RuneScape:Requests for merging

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:

RuneScape:Requests for merging is a project page designed to provide a place for the discussion about potential merges between pages. If two or more pages seem to have the same content or exhibit the same function, they may be nominated for merging here. Should the process be successful, the sum of the content will be incorporated into one page, and the previous pages will direct viewers to the new page.

How to nominate[edit source]

Put {{Rfm}} on the top of each page involved with the merge and follow the instructions on {{Rfm}}. On one of the pages, click "this page's nomination" which will automatically create the page in the proper location. Fill in your reasons, and be sure to explain which pages are to be merged where. Save the page.

Pages listed for merging[edit source]

Wilderness[edit source]

I suggest merging the Forinthry and Wilderness articles. Forinthry and the Wilderness are virtually completely synonymous, covering, as far as can be discerned, the exact same geographical area. It's just two different names for the same place. Moreover, the Forinthry article seems more concerned with the development history of the word "forinthry" in Runescape than the actual region in the first place. Anything of note is already on the Wilderness article. There's not seperate articles for Avarrocka or Varrock, so why should this be any different?

(First time doing this thing so I hoped it worked like it should)

Merge - As nominator Darthnowell (talk) 03:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Merge - Habblet (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Weak oppose - This looks like a similar situation to the articles Kharyrll and Paddewa. I think this situation boils down to whether or not destroyed historical locations deserve their own articles. I do agree that both the Wilderness article and the Forinthry articles deserve a fresh coat of paint and rework to bring up to standards, and for consistency's sake I would recommend keeping it separate. However, if the consensus is to merge, I think that should apply for all of the destroyed historical locations, not just this situation. For the specific example of Avarrocka, I think the distinction is that it's still essentially the same city, and the name change is due to metaplasmic elision. Smithing.pngAescopalus talkCrafting.png 01:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Weak support - The point Aescopalus makes is a good one, there are a number of cases where keeping them separate works really well, and I think we should hold to that general policy. But if you look at the size of those other articles, they all earn their own space, with tons of information, maps, and references. I challenge you to consider how much of Forinthry actually fits into RS:Trivia instead of a the main article. I think the best option would be to flesh out the page into a meaningful article, if possible. But if that can't be done, and this is all the information we have, then I think a merge is the right move until enough information is released to warrant an independent article. ThetaZero (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment - Can we merge it with Nonexistence instead --LiquidTalk 13:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment - I have no real opinion on this other than if this does pass, merge Forinthry into Wilderness, not the opposite way around. jayden 13:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Support/comment - I see what Aescopalus is saying, but in my opinion a historical location with a modern name should warrant its own article only if there's enough information for an page solely about said historical location to stand on its own, beyond as a long part of the history section of another page. As far as I can tell, none of the articles hold up to this standard, as they are all just several paragraphs of history (I'm only aware of Kharyll, Paddewwa, and Forinthry; maybe there are more), and we would be better off merging all of them into the history sections of the main article. I would propose a split only if the history section grows to be monstrously big or it starts to infect other sections.

Edit: to be clear, my personal criteria is not just length, unless it is just so stupidly long it really should go somewhere else, it's also more of a "does the location have an identity as something other than another name for location x". For example, if a quest like Meeting History came out and took place in Forinthry as it existed in the height of the Zarosian empire, then yes it would start having an identity of its own, but otherwise its just a cool alternate name for a place.

Also, support for merging with Nonexistence. Elkswampdog (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Support - However only if Forinthry is merged into Wilderness since that's the current name for the area. Talk-to Kelsey 02:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Butterfly (Hunter)[edit source]

Butterfly (Hunter) and Butterfly netting contain almost identical information, including in some places identical text. Any information that is not present on one page could easily be incorporated from the other.

Merge - As nominator Oshtur (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - The way I look at it is one is a hunter creature overview and the other is a hunting method. Due to this there would be a lot of overlap as netting is the method to catch butterflies but I feel that they should stay seperate. Lava hawk.png BlackHawk (Talk)    13:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - Choose OptionTalk-to MitcheII Slayer of Imps (skill: 2,687). . . . . . . . . . real life easter egg, :wowee: don't tell anyone though! Talk-to MitcheII Slayer of Imps (skill: 2,687) 01:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Blackhawk. There's some overlap of information, but one article should focus on the creatures while the other should focus on the method. A similar existing article split is Impling netting and Impling. Smithing.pngAescopalus talkCrafting.png 14:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - Per others. Seers headband 2 chathead.png Elessar2 (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Kharshai[edit source]

Koschei the Deathless and Kharshai are the same person. Every character that has an alter-ego has their alter ego and their true identity on the same page. Although there is one exception (Reldo and his true identity, hint hint), more on that later. It seems a little strange how we have two pages for Kharshai; one for his Fremmenik warrior alter-ego, and one for his true form. I understand that people may want to have a strategy on how to beat his alter ego in The Fremmenik Trials, but both pages need cleanup anyway. For the sake of consistency, I nominate that we merge the page Koschei the Deathless into the page of his true identity, Kharshai. That way, it remains consistent with other Mahjarrat character with alter-egos, such as Azzanadra as Dr. Nabatik and Wahisietel as Ali the Wise. Just replace the Koschei page with a redirect to Kharshai and people will find them there.

...That, or we can split all of the alter-egos into different pages if we want to be careful about spoilers (for some reason).

Merge - As nominator Falconpunch100 (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment - For context, this pair of articles was merged in 2013 after a successful RFM and then merged split again in 2016 after a successful RFS. -Hourglass (2011 Hallowe'en event) detail.png I Am Not You Talk III The Spark.png- 11:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment - Funnily enough, one of the reasons that page should be split at the time was because they were two radically different people. And while yes, Kharshai's alias is different, he is still the same person no matter what. And this thing about "lore" surrounding Koschei they mentioned... I don't see any of that on his page; just a strategy for beating him in the Fremmenik Trials. Falconpunch100 (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Weak oppose - We have instances where characters that are in disguise are merged (such as Azzanadra and Wahisitiel), and we also have instances where they are split (Sumona and Reldo and Tarshak). It's hard to define a specific criteria for when to merge these and when not to, so I would recommend keeping this particular instance separate due to its status as a quest monster and a Dominion Tower monster. One additional factor is the back and forths over the years - if someone presented more specific criteria to categorize when NPCs that are disguised warrant separate articles, then that might prevent some of the constant back and forths on these. Smithing.pngAescopalus talkCrafting.png 15:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


See also[edit source]