java. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 11:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there's any content on Java that either isn't already on one of those pages, or should be on one and is also sourcable. In other words - I'm not convinced there's anything to merge. Toes for Tea (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Merge - per Haidro. 5-x Talk 12:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Merge - per Haidro BetsanTalk 13:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Closed - The page contents were mostly merged into RuneScript with some wording changes to remove some of the citation needed tags. The page will be redirected to Game Client. --LiquidTalk 21:59, 28 January 2020 (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.

Charm:Gleaelg

So, about once a year, someone notices this page exists, and asks people why. I guess this time it's my turn.

This page isn't used anywhere. Gleaelg doesn't reference these pages, and as far as I can tell it never did - it had a regular drop table added in 2017, which was the second edit to the gleaelg page since the charm log was created. The other charms sprites never had pages like this at all. People who look at these dates and are familiar with the history of charm logs will realise that not too long after this page was created, charm logs were overhauled to rely a Javascript gadget instead. The gadget doesn't handle this page at all, however, and the bot that used to deal with charm logs retired in 2015.2

are only kind of familiar with charm logs might not be aware that the gadget that deals with charm log submissions was overhauled in 2018. Those slightly more familiar will realise that the gadget wasn't even around in 2014, when this page was made. The bot what used to run the charm logs of old was retired in 2015. No part of this page has worked properly since, because the gadget only deals with {{Charm data}}, which this log doesn't use - and which it can't use in its current state, because that template only believes in four types of charms.

And, being completely un-updated, by my count there are like nine old charm-related templates that are only used by these two pages, some of which were only ever used for them.

Now, we have two options, because just leaving these ancient artifacts lying around is probably irresponsible. Either we modify Module:Charm log and MediaWiki:Gadget-charmadd-core.js to the point where they can be aware of when they're dealing with charms and when they're dealing with charm slices and teach them to sometimes deal with five charm types instead of four, all in service of the functionality of one page that barely exists and two pages that have never existed.
Or we can just keep using the drop tables already on the pages.

I'd suggest we go with the latter.

Note: If this RfD passes it would also mean deleting the ancient charm log submission page [[Gleaelg/Charm log]], the otherwise unused templates {{t|Charm sprite data}}, {{t|Charm log header}}, {{t|CharmLogUpdateGuide}}, {{t|Charm log submission preload}}, as well as those pages' documentation subpages and the otherwise unused category [[:Category:Charm log submissions]]. All of those apart from {{t|Charm sprite data}} would likely also be up for deletion following a decision to modernise the way the charm sprite's charm log is handled.

Delete - As nominator. -Hourglass (2011 Hallowe'en event) detail.png I Am Me Talk III The Spark.png- 22:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete - keep using the drop tables on the pages. Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 21:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Delete - The page drop tables should work fine for this situation. I don't see a benefit to keeping it as is, and the effort cost is prohibitive for making the module and gadget modifications for this single edge case. Smithing.pngAescopalus talkCrafting.png 01:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Closed - The pages will be deleted. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 22:00, 28 February 2020 (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:Master runecrafter armour case.png

This image was uploaded and added to the master runecrafter robes page for the purpose of showing readers where to find the robes in the armour case. A speedy delete request has been made with the reason of an image being unnecessary. Since there has been disagreement about whether the image should be deleted or not I am putting this to a full request for deletion.

Delete - In general I'm pretty sure we try to sway away from interface pics. Additionally, we don't do this for other things in armour case, and seeing as the interface is presumably re-sizable, exact location can change Star Talk ayy lmao ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 21:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

