RuneScape:Requests for deletion/The Gnome's Promise, The Reaver and The Saucy Wench

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
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[edit source]

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.