RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Archive 7

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current project page or contact an administrator for aid if no talk page exists.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was delete. 16:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Guides

This template should be deleted. It is made in the style of the other browsing templates (skills, metal items, bows, ores), and those work fine. However, the articles in those templates change very infrequently. New skills aren't introduced very often, and new weapons or ores inside the area of the templates don't come very often. However, people can come to the wiki and make a new guide whenever they want. To be useful, this template would have to be updated often. It was started long ago, and some of the articles change. The jewellery article, for example, has gone through many changes and isn't a guide anymore, and for a while no one had updated the template. Despite the upkeep that would have to go into maintaining this template, it has no signifigant advantage over the guides category. For these reasons, I vote that we remove this template from the pages it is on and delete it. -- Couchpotato99 (talk) (contribs) 21:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Support. Yarr, it not be needed.--Richard 22:57, 30 August 2006 (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. 07:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

T. S. Church

I believe this page should be deleted due to the following reasons:

  • Is he a notable J-Mod (e.g. Andrew Gower)? No.
  • Is he an NPC? No.
  • Is he RuneScape-related? No, other than the fact he wrote the RuneScape novel.

In other words, I say delete. Derilith (talkcontribs) forgot to sign this comment.

Strong keep - He (assuming he's a he) wrote the RuneScape novel. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 00:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep - This wiki covers the runescape universe and, having written the novel, T. S. is indeed now a part of it. 00:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Per above m_64001ba65798346462302ad688b422-1.jpgAtlandy 18:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep per above. Just because he isn't part of the game doesn't make him unnotable. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 03:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep - but only as long as the book is a good read. ~kytti khat 19:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Even if the book is not the best, T.S. is now part of Runescape triviaPeacefulsage 01:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC).

Keep - I think the new book is going to get quite a bit of attention when it's released, and the information in it is going to spawn quite a few good articles. As part of the ever-growing RuneScape universe, Church deserves his own article. Obviously, people are going to come here looking for information on him, and we ought to provide that. Morian Smith 02:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep - He IS the author of the first RS novel, and therefore notable. The book is definately part of RS trivia, and now so is Church, its author. Excalo 15:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge This does not need a separate article, and should be merged into Betrayal at Falador. The fact is that we know very little about this person, and most of the information in the article is about the book, not the person. Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 00:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge I think this article should become a section of the article on the book, i would only agree with this article if he becomes the author of many runescape books --Tjayh913 02:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep: I don't give a shit if you say some made up BS about this guy. The Wiki is for everything and anything RuneScape related. If what you're saying is true, then Constant Tedder (sounds gay, I know) shoudn't have an article either. http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/6032/bt3sw5.png Done whoozy! 02:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

O fuck dat shiz n*gg*. May be coloured blue in the near future.earth(t)

Keep per Blanko. May be coloured blue in the near future.earth(t) 13:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep, but I'd be ok with a merge in the Betrayal at Falador article. Steelhorse66 18:02, 24 July 2008 (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 As a similar and more widely-known template already exists, the result of this VfD was delete. Christine 17:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC).

Template:Information

This template is not needed. It is about the same thing as Template:Stub, Template:Cleanup, or Template:Under construction. It should be deleted. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 13:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete as nominator. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 13:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per C Teng, the contents of the template is basically copied from Template:Under Construction. --Magic potion (4).pngCFLM Talk # Sign 13:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete for obvious reasons. May be coloured blue in the near future.earth(t) 15:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - serves no purpose. We have all the necessary templates to cover all possible situations.   az talk   15:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - As already stated, is a redundant template. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 16:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Huff - Useless. --Drummer (speak) 17:10, 25 July 2008 (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.23:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Fletching guild

This article does not describe a real piece of ingame content. It is not a real guild and is no longer even popular. There are hundreds of places on other worlds such as Seers' Village or pretty much any bank that are full of people standing around and fletching - this one is no more notable or significant. It is also listed and described as if it were actually a real guild, which it isn't. Dtm142 21:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete This thing never even existed.--Derilith 21:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - It doesn't officially exist. Especially should be deleted if its been going downhill since the GE was added. And, you never know, Jagex might actually add a Fletching Guild in the future (though I doubt it for some reason...). Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 22:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - even the very first draft of the article said this "guild" has diminished significantly. If it wasn't worth documenting at its peak, it certainly isn't worth documenting now. Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 01:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge - as the picture shows, Yanille bank definately is a center of fletching. This article should be deleted and a note added on the Yanille page, on the section about banks. Excalo 23:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge - This is a very important place for many people. Liferune.pngbufar(talk)Death rune.png 01:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep -- Very strongly keep this in the wiki! While I would have to agree that no formal place that had a building and dedicated NPCs similar to the other skill "guilds" existed for fletching, this distinction of a place for fletching does have precedence on other fan websites and discussions on the Runescape Official Forums. This is an important part of Runescape history that needs to be preserved! In addition, if the guild were ever to be "officially" created by Jagex, this historical information is all that more important in terms of how the former "Fletching Guild" worked and how it would work under a Jagex-designed type of building. --Robert Horning 02:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

delete It is really no different than a clan of fletchers. And clan pages are not allowed. Keeping it opens the door for arguments in favor of clan pages.--Degenret01 03:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete. This was one of those player-made ideas, by some random guy out there. It sort of doesn't follow RS:PLAYERS. Butterman62 (talk) Ice Barrage icon.png 12:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep Two days ago I visited it on a moderately populated time of day. At least 10 fletchers were there--in comparison, the warriors' guild generally has no more than 10 people in it at any time, and unlike the fletching guild, this guild has rewards for the players using it. If a friendly, community-created guild has a similar amount of activity to a rewarding in-game guild, it clearly is notable, and has more meaning to dedicated fletchers than warriors that are grinding for a +5 strength bonus. May be coloured blue in the near future.earth(t)