It is resizable (when accessed via the bank), plus further down the interface there are several 'only shown if you own them' item sets (golden warpriest and barrows). Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 21:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Not able to resize armour case interface in POH or bank. and also don't see the show only if own option. How did you do it? Chrislee33 (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Cannot resize the armour case inventory - always shows 10 items per row. if window width reduced, then cannot see the whole row. Same thing with Diango's inventory - 14 items per row; if window width reduce cannot see the whole row again. Chrislee33 (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
The costume room interface is 14 items per row when accessed via mobile, and Diango's interface is 18. Badassiel 05:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I dont have mobile, can someone upload the screenshots for both of them Chrislee33 (talk) 08:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete - We'd have to make an image for every single in the wardrobe if we kept this image, which would be an unnecessary mess. And as star said, everyone's interface is different which makes a screenshot such as this obsolete. Talk to Kelsey 21:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete - Per Kelsey. We have the icon pic and the armour case interface pic, this adds nothing. Meeeeerds msg 21:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Question or Problem in need of solution - There are 110 sets of armour that are in the mahogany armour case, There is no search function like in Diango's inventory. It took me a while to find the master runecrafter armour. It was the purpose of the image to show players where to find the robes in the armour case. The window is not resizable so the points made about exact location changing do not apply. So, 109 more images need to be made for the other sets, should not a problem for a Wikian! Not that we already spend a little time playing the game, LOL. This would be another good project for us unless there is another solution for finding an armour set faster and easier. Chrislee33 (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
These points aside, I'd still support deleting the image - would much prefer Mej's solution below Star Talk ayy lmao ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 04:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I'd rather have a better solution than an image for each single outfit. I don't think people are going onto the wiki specifically to try and find where the outfit is in the interface. I'd rather have something interactable on just one page. Talk to Kelsey 04:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Maybe Jagex can add a search function similiar to Diango's interface Chrislee33 (talk) 08:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
@Chrislee33 is the difficulty finding the correct icon or the location of an already known icon for you? I wonder if it would be better to simply make a note of which icon refers to which set on the relevant page(s) and avoid issues around resizing as noted above. cqm talk 07:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Most of the i don't remember the icon and have to mouse-over to get the label name. i sometimes dont even remember if i have it or not. Chrislee33 (talk) 08:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete If being able to find the armour's location in the interface is problematic, we should just make a table on the armour case page to show where everything is.Mejrs (talk) 04:00, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

There is already a table of the 110 sets on the Armour case page (about 5+ screens depending on browser font size). I already updated the armour case interface image. Just need to add a column to the table indicating row and column. Also add location link on the many armour set pages. Players would need to: #1: click on link. #2: Ctrl-F to enter the armour set name to find it in the large table and #3: note row and column. Having a picture that saves a thousand words and/or steps would be easier for players; but whatever the group consensus. Chrislee33 (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Seems the mobile version has 14 items per row for the armour case and 18 items per row for Diango. may need a second location column for mobile? Chrislee33 (talk) 08:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete - I may be wrong in my assessment here, but any interface images I've come across in mainspace usage are to show you what it looks like in-game; having a whole interface image to show you where a particular listing is for a specific item (or, in this case, item set) is a waste of space. One of the few times I've seen something close to this is with gameplay settings, and even then it's just a single image showing a different sub-interface for each tab. I would be in support of what mejrs suggested if finding stuff in the interface is an issue. Edit: I feel like an argument could be made for moving the settings into a transcript space, but that's a different argument for another time. Badassiel 05:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete - As has been discussed above, I don't believe it adds value to have an image for each location of this interface. Not only that, as pointed out above it would mean that we would need to take images of all combinations of locations of items in interfaces that aren't resizeable. That is, unless we made a rule such as "do only for interfaces that do not have a search functionality. If there is no existing order in the interface itself (as in, it's not alphabetical or sorted by level), maybe it would add value to have a table similar to what we have for Diango/Reclaimables? Sir Veylantz (talk) 09:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete - I understand the annoyance, I forget where things are. It helps that it now highlights what you have and what is in your inventory that can be added. IF anything this would be better as a template, that maybe just gives row and column position, and perhaps neighbors (for any item in the interface), not sure an image is necessary. Seers headband 2 chathead.png Elessar2 (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete - One image of the armour case interface already exists, we don't need another 110+ to show where each armour within that interface is located especially when the contents are already listed on the Armour case page pjJ4pBM.png Abyssal vine whip.png 15:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Delete - Per everyone. -- Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 01:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Closed - Image will be deleted. --LiquidTalk 20:39, 19 March 2020 (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.

