RuneScape:Requests for merging/Wilderness

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

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)