Comment-Ten? Wow, when I got 99 fletching the day before the trade updates there was at least 100 people in there easily, many people achieved 99 flecthing or went there to alch, it's truely a shame to see what was once a bustling metropolis of players killed by those trade updates... 15:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Ten at peak time? Are you kidding me? Ten people at peak time is not nearly notable enough for an encyclopedia article. World 2, the player made members' trading world has no less than 1900 people on it as long as the world is online! And I don't think that world 2 deserves its own article either. We don't have an article about the actual building or the world, both being more notable than this "guild" in that they actually represent ingame content. I also find it strange that you consider fletchers to be "dedicated" while you find warriors to be "grinding for a +5 strength bonus". That is somewhat ironic and inconsistent... The Warriors' Guild is actually part of the game, the Fletching Guild is not. Dtm142 19:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment-This is exactly why i would have never suggested keeping it as is. In times past you would've seen a different reality, and the only people that can properly document it were the people that were there then. ~kytti khat 20:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge While I don't think this deserves its own article, I think it should definately have a decent section in the Yanille article. We note that the blast furnace is popular on world 58, and while this isn't official, it ought to be kept in one way or another. Morian Smith 15:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge - I think it should be merged into the Yanille article aswell. It seems like it was quite popular and the info should be kept. But personally I have never heard of it till now. Chicken7 >talk 15:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep/Merge - It is definately worth mentioning. Before the Grand Exchange, if you were to go to the Eastern Falador bank, in all but one of the 100-and-however-many worlds, it would usually have 0 to 10 people. In World 2, however, there would be hundreds of people there.

If you go to the Yanille bank in mosts worlds, there will only be a small group of people in the bank. In World 132, there will be a big crowd of people - doing what? - fletching and/or alching their fletchings. If it doesn't get it's own page, it still deserves a mentioning in either the Fletching, bank and/or Yanille article(s). Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!I have 12 friends. 00:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep / Rewrite - I do know that the GE and trade limitations had a significant impact on this unofficial "guild", however the fact remains that it was a very active part of RuneScape and as such should be kept for historical reasons alone. As such it should be rewritten to clearly show that it is not an official guild (no more than the Rogues' Den or the Monastery are official guilds). ~kytti khat 07:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - The Monastery actually has been given official guild status by Jagex per their inclusion of it [http://www.runescape.com/kbase/viewarticle.ws?article_id=2721#skill_related_guilds here]. Dtm142 02:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Never existed Buzz (Talk#P ) 07:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - there are a lot of banks that have certain specialties, and they are mentioned in respective articles. Why does this deserve its own article? I can't see it being expanded--all it warrants is a one-sentence note on the fletching article. Someone just decided to call it the Fletching guild. Furthermore, it doesn't follow the standard trend of guilds, which is that they are world-agnostic. Its inclusion on the guilds template will inevitably confuse users, tricking all of them into briefly thinking that there was a fletching guild that they didn't know about. It is also poorly structured, consisting of a few poorly-worded sentences and a huge ugly graphic. Endasil (Talk) @  21:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Not a real guild. Swordmagic24 21:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge per Morian Smith. It is a real guild, but one made by players, and never acknowledged by Jagex. It is important enough to be included in the Guilds or Yanille article, but not in its own. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 19:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletemisleading and confusing to players who aren't in-the-know. This came up in a help channel just last week, causing confusion and an argument. IMHO, this 'fletching guild' was an informal meeting place for players with similar interests (similar to world 2 marketplace in pre-ge days). Jagex pre-empted the use of guild for specific areas that have formal level requirements before a player can use the facility.Peacefulsage 00:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Confusing and not needed. So what if alot of people like to fletch, alch and talk there? The same thing happens in Varrock Square. FiremakingZeus 1131FiremakingContribs 03:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - per nom (Dtm142). This page is more suitable for the Fanon wiki Dragon chainbody.pngEmosworldSysop crown.svg 10:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - per everyone else who voted to delete this article. Prayer-icon.png Sir Lenehan File:Smite old.png|25px 01:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge - It's a player-made guild, so it shouldn't be listed alongside the Warrior's Guild. Put a mention in the Yanille page, if we really wanna keep this... Sir Revan125 21:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC) 5:41 ,14 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge - Being a player made guild that was effectively killed by the trade updates it should not get it's own article, however it was still a very important place to any serious fletcher and is indeed a part of runescape's history and an important part of mine. I'd hate to see this deleted without there being a mention of it in the fletching, yanille, or guild articles. 15:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge - As per Azaz129, this was a significant part of the Fletching community, and should be merged with Yanille. Magic potion (4).pngCFLM Talk # Sign 16:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge - The people who are saying this isn't noteworthy enough FOR A SERIOUS BUSINESS ENCYCLOPEDIA make me lol. The Runescape Wiki is a fan site and should include points that are about the community (and it does have many articles about things that are only important to the community) as well as the game mechanics. I dunno if it deserves it's own article as the "fletching guild", but it should at least be merged into Fletching or Yanille as stated by others. Uselessinformation 01:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Delete the article as it is not an actual piece of game content. However it can be noted in the Fletching article. --Whiplash 20:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep - This is an interesting article and it was part of RuneScape's history. Every article ehre that is obsolete was at one point part of the game. I am Nalyd Renrut and I approve this article. -Nalyd renrut, time unknown, 21 july 2008