User:ChangingLane/Sandbox/Template:Artefacts list

Your reason(s). Wanted to try and create a template to list all artefacts, which could then be used with parameters to specify the dig site (similar to the hotspot list) but currently lack the knowledge and know-how to get it working.

Delete - As nominator. ChangingLane (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Closed + deleted - Gonna just speedy delete this since it's in your userspace. ʞooɔ 09:12, 16 April 2020 (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.

ANTIPOISON ++

I'm not sure there needs to be a redirect for all-caps, but I don't really know the Wiki's stance on whether or not there can be 'too many' of something like a redirect or if it would be considered 'useless' since technically it is a possibility that someone left caps lock on (lol), so requesting deletion but I don't personally think it's a big deal if it exists. I'm kinda curious what others think.

(soft) Delete - As nominator. Walk here Chee (skill: 2895)  Choose OptionFollow Chee (skill: 2895) Talk to Chee (skill: 2895) View Equipment Chee (skill: 2895) Req Assist Chee (skill: 2895) Examine Chee (skill: 2895) Cancel 17:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

sure - as for this content, i don't particularly care if it's deleted (caps should redirect to the non-caps version automatically, but also there's not really any issue with it existing). as for the topic in general, redirects are cheap and don't cause any harm by existing :) Star Talk ayy lmao ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 22:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Neutral - It's a remnant of a darker time where if you left caps lock on, you wouldn't get directed to the correct page (the redirect in question was made in 2011). There's no harm in keeping them, but with recent improvements they're not necessary anymore. Badassiel 22:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep - All caps lock redirects are no longer really necessary, but redirects are cheap. It seems like more effort to go through and delete all of these redirects than just keep them, especially since they're not really harming anything. Also they can still be useful sometimes: Antipoison ++, a redirect to Antipoison++, didn't exist until a few days ago, so the caps lock one was helpful in this case. ɳex undique 23:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

While it's certainly easier to keep them (do nothing), it's also trivial to generate a list of these cruise control redirects and yeet 'em with a bot. Would take maybe two minutes tops (of effort) for someone with the perms and an existing yeet script. -Towelcat (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
If someone also makes sure that we have lowercase equivalents for every deleted redirect, then I wouldn't have a strong opinion on whether they're deleted or not. But that part seems like more work for little reward. ɳex undique 01:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete - I don't feel strongly about this but I think that it would be more appropriate, when typing "Antipoison " in the search bar, that Antipoison ++ will show up in sentence case rather than all caps. - Habblet (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment - Is this a bug? Should this not exist in the search bar? I'm not a fan of deleting this as a way to circumvent the bug, who knows how many other redirects are like this? Also not a fan of just deleting every single uppercase redirect, that still doesn't solve the problem. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 01:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment I just want to stress that I don't really mind either way this goes, I was just curious if the redirect was necessary - I'm all for making things easier to find, I was just concerned with like, 'if there are a lot of these caps lock redirects are they necessary/making wiki slower in any way?' if it turns out that these caps lock redirects don't slow the wiki in any way I'd even be okay with a caps lock redirect for every page (if possible/reasonable) - the only reason I brought this up really was I noticed when I tried to add the 'Antipoison ++' redirect that it redirected from all caps which I thought was really odd, lol. Walk here Chee (skill: 2895)  Choose OptionFollow Chee (skill: 2895) Talk to Chee (skill: 2895) View Equipment Chee (skill: 2895) Req Assist Chee (skill: 2895) Examine Chee (skill: 2895) Cancel 06:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Neutral - If someone wants to clean this up systematically, I would say to be my guest. There's no real harm in leaving it though, it's just no longer useful to my understanding. Per Nex's point, there should be some sort of check to make sure we're not negatively impacting accessibility if a clean-up is performed. Smithing.pngAescopalus talkCrafting.png 18:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment - For previous discussion, see RS:Requests for deletion/KING BLACK DRAGOB. -Hourglass (2011 Hallowe'en event) detail.png I Am Me Talk III The Spark.png- 13:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Let's bear in mind that was an issue because of a bug in Wikia's search suggestions which we no longer use. cqm talk 16:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Closed - There is a consensus to delete the ANTIPOISON ++ page, as these redirects are remains of more defunct search system. With our modern search system, capitalisation-related redirects no longer matter and as a result, other all-caps redirects may also be deleted. Since redirects have virtually no cost upon the wiki, larger efforts to seek out similar redirects is unnecessary. That said, if such an effort was carried out, it'd be worthwhile, where applicable, to make sure deleted redirects have a lowercase equivalent as this may still be helpful to users. Talk to Kelsey 01:01, 5 May 2020 (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.

Glacor/Strategies

Your reason(s). The wiki has a responsibility to not provide misleading information, which much of this article comprises of at this point.

Delete - As nominator. Mistydarkness (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment - Would it not be better to rework the article rather than deleting it? Talk to Kelsey 02:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment - Probably, adding a small paragraph to the glacor page itself, and deleting this one Mistydarkness (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - Rework can be done. Twig Talk 772kZGs.png 03:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - What exactly is 'misleading'? Would you be able to provide an example for me please? It looks fairly out of date but isn't reading like it's deceptive. Achievements Coelacanth0794 Talk Contribs 05:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Closed - the page will not be deleted. I've tagged it as obsolete. Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 09:49, 25 May 2020 (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.

Money making guide/Killing Automaton Guardians

The main target of this guide, Static gloves, were worth 17m coins at its creation but are now down to 250k coins and unlikely to ever go back up. Players with the skills and equipment to follow this method have far more profitable options.

Delete - As nominator. Oshtur (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep - In most cases I believe obsolete mmgs should be kept, and I don't think this situation is different enough to be an exception. While it's not very profitable now, in a year or two herb/seed/etc. prices may drastically increase and it could be useful again, and we have a specific category for these types of guides that we can add it to until it becomes profitable in the future. We gain nothing by deleting it, and it doesn't hurt to just keep it on ice until it (possibly) becomes useful again. ɳex undique 21:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I am fine with marking it obsolete, as that appears to keep most guides in that category from showing up on the MMG list. Money making guide/Stringing oak shortbows appears to be an exception, as it listed in the obsolete category but still shows up on the MMG list for some reason. I checked a few others and they do not, so not sure what is going on there. Oshtur (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep and Obsolete it - Per Nex. For your example, I'm not actually seeing it appear in the obsolete category from my end, so the fact that it is showing up is functioning as intended. Whether or not it should be is a separate question, but functionally, double check and see if the page itself has that category assigned. Smithing.pngAescopalus talkCrafting.png 15:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

RFD has been removed from the page. This can be closed. Oshtur (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Closed - Withdrawn. ɳex undique 23:30, 9 June 2020 (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:Angbr IPA

Subset of {{Brackets}} functionality. Apologies for its unnecessary creation & in advance for any additional RFDs~

Delete - As nominator. Guthix balance flask (4).pngAikhana TalkQuest.png 08:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Closed - I think this could be a speedy delete. You made this template for a specific purpose and it both has never been used and is no longer necessary. If there's any future ones, you can just add {{d|<reason>}} to it and explain the reasoning. ɳex undique 14:54, 14 June 2020 (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:Immune to summoning

This category appears to be an unused duplicate of Category:Familiar-immune_monsters which is already in use, and which better follows the naming scheme of other monster immunity categories such as Category:Poison-immune monsters and Category:Stun-immune monsters.