Comment - I believe you've just contradicted yourself. You want to keep the article because every obsolete article was 'at one point part of the game. The fletching guild was never part of the game, ever. You should also sign your comments properly either by pressing the signature button (looks like this: http://images.wikia.com/common/releases_200807.3/skins/common/images/button_sig.png) or by typing four tidles ~~~~ (hold shift then press

the button to the left of the 1 key). Dtm142 00:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Yanille - It's a player phemonenon kind of like Air Running. It's not an official skill, task or location but it does document player behaviour in the game so I think it deserves some sort of recognition. Pointy 14:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - If it's a player made guild, then it is personal. If this is allowed, where do we draw the line at personal stuff? Is it just a matter of the number of people? I wouldn't agree that it is like air running, since you don't actually need other people to do fletching, it's just more of a club. Hurston 11:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Yanille - I'm with Pointy on this one one. Steelhorse66 17:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Yanille - I believe that in game groupings that are like this should be noted in the details for a area. Mementh 02:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Yanille - As stated by the nominator: This article does not describe a real piece of ingame content. There are several pages on the wiki that do not describe real pieces of in-game content, rather backstory of either area's, characters, or previous events. None of this information is either found in game nor pertains to any recent events in game, yet is part of the game's history. The majority of it is uploaded by Morian Smith. Secondly, I feel that if the articles under the Riot page are allowed, which are nothing more than a large group of players gathering together for a similar cause, then this article should be more than welcome to stay. It is a piece of RuneScape history created by players, and even if the popularity has died down, an unofficial guild that was once popular doesn't deserve to be gone forever. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 16:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)I always forget the sig

Merge - Player-created guilds shouldn't have their own pages any more than a clan should; however, it seems reasonable to include a note about this on the page for Yanille, or fletching. troacctid 22:52, 25 July 2008 (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.16:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Vampyre Woods

I can't find any in-game references that even give a name to this area. It's certainly not marked on the map. And just because it's there doesn't mean it needs its own page; after all, there are many groves of trees in the Wilderness that we never bothered to name or set up a page for. Any relevant information here could easily be incorporated into the pages for Burgh de Rott and Meiyerditch. troacctid 01:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment I think it's called Haunted Woods... May be coloured blue in the near future.earth(t)
Nope, the Haunted Woods are between Canifs and Port Phasmatys. Vampyre Woods|These woods are in southern Morytania. Anyway, I say delete and/or merge with Burgh de Rott. This area is no more notable than the farms near Lumbridge. It has Vampyres of all three types in it - that's all there is to say, which can be said on the Burgh de Rott page. Dtm142 03:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete - No need for this article and it's about as notable the lake between Lumbridge and Draynor.

Delete - Unlike places such as the Haunted Woods or the Lumbridge Swamp, it's not marked on the world map, thus making its name alone in question. Not to mention, it's small compared to most other locations. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!I have 12 friends. 09:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Per above, "this location" (if it can even be called a location) holds little significance to the RuneScape player base. I personally have never heard of it before TBH. --Magic potion (4).pngCFLM Talk # Sign 15:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - The information can easily be added to the Burgh De Rott article. Morian Smith 15:59, 26 July 2008 (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.21:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Hangon

The whole point of speedy delete is for the many situations where there is no argument against the page being deleted. If the page in question doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria, the admin reviewing it will remove the speedy delete template. --Wowbagger421 00:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep - This template is used at Wikipedia. It can be used if the creator does not think it should be speedy deleted and wants more time to finish it. It can be very useful. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 00:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean finish it? Speedy delete is only used for articles that there is no argument for keeping. --Wowbagger421 01:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep per C Teng and RS:AEAE. May be coloured blue in the near future.earth(t) 01:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

How does that apply to this template at all? --Wowbagger421 01:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Gives normal users a chance to defend the article, as opposed to having an admin deleting it on sight. (Not trying to be blunt or anything) May be coloured blue in the near future.earth(t)