Delete - As nominator. ThetaZero (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Closed - This probably falls under speedy delete. It's an unused duplicate category. Thanks for bringing it up. ɳex undique 16:55, 14 June 2020 (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.

Edgeville Reconstruction Committee

The article is an orphan (no pages link to it) which means that finding the page will only happen if someone specifically looks for it - I personally can't justify linking Oziach's page to it, because this appears to be the only reference in game to this article, so the entire subject could be suitably covered on Oziach's page.

Delete - As nominator. NYX TRYX | E 10:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete - This isn't an actual thing... it's just Patch Notes humour. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 10:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

By the way, a page being an orphan shouldn't be a criteria for deleting. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 13:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete - Couldn't we Speedy delete this?. Meeeeerds msg 11:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment - If it doesn't actually exist, then I suppose it would qualify for speedy, yes. NYX TRYX | E 11:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete - per Haidro Smithing.pngAescopalus talkCrafting.png 13:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete - I considered if we could salvage the reference in the Trivia section of Rebuilding Edgeville, but the patch notes comment (2007) predates the destruction of Edgeville in Ritual of the Mahjarrat (2011) by several years, so it's just a coincidental reference and not planned trivia. ThetaZero (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete - Good ol' patch notes humour. Lava hawk.png BlackHawk (Talk)    18:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Closed - Page will be deleted. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 02:18, 24 June 2020 (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.

Maikeru

(I just want to note here I have nothing against Maikeru, I just don't think we need a redirect for him to skill mastery)

Per RS:BLP, Maikeru is not:

  1. 'Highly notable' for skill mastery (which is the redirect location)
  2. 'Specifically mentioned by Jagex' (to my knowledge)
  3. 'A highscore first' (for any category)

Note: [[Couchy]] page does not exist despite him being a Seasonal HiScore first, so I don't know if it should be created to redirect to Seasonal HiScores or if that is necessary in the first place.


Walk here Chee (skill: 2895)  Choose OptionFollow Chee (skill: 2895) Talk to Chee (skill: 2895) View Equipment Chee (skill: 2895) Req Assist Chee (skill: 2895) Examine Chee (skill: 2895) Cancel 12:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Support - As per RS:BLP or like I know it RS:PDDA. ;) Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 12:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Support - I don't think this really needs a formal RfD as per RS:BLP. Be bold. Lava hawk.png BlackHawk (Talk)    12:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment - I made the redirect, to be honest it was because it had been at the top of the search digest for quite a long time, and thought it might've been a nice idea for it to actually direct somewhere. However, I'm not against this, as per above.

Perhaps a redirect to Atonement as he was the first to achieve? Fire cape detail.png TzTok-Gas TM 13:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment - Oh, in that case when it's in the search digest, then it might be best to redirect to RS:BLP making it clear that players shouldn't get articles. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 14:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Would that then become applicable to usernames currently have redirects, like Zezima, for example? Fire cape detail.png TzTok-Gas TM 15:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I'd say yes. Do that for all players who have a redirect and any future ones who appear on the search digest. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 15:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
This. Legaia2Pla · ʟ · 23:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Support - As per others. Talk to Kelsey 23:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Support - Per RS:BLP this shouldn't exist and I'm surprised this hasn't been dealt with yet. -Legaia2Pla · ʟ · 23:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Support - per all .Smithing.pngAescopalus talkCrafting.png 23:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Support linking to RS:BLP - I'm not sure if people are trying to find his YouTube or twitch stuff, but I support the proposed redirect to BLP as per above. Badassiel 05:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Support redirect to RS:BLP- Per others Seers headband 2 chathead.png Elessar2 (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Closed - The redirect will be deleted. A separate discussion should be made in regards to Zezima and any other player redirects (if there are any). Talk to Kelsey 19:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was delete.