Keep - Per C Teng.--Derilith 13:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - If someone doesn't think the page is finished, then they should probably add the Under Construction template. The criteria for deletion is pretty solid, so I don't see how a page could get wrongfully deleted; the admin and user putting the template up should both be aware of the policies regarding deletion. --Sαcrε (edit my sig) | (edit my user page) 02:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - potentially the template could be used as a tool for filibuster or somesuch. As far as incomplete, what Sacre Fi said. As far as "defending" an article is concerned, there is always RS:VFU. ~kytti khat 07:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Per above. Swordmagic24 20:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I thought I should point out that this wiki is not Wikipedia, and we can't base everything off of it. --Sαcrε (edit my sig) | (edit my user page) 20:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete. "Template:Under_Construction" can be used to signify that someone is actively working on an article. If an Under Construction article gets put on VfD the people working on it can say so on the VfD discussion page. Pointy 14:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Note - We need consensus on this matter, and this VfD will continue until we reach it. --Sαcrε (edit my sig) | (edit my user page) 22:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete Per Kytti khat, RS:VFU can be used is there is controversy over an article's speedy D. --Magic potion (4).pngCFLM Talk # Sign 02:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete per Pointy. 19:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete per Wow Scythe.pngAtlandy 15:32, 27 July 2008 (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.19:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:User_trusts_OJ/Template:User_doubts_OJ

This subject is still considered highly controversial by many on both sides of this argument. While I am not generally one for putting down freedom of speech and open debates, I feel the Runescape wiki is not the place for this type of argument.--Degenret01 04:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - It shouldn't be listed as an official user box--despite how I am interested in debating over criminal cases (really am), I would condemn pro-life and pro-choice infoboxes, rather controversial topics themselves, so I'm going to do the same to OJ's 'boxes. Users can use raw code on their pages instead if they must, as I don't think we should outright censor the controversy. May be coloured blue in the near future.earth(t)

Delete - I think that userbox templates should be related to either RuneScape or the Wiki in some shape or form anyway. Quest map icon.png Laser Dragon Task map icon.png 05:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment I thought these might be deleted when I created them, but I couldn't find a policy against non-RS userboxes, so I decided to go for it and see what happened. I don't mind, but hopefully this will lead to a policy being laid down. If the consensus is to delete, you might also want to look at Template:Userbox/likes tea.  ;-) Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 08:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, tea now also? I'll get right on that. Can't have people drinking beverages n whatnot. We'll have extreme chaos if that were to happen, horrible, just horrible. --Degenret01 11:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Witty. =p May be coloured blue in the near future.earth(t) 01:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I was actually trying to imply that the "user likes tea" template has as much or as little credibility on the wiki as those on OJ. As you yourself nominated the OJ templates for VfD, I am surprised to find sarcasm in relation to users' preferences in beverages. I don't think it warrants VfD until a consensus has been reached on userboxes policy. Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 05:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep - The issue here is if the userbox templates ought to be Runescape-related or not. I'm not big into userboxes, so I really could care less about the issue one way or another in terms of how it impacts me and my account. I do believe these are "harmless" so far as they are restricted to just user pages and are an expression of who you are and some aspects of your life that may even be outside of this game/wiki as well. I know that these userboxes do get out of hand on Wikipedia and elsewhere, and I'm not entirely sure it we should have thousands of templates like these covering everything from the war in Iraq, the Ku Klux Klan, Scientology, UFOs, JFK Conspiracy theories, and the Church of the SubGenius. If anything even remotely like these are allowed on this wiki, I don't see what is wrong with something about your attitude toward OJ Simpson. If you think none of these templates should be on this wiki, that is at least being consistent with an overall philosophy. So where do we draw the line on having too many templates of this nature? --Robert Horning 13:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep, but don't put on list - Per Robert Horning. The templates could still be used by users. I don't really see a problem with keeping them, but you can take them off the list of userboxes. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 13:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

How would other people know they were there if they are not on the lists? Would a separate list of "off-topic" userboxes be justified, with any images stored on third-party servers as if they were personal images? Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 16:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
You could simply do a search for all templates, and there are other methods of trying to identify what userboxes are available. A more legitimate request here would be to re-organize the list of usersboxes to be RS-related and non-RS related. We could debate FunOrb-related templates (and potentially Mechscape-related) as belonging on here or not, but that is besides the point. A useful reason to encourage a listing of user boxes it to (hopefully) not have topical duplication of userboxes... aka 15 anti-war user boxes or something similar like global warming concerns. As far as where to store the images.... I again suggest that Wikia is not hurting for image storage space and I haven't heard there being a huge issue in terms of restricting what can be put on this wiki other than they shouldn't be copyrighted images used without permission. --Robert Horning 21:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
You mean search for "Template:User" and see what results have that in the page title? That would return all the userboxes, whether RS-related or not. I think categorised lists would be much more useful. Storing all the images on the wiki would be better, as anyone can modify or update them that way. In any case, I think these debates (which are really on policy) would be best continued on the yew grove.  ;-) Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 01:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment I have to say at this point I really don't know what would be best for this wiki. I mean, on the one hand, its a gaming help site. But it has grown into such a diverse community that it is so much more than that. People want to and should be able to express their beliefs. But in this particular case I keep thinking of the families of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. I often find myself empathizing with victims, and that is a big reason why I placed the VFD tag on this page. But it hasn't caused any problems to date and that is something to consider. I do not think they should be hidden if we decide to keep them.--Degenret01 10:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep: Personal templates are allowed on this Wiki, Wikipedia, and most other Wikis. However personal images must not be on here, or the sites mentioned above on my post. http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/6032/bt3sw5.png Done whoozy! 10:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - I agree with your reasons, Blanko, but if O.J. was on the wiki, per se, then he would be offended (probably). So, I say delete.--Derilith 17:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

These userboxes are a means for individual players to express their personal opinion on their userpages. They can choose one or the other, or neither if they have no strong feelings either way - this satisfies NPOV on this particular controversial topic. If OJ did use the wiki, he would surely have to accept that some people have opinions/beliefs on the issue. In any case, the real issue is whether non-RS userboxes are allowed on the wiki. I have started a discussion on the Yew grove, but input is lacklustre so far. Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 09:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Move to user subpage - If a user wants to create their own template that is completely off-topic, I'm fine with that. But I think we should keep the Template namespace clean. Having a template in a userspace instead basically disavows any association to the Wiki, while not removing the right of a user to create it. Templates don't need to be in the Template namespace to be transcluded on a page...you can still use the curly-brace markup, you just need to fully qualify it, like {{User:Endasil/MyUserbox}} Endasil (Talk) @  21:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Weak 'Move to user subpage'. As per Endasil. It's a bit of a non-issue for me at the moment, but I'd suggest that if someone wants to keep them they take responsiblity for them and recreate them in their userpage, and keep the mainspace clean. The same with the cup of tea one, which I might start using :-) Pointy 14:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Not appropriate for the wiki both in the 'bad taste' and 'relevance' sense. Hurston 12:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Totally irrelevant --Hirushi 16:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Can I just say that I would be happy to store the content of this template under my own userpage, and keep the image stored on a third-party server, if this means that off-topic userboxes can remain on the wiki. I think there should be a list though, stored somewhere like "RuneScape:Userboxes/Off-topic", so that other people can find them if they want them. We might yet still need rules on what is considered "acceptable" though. Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 03:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete Users can make their own user boxes if need be (I have some of my own). Templates should be for Runescape related userboxes only Scythe.pngAtlandy 15:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Move to user Subpage - This ha no relation to runescape whatsoever, however, if the user wishes to keep this box they should be able to ---Mrprogrammer 07:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Does not belong on this wiki. Buzz (Talk#P ) 06:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete - For the love of any and all deities... What does this have to do with RuneScape? --Dionisio 04:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have anything to do with RuneScape... but I could not find a policy anywhere that said it had to be. I do accept that these should not be in the Template namespace, and I have copied them to subpages of my user page. There does also seem to be an issue with listing userboxes like this under miscellaneous userboxes. So I have proposed that we lay down a policy saying that userboxes in the Template namespace but be at least slighly RS-related, and that we create a separate list of off-topic userboxes (stored as user subpages, with graphics stored on third-party hosts), so that users can find them. There has been almost no response on the Yew Grove though. Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 17:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete I think this has gone on long enough to show that the consensus is to delete. I will probably delete them from my userpage too, since there seems to be almost no support for "off topic" userboxes. Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 10:14, 9 August 2008 (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.19:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Unban Durial321

This is invasion of privacy. The template would be another issue if I made one about myself or some other less-known user. Players do not deserve their own articles. They do not deserve their own templates either. Not only was he a rulebreaker, according to this, I wouldn't consider him as "sorry," only somewhat regretful.

...One of which was a guy asking for Santa back[.] Nah it was all in the moment[.] Like any Pker[,] I didn't care what they thought[.] I just wanted to kill[.] And the fact that I was invincible and was allowed to pray upon the fellow players of Runescape made it even worse[.] I do feel bad for those I killed[.]

— Durial321

Anyone would feel bad about losing access to their account, but after what he did, he's clearly a rulebreaker, too caught up in the moment taking adavantage of less fortunate players. AriasCombatSwords.pngKnight 04:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete and subst - I'm not against people having this on their userpage, but I think that it shouldn't necessarily have it's own template. People can make one themselves for use on their userpage or whatever if they want to. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!I have 12 friends. 07:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Im with chia - its obvious 0.o  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rune ldr 88 (talk).

      oops :-P --Rune ldr 88 08:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


Delete - Per Arias, RS:PDDA states if an editor wants to make an article about a player [or a template in this case], it should be made in their userspace. This Wiki certainly DOES NOT encourage or support rule breaking in any way, having this template may signify to users that we tolerate bug abuse, which is morally incorrect and is against Jagex's fansite guidelines (see [http://www.runescape.com/kbase/viewarticle.ws?article_id=2081#fan here]]). Magic potion (4).pngCFLM Talk # Sign 08:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete Per Chia. --Charitwo 08:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete as per Charitwo. Besides making up ones own userboxes is half the fun of them. --~kytti khat 17:24, 13 August 2008 (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. 23:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This discussion shows no consensus to delete the actual page. However, discussion briefly continued about removing the feature here. Please continue discussion in the Yew Grove. Dtm142 23:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Again removal of this feature has been brought to discussion here. ~kytti khat 03:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

RuneScape:Requested featured users

  • This, along with AOTM, is one of the last community processes to use outright voting. It can't really be changed to make it use an argument-based discussion instead, as that would cause flame wars (like those seen when oppose votes were allowed), not to mention that the person to close the discussion would hardly be able to make an objective decision in some cases.
  • Its only result is to have a vanity paragraph appear on the main page every month. What does this accomplish for the wiki? I know there's the point of recognizing our valued contributors, but surely there doesn't need to be a special mention for them to receive kudos for their work.
  • It kind of implies that some users are more valued than others. Do we need that?
  • It's quite often used as a battleground for issues that are completely unrelated to recognizing contributors. I'm not going to give examples, but we all know that it's happened in the past.
  • This superficial award is seen as a sort of trophy by some users, which creates more drama on the page itself. Edits should be made in order to improve the wiki, not to "win" a mention on the main page.
  • Finally, it makes us look unprofessional to others if we take the time out to mention ourselves on the main page.