The Gnome's Promise, The Reaver and The Saucy Wench

The Gnome's Promise, The Reaver and The Saucy Wench are ships mentioned only in the Rocking Out quest. They are part of a puzzle in which the player must convince a customs sergeant that they are a pirate, and must correctly state information about these ships. Since the puzzle varies per player, the ships have no actual entity unlike what it may appear when reading these pages. One ship belongs to the Customs and Excise Office and the other two are pirate vessels who are either sunk or boarded.

Instead of having this information duplicated across three pages, they should be redirected to Rocking Out.

Redirect - As nominator. Habblet (talk|c) 10:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Redirect - Seems appropriate to me. Badassiel 13:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment - To amend my statement (because I just looked at the pages in question), it also seems that they only really exist from a lore/quest perspective. At best, those particular articles could be seen as stubs. This further leads me to believe that having unique pages for them is unnecessary. Badassiel 13:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Redirect - As the information is player specific. Lava hawk.png BlackHawk (Talk)    13:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Redirect - Per all above. Legaia2Pla · ʟ · 14:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment - There needs to be information about these ships in the main quest article in my opinion. I don't recall seeing it earlier. Legaia2Pla · ʟ · 00:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Merge - Talk to Kelsey 17:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Would prefer we merge this into a single page (maybe "The Gnome's Promise, The Reaver and The Saucy Wench") than redirect to Rocking Out, which doesn't cover the ships very well (and probably can't without disrupting the flow of the guide). I don't see a super strong reason why this is different than Calsidiu or Pride in Chaos). ʞooɔ 17:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

It's fine to mention the ship names as the possibilities, and the guide could do with an example case. I agree with having pages for fictional characters or subjects which are off-hand mentioned. Both of the examples you mention have their own "entity", while these ships do not.
If the ship names were randomly generated and many combinations were possible, would you think it deserves its own page? Three names is not the same as 50, but the end result is the same: a puzzle mechanic, played only through dialogue, in which none of the names have any meaning whatsoever. Only the fact that they were manually created makes them worthy of individual mention (but not its own page, in my opinion). We would find a way to word it properly in either case. Again, I'm all for having pages for subjects that don't appear in-game, even fictional characters - it's only this edge case that makes an exception, to me. Habblet (talk|c) 18:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
If they were randomly generated, and we had a nice name to refer to the set, I'd want a page for that thing. I agree that "The Reaver" by itself doesn't have anything useful to be said, but the three together do. ʞooɔ 18:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
If the puzzle mechanics were complex enough I too would want a subpage for it, like we do for The World Wakes door puzzle. But making puzzle pages for things that don't have in-game entities isn't very common. We would be making a page (not subpage) for a dialogue-only puzzle mechanic that can be addressed through the quest guide, only because of the uniqueness of the names and not because of the ships having any identity themselves (so, this wouldn't be the case if we were talking about generic coloured ships). Habblet (talk|c) 18:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I guess the disconnect here is, I'm thinking about them as ship entities, not as a puzzle. It's not much of a puzzle. ʞooɔ 22:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I see what you mean. The ships exist, i.e., the customs office does own a ship that boarded a ship and sunk another. I guess I should've had more emphasis on their identity rather than entity. I'm still unconvinced about merging them in a page, though. It would basically be a page grouping three different ships together, which isn't something that's done for NPCs, items or scenery.
The defining trait for making a page about an entity that does not appear in-game is to have a name. Generally, they either do or don't. In this case the name varies per player, which complicates things. It's not equal to not having a name, but I'd prefer to treat them as nameless entities, and be mentioned as part of a larger page with their peculiarity. Habblet (talk|c) 14:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Redirect - Specifically because it varies by player and is not its own entity. Oppose a merge called "The Gnome's Promise, The Reaver and The Saucy Wench" - I can't think of any similar examples of multiple narrative entities on a single page. I'd prefer leaving it granularized rather than merging three ships onto one page. Smithing.pngAescopalus talkCrafting.png 00:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