(Nothing against the current nominees is meant by this; I've been putting it off because I didn't think it would have the requisite support, but after talking to some people the other day I think it might now.)

I know there isn't really a precedent for putting up a community process at VFD, but I think it's the best place to put this. Skill 00:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep, for now - It brings up morale, which is good, but I see where you're coming from with this. But what about the main page? If removed, it would either leave a big empty spot, or the left column in general would become much shorter. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!I have 12 friends. 00:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - If you were using a proper main page like this, it wouldn't really matter much. As seen here it doesn't affect the layout of the page very much. Dtm142 23:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep - What is wrong with "outright voting?" And the page accomplishes nothing for the wiki, but neither does Article of the month, birthdays, or wikifests. These don't accomplish anything for the wiki, but there isn't anything wrong with keeping them. And I actually think it makes the Main Page look very professional. It's on a lot of other wikis, too. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 00:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


Delete - @Chiafriend: It brings up a single user's morale, but not the wiki as a whole. As for aesthetics, it shouldn't be that much of a concern. I'm sure it would look fine without it.
@C Teng: Outright voting isn't bad, but it isn't good for achieving consensus, since you count the votes rather than arguments. Anyway, article of the month shows the wiki is capable of making quality pages and promotes collaboration. Birthdays are beyond me; they're probably just a fun thing to do and allow other users an opportunity to be nice and wish a happy birthday (though I don't know that it has ever happened). Wikifests promote community bonding and unity.
The user of the month acts as a sort of paragon, but I don't see how it benefits the wiki as a whole. We should be more concerned over the quality of articles and the solidarity of the community rather than single users. If you think a user's doing well, give them a pat on the back. --Sαcrε (edit my sig) | (edit my user page) 02:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment - this suggestion (in guise of this vfd) actually seems to fit with style guide's ownership and bias 3rd bullet point (which i incidentally just recently suggested be expanded to implicitly cover images) as well as fitting with the current bias leaning away from anything that leads the wiki towards becoming more 'social'. (Note, however, that if such mind set is taken to its extreme the possibility of becoming "faceless" becomes increasingly likely.) A possible interim step might be significant downsizing of this "feature", especially considering the sheer amount of the main page that is dedicated to it. If this were a newspaper (or another such item of physical media) I'd simply suggest moving it off the front page, but that analogy really doesn't seem to fit this reality. I say "interim" because it appears inevitable that the feature will most likely be removed in its entirety one day regardless of whether any intermediate "step-downs" are taken. So now i'm left pondering what new "feature" could help instil a sense of solidarity among new and upcoming editors. ~kytti khat 05:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - As was said earlier it serves little purpose other than honoring some user's achievement which serves as a vanity trophy that usually causes flame wars and makes the wiki look very unprofessional by mentioning ourselves on the front page. For the majority of users here on the wiki it does not do anything to bring up morale. Overall, I feel that this does more harm than good.Prayer-icon.png Sir Lenehan File:Smite old.png|25px 11:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Article of the Month is here to show how good the wiki is and bring up its best articles, Wikifests are a friendship effort, sort of like the Olympics, bringing together different people. Neither of these are unprofessional, so what is so unprofessional about a good editor and contributor being mentioned on the main page. Like the Article of the Month, it brings out the wiki's best editors and shows how good a community we have. It also encourages users to edit more. Although this isn't exactly the right motivation we want to give people to edit, it is motivation, and most of the users featured there have been loyal members of the community who love the wiki and didn't just want to be UotM. I think this page brings out our community's editors most worthy of recognition and sets and example for other editors. There hasn't really been much flaming in the past, ever since the "oppose" vote was removed, and unless a new IP comes on and votes, there shouldn't really be a problem with voting.Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 13:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - I think what we should be trying to showcase is good editors, and to be perfectly honest, AOTM showcases good editors better than UOTM ever can. Plus, AOTM lets us showcase our editing ability without being vain about it, because people aren't named. I am in principle against giving anybody ulterior motives for their edits, rather than the only motive that matters: forwarding the community. We got rid of edit counts on RFAs because it opened the door to alternative motives. I believe UOTM does the same. Endasil (Talk) @  21:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - This doesn't belong here; if we're going to stop featuring users, the UotM page should be [[Template:Rejected policy|archived]]. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 03:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Endasil summed my thoughts quite well, it's egotistical, vain, and AOTM over all is much more "in the spirit" of the wiki. Sysop crown.svgTes FanSysop crown.svg 00:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete (or archive and discontinue) All who worked on the showcased AOTM can be proud and others can see what kind of articles the community produces, supports and appreciates. The award is inclusive of all who contributed, not matter how small the contribution was. UOTM is exclusive and that's why I don't think it is good for this type of community. Peacefulsage 01:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment One thing that I've noticed is that people seem to just be nominated on the grounds that they are a sysop or a crat. Sure they do help out the wiki but UOTH seems to exclude every other editor. Prayer-icon.png Sir Lenehan File:Smite old.png|25px 04:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment I was gonna type this before my computer shut down, but perhaps what you're seeing is because most users must contribute a lot before they are considered by the community worthy of sysop or even crat tools. Once they have shown that they can use their tools wisely they might be considered worthy of the UOTM award. Of course not all featured users have been sysops or crats.Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 13:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep - I want to start by saying I think it is a valid issue to raise if a current feature on the wiki ought to be preserved or not. Discussions like this are very healthy to the wiki, and I do understand why those who advocate the discontinuance of this page and feature should happen. I don't think that VfD pages are necessarily the best way to deal with this issue, and even if users of the month is discontinued, I strongly think this page should be preserved as at least a historical log of what has happened in the past. This discussion really should be moved to Runescape:Yew grove to debate the merits of the UOTM and if that should be discontinued. --Robert Horning 15:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment If it were moved we'd also have to move all of the current discussion on this page (copy and paste), either that or we leave a link asking people to please read the points made here before posting in the Yew Grove section.Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 16:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the whole discussion needs to be moved to Yew Grove. It certainly should be referenced with a hyperlink, but my contention is that it shouldn't have been put on the VfD page in the first place as this is discussion really isn't about deleting this specific page. It is about getting rid of a regular feature on the main page of this wiki. While that issue is being addressed after a fashion, this whole discussion is getting muddled in the language of a VfD. It may also help to restate this whole issue with a fresh start to address why this feature should or shouldn't be continued, and separates the issue of if this page ought to be deleted to be decided at a later time. It really is two completely different issues that are muddled together right now and ought not be so. --Robert Horning 02:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Personally i believe the biggest issue here is the amount of space dedicated to it. Currently there are 38 words and 229 vertical pixels dedicated to the AOTM, whereas there are 183 words and 349 vertical pixels dedicated to the UOTM, this seems very counter-intuitive to me. In my opinion the UOTM entry should be the one with only 20% of other's word count. ~kytti khat 14:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep - I think the UOtM is good because it makes other users strive to be a good user on the wiki. It also lets the community know (and the person themselves) that their hard work has not gone unnoticed and that they have accomplished something. But maybe we should shorten it like Kytti said (But the AotM gets less words because they have to squish an image in there aswell, the box is actually larger. Chicken7 >talk 08:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete There is something that could actually benefit the wiki that could be put there. Users who understand wiki and contribute toward its prosperity should not be need to be featured to understand that. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 08:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete: 1. We have more than one contributor per month who would deserve that. Giving this "reward" to only one (obviously quite random) of them is simply unfair. 2. Voting in this is a waste of a time which could be used to contribute to articles instead. 3. Having the oppose vote prohibited is just ridiculous: a vote where you can't say no? Are we in China? 4. Finally, this page is simply breaking RuneScape:All editors are equal. Second-abyssal-whip.pngPatheticcockroachGuthan's platebody.png(Talk) 06:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There is not extra benefit to becoming a "User of the Month" other than the knowledge that your peers have recognized you hard work and effort. The rest of your complaints here are about the mechanics of the process which can and perhaps should be changed if you feel that strongly about it. That doesn't really note why this particular page... even in a historical context if this feature is discontinued... should be deleted. All I see is rationale for why this feature should be discontinued. I'm not picking on you Pathetic, but rather trying to make a point that this VfD is about this page and not necessarily the UOtM feature, even though both are being discussed. --Robert Horning 15:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, no problem, discontinuing sounds fine too... I only posted "delete" because on an VfD, expected votes are keep/neutral/delete ;) What I meant is more like "delete the feature". Second-abyssal-whip.pngPatheticcockroachGuthan's platebody.png(Talk) 10:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep: UotM gives a little more background to the users featured. It lets newer users see who is good to ask about editing/etc. Example (no offence, its just the one I remember best) I wouldn't have known who created (and hence to go to) if I had a query about the Grand Exchange Market Watch if it weren't for Robert Horning's UotM (last month). UotM is just a generally useful thing for new users to see. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 17:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep The fact that it puts a someone on the main page who knows what they are doing, may point a new wikian in the right direction to ask questions. When I was UotM, I got many questions asked about how to edit etc. Scythe.pngAtlandy 15:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Should we just delete HELP then? Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 04:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete. It makes one user feel like they're better than everyone else just for winning a popularity contest. That's what UOTM is...a popularity contest. Some may argue it shows the best editors and lets them set an example. Well, I say if anyone wants to see some examples of good editing, they should go to my contribs find out who wrote the bulk of the Article of the Month. And there's plenty of great editors here, more than could fit in all of the UOTMs the wiki would ever have....well, that's my reasoning. 21:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
"go to my contribs" - XD Christine 21:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I lol'd really hard. May be coloured blue in the near future.earth(t) 04:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you liked my little joke :P. 21:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The strongest keep I have eva used: This request for deletion is invalid. You must go to the Yew Grove to discuss deletion. Besides, I don't think you can delete an aspect of the Wiki. http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/6032/bt3sw5.png Done whoozy! 07:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
No, Blanko. In fact, the yew grove says never to go to the yew grove to discuss deletion. Butterman62 (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Small Keep Suggestion - Why not just make this "user of the month" And make it randomish based on how long the user has been in the wiki (their has to be a way to do that...right?). Having a user of the month does keep up wiki moral among editors but not if it is a popularity contest. --Rune ldr 88 05:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep. It's important to distinguish good editors, and it fills up space on the main page.--Ma44040 01:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Why would we need that space in the first place? 13:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
It makes our community look colourful to visitors, thus encouraging them to edit, that's why we need that space.Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 15:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment Why don't we use that space for an article written by the user of the month. Nobody cares about what is said about that person, instead share what he/ she has actually accomplished by linking to an article by them. My two cents. --Woolly hat.pngRune ldr 88Coins detail.png 23:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

  • A second AotM? That doesn't make sense. Just because you say we all don't care about the description of the user, doesn't mean we don't. I like the having descriptions under the current UotM. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 19:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep I somewhat agree with Rune ldr 88 but, I think maybe that could be integrated into the current UotM. 1diehard1 20:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep - I'm not going to reiterate what so many before have said regarding this feature, however, I strongly advocate making a policy of keeping it to a limited size (even less than what is now posted) say 100 or even as few as 50 words. ~kytti khat 04:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was speedy deletion. 16:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Castle Wars glitch

It hasn't been proven, and it belongs on the glitch article. Suggestions? Derilith 14:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - As nominator. Derilith 14:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - See what I wrote here. I feel it deserves speedy deletion, not a VFD. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 14:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think there is enough information to actually merge it with the Glitch article. I say, just delete it. --Rollback crown.svg Spencer (Talk | Edits | Contribs) 14:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per Karlis. It does actually qualify for speedy deletion under bullet point 1 - "A page which contains information that has very little chances of becoming a real page..." (See RS:CSD) Magic potion (4).pngCFLM Talk # Sign 15:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I put a speedy delete tag on the page. We all know it needs to be deleted. --Rollback crown.svg Spencer (Talk | Edits | Contribs) 15:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Intent - Although I'm not an admin, we have reached consensus - to mark the article for speedy deletion. At this time, there doesn't seem to be an admin online, so I wish to (formally) close and archive this request for deletion. If there are any implications, take it up with me on my talk page. Thanks, Magic potion (4).pngCFLM Talk # Sign 16:03, 31 August 2008 (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. Skill 22:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Mountain goat

Although this seems to be an NPC, I think that it is actually non-interactive scenery. The article even goes so far as to state that the only thing you can do to it is to examine it, like other non-interactive scenery items. This makes it unworthy of its own article, according to the granularity policy. However, it's an old article with a number of edits from quite a few contributors, so I didn't think I should go for speedy deletion. Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 00:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Oh, that's a tough one. I think I'll go with keep because it's still an NPC, rather than just scenery like the good ol' standing torch. And I don't think an animate animal is 'scenery'. ;P Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!I have 12 friends. 00:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete - I agree that it is non-interactive scenery. It's similar to the various birds you can see flying around some places. troacctid 00:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep - They are after all lively things one can't help but notice when first teleporting to Trollheim. ~kytti khat 03:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Weak Keep per Chia and Kytti. We have other non-interactive scenery articles, like Cleaner. They are NPCs, not rocks on the ground, which would not deserve articles. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 05:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep - I think having a yellow right-click option and dot on the mini-map class this as creature as an NPC, albeit an NPC that cannot be interacted with. Morian Smith 22:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep- Per Morian Smith 7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko)

Keep - I found it helpful to look it up and make sure I wasn't missing anything important, that it couldn't become active after I did some requirement for a quest, etc... Mamabear47 23:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Same reasons as mamabear47. Peacefulsage 13:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

EXTREMELY SUPER STRONG KEEP - I think this should be kept because this is for "everything RuneScape", including NPCs. No matter interactive or non interactive, it desrves an article. Case closed. (Not really =Þ) Derilith 03:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Non interactive scenery should be things like a torch or tree not moving animals. Golfmanthegod 02:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutral/Sitting on the fence - {Although this discussion has already reached consensus and majority, I just wish to voice my opinion for future reference.) It is technically non-interactive, but it is also an NPC. So it's a non-interactive NPC. If we don't have an article about seagulls (not these ones, I'm talking about the ones you see flying around the Draynor fishing spots), why should we have an article about a mountain goat. (OK, that's the "delete" part).

ALTHOUGH... it is a land animal which exists within Gielinor. OK, time for some empathy (definition here) imagine you are a newbie to members and you just ventured to... wherever the mountain goat resides, anyways... you are unfamiliar with this animal, and think "hmmmm.... what is this creature? I know! I'll search it on the RuneScape Wiki!". Then you search it on the RSW to find... what? there is not article? This is the reason why we should keep the article. The RSW is supposed to reference ALL things related to RuneScape. What would this newbie think of our Wiki? That we are unreliable for information? I recommend you people thoroughly re-think your votes, there is no shame in admitting that you're wrong =). Magic potion (4).pngCFLM Talk # Sign 15:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


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