What would you change about the Rocking Out article to make the redirect make sense? ʞooɔ 00:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Two options I can think of:
  1. An added table and more flavor text to the third paragraph in this section, then redirect to that section (least amount of effort)
  2. Alternatively, the information is contained on a single piece of interactive scenery that doesn't have its own article yet called "Notices". We could tie the information to the piece of interactive scenery as a case of a single object with written information on it, cause the redirects to go there, explain the variability, and have a reference in that same section of the article to the "Notices" object. This one is more similar to the merge you're thinking of, but I'm wouldn't be opposed to it because it's a single entity with information about other entities, as opposed to multiple entities in a single page (which is the primary problem I have with merging in its current form). Smithing.pngAescopalus talkCrafting.png 01:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Second option seems best. Habblet (talk|c) 14:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I'm good with option #2. I was thinking about proposing this but wanted to see how much support there was for a joint ship article first. ʞooɔ 16:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Closed - The pages will be redirected to Rocking Out, however if someone does create the aforementioned Notices page, the redirects can be changed to that page. Talk to Kelsey 19:37, 23 September 2020 (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.

Herbs (Wergali)

What is the point? We already have Wergali seed and Grimy wergali. Such page does not exist for any of the other herbs either (I think)?

Delete - As nominator. Dragon dagger.png AmoVos 16:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - It exists because Wergali (and Fellstalk, which doesn't have the page created yet) are oddities in that they have there own object (interactive scenery) for the plant whereas most herbs share an object (Herbs (plant)). This page exists as part of the ongoing work to create pages for all interactive scenery. Seers headband 2 chathead.png Elessar2 (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - In line with Elessar2s opinion there seems to be some purpose behind the page. However, I do think some ammendments have to be made to the page to make clear that it is about the interactive scenery object, further discussing how it differs from other herbs. This would avoid any future confusion. Zorak plorak - Talk Hiscores 13:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - per Elessar Smithing.pngAescopalus talkCrafting.png 01:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - leave herbs alone Choose OptionTalk-to MitcheII Slayer of Imps (skill: 2,695). . . . . . . . . . real life easter egg, :wowee: don't tell anyone though! Talk-to MitcheII Slayer of Imps (skill: 2,695) 01:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Closed - Article will not be deleted. Lava hawk.png BlackHawk (Talk)    12:43, 20 November 2020 (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.

Boots of Arkaneeses

In September 2009, there was a successful RfD for the Golden Boots of Arkaneeses page (which is the exact same content as this page, the "golden" is just in the prose and not the title. This should change if this page stays). The reasoning was that, because this item did not appear in-game in any form other than a brief mention, it was not suitable for a stand-alone page, per RS:G. Recently, however, an editor has readded the article. Rather than delete it outright because it had passed an RfD and did not pass a RfU, I thought it would be best to re-try the RfD. RS:G has changed a lot in the past 11 years and so has our understanding of what deserves an article and what does not. We now have many articles for content for which there are only brief references. Personally, I'd like to keep this page up but I think it is necessary to overrule or affirm the previous RfD on the record.

Oppose - As nominator. ɳex undique 14:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep - Weird original RfD. We have plenty of pages about similar one-off dialogue mentions, many of which are from ~10 years ago. ʞooɔ 23:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep - If the Golden Monkey of Tee-Ta-Toh gets its own article, then this should as well. Smithing.pngAescopalus talkCrafting.png 23:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep - Even if obscure and only briefly mentioned, it would be valuable to keep track of all of these named items that are only briefly alluded to. After all, if they are not mentioned anywhere but the articles of characters who talk about them, they will likely not be seen by people unless they already know about them, meaning that they will keep languishing in obscurity. And you never know when they will become relevant once more to the game's narrative. AquaMage2459 (talk) 06:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment - I purposely excluded 'golden' from the title because Sir Percivel refers to them in the quest as the "boots of Arkaneeses". Thus I assumed King Arthur says "golden" in a descriptive sense, not because they're actually called that. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 07:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Closed - Boots of Arkaneeses will not be deleted. Talk to Kelsey 02:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


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