RuneScape talk:Players don't deserve articles

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
This talk page is for discussing the RuneScape:Players don't deserve articles page.

If famous for a "highest single / total rank", then it's a bit of a moving target, as players may fall back, retire, or sadly pass away. Eg. Novalyfe (retired) or The Old Nite (Tip it times nr. 46). Ace of Risk 20:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

New section: Clans don't deserve articles?[edit source]

Recently, there has been a string of articles about clans, which Vimescarrot has deleted, and I expect more clan articles to be made in the near future. So, should we add another section to this titled "Clans don't deserve articles" as well? It might stop users from creating clans that belong to Uloveme, Zezima, or even someone less notable.

Cheers, Dragon chainbody.pngEmosworldSysop crown.svg 22:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

RS:NOT#BLOG already mentions clans in addition to players, but it wouldn't be a bad idea to mention them here as well. Skill 23:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Why?[edit source]

Well, why don't they deserve articles? Players like Zezima, I can sort of see why, but why not important players like Durial321 or Sixfeetunder? The page doesn't explain. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 21:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Players are not part of the game as it was created by Jagex. Sure, they're obviously intended to be there, but they're not part of the game like "official" parts are.
  • Who is "notable" and how can we confirm this notability for a given player?
  • How can we write an article for a well-known player that is not
    • Redundant with the article of the topic they are known for
    • Full of speculation and bias
  • Sort of goes with the first sub-point above, why not just keep the present redirect? Skill 22:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
A lot of the things you mentioned- speculation, redundance- also happen in many other articles. Why keep the redirect? I can see how many non-needed player pages would be created, though. I was looking through the Dark RS Wiki and there were players I never heard of. But still, unimportant articles can be deleted, or something. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 00:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The main difference in terms of speculation and redundancy between player articles and other articles is that it's (nearly) impossible to avoid in the former, while most other articles can be written otherwise. Skill 00:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Wait, what did "Sixfeetunder" do? (legit question, not trying to make a point or anything, if I am, purely coincidence) Christine 02:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe he discovered the phat duplication glitch.Bandos godsword.pngJmoDragon platebody.png, 03:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, I still think that there should be a few exceptions:
Riots are also unofficial, but we note them. Same thing witht the Fletching guild (even if it is in VfD). Besides, they are recognized by Jagex, so they are official. Zezima was going to be quoted in Betrayal at Falador, and I'm pretty sure Durial321 was recognized by Jagex when a mod was explaining to everyone what had happened. Doesn't anyone agree? White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 22:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
C Teng, giving players articles would raise a number of issues - in addition to what Skill has said above...
  • it would cause confusion - how famous does one have to be to get their own article?
  • the page may turn into an eternal stub - what would you put on the article?
  • it may encourage other less experienced editors to start creating articles about their own characters
  • pages may be subject to spamming, flaming, and bias.
Yes, I do acknowledge that riots are unofficial, but they can be documented without the intentional inclusion of made up information. I would like to see RS:PDDA to stay the way it is now. Thanks, Magic potion (4).pngCFLM Talk # Sign 03:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. The RuneScape Wiki is not a tabloid, it is an encyclopedia. There is no way we could get reliable information on any of these players listed, and as mentioned earlier it's all said in the articles that the players are known for. Zezima has 99 in all skills. Good for him. That's all there is to say, besides vandals adding "zezima is a fat 56 year old virgin who ways 400+ kg and lives in his mother's basement with no jopb or lyph". Dtm142 19:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think players don't deserve their own articles, and here's why. Players such as Sixfeetunder, Cursed You and Durial321 are notable for abusing bugs in the game, either to gain an unfair advantage (like free party hats) or to go on a rampage against innocent players, which is quite rightly against the rules. If you immortalise these people with their own articles, it would encourage other players in the same situation to abuse the bugs in an effort to gain similar infamy. I think documenting what happened is enough - that's why we have article on riots, for example.

People who gain notoriety for something more positive (like Zezima) are already immortalised in the high scores. Since we already have the Hiscores article, it seems like this is enough. Anyone can check the up-to-date list if they want to find out which players have the highest scores. As DTM said above, there's very little reliable information we could get on players, unless it's written by the players themselves, and even then it would be hard to maintain a neutral point of view. Anything more detailed about a player belongs on a user page (if they are on this wiki) or their own webpages hosted elsewhere. Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 20:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're right, then we shouldn't have the World 111 glitch article. Or the Riot article, because they could encourage other players to break the rules. And why shouldn't we have more detailed information on the wiki about players, instead of just on other websites? This is the wiki for all things RuneScape. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 23:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I would be all for allowing articles on players for a multitude of reasons. One reason being that having articles on them would be very interesting to read. But, as said above, there are many reasons why we can't have articles on them.

  • We all know about Zezima, Green098 and people like them, but what about lesser known people? Like Momeydragon, Luckybucket, Marg2003, and Aclaw? It would be hard to make a cut-off for who is and isn't worthy of their own article, and also hard to figure who does and doesn't fall into the said requirements.
    • Everyone would want articles about themselves.
      • We would have a lot of SDs on our hands.
  • Perhaps the player in question doesn't even want information posted about them.
  • The pages would have opinions all over them.
  • Some pages (like Zezima, Defil3d, or Tehnoobshow) would be vandalized often. "defil3d is a scamer n00b", "zezima is a no-lyf", "tehnoobshow maks borin vidz", etc..

If none of those things were problems, then I would be all for players having their own articles. Plus, that's kinda' what userpages are for. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!I have 12 friends. 05:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

There isn't anything more to say about Durial321 besides what is already contained in the World 111 Glitch article. The same goes for Zezima, etc. He is already covered in the highscores article - he was the first to get 99 in all skills. That's all there is to say. There is no reason as to why he needs a whole page dedicated to him. There is also no way we can get reliable information that goes beyond what is already written there. I would also like to point out that biographies of living persons (BLP) articles are a huge issue on Wikipedia right now. If we have a choice, I really would not like to get into these if we can. I also don't want the community to become further polluted with 8 year old fanboys/playerhaters adding garbage to pages that we don't really need. Dtm142 21:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be hard to make a cut-off for who is and isn't worthy of their own article, and also hard to figure who does and doesn't fall into the said requirements.

Chiafriend12, RuneScape talk:Players don't deserve articles#Why?

Okay, then, who agrees with these requirements?
Players can only have articles if they have one of the following requirements:
For any player-article, we would have a discussion on if they are notable enough.

Everyone would want articles about themselves.

Chiafriend12, RuneScape talk:Players don't deserve articles#Why?

We could simply move it to their user page and send them a message on their talk page. People create articles about themselves now sometimes, too.

Perhaps the player in question doesn't even want information posted about them.

Chiafriend12, RuneScape talk:Players don't deserve articles#Why?

[[Google:Zezima|Aren't articles always posted about famous players?]] I see articles like those on other major fansites.

Some pages…would be vandalized often.

Chiafriend12, RuneScape talk:Players don't deserve articles#Why?

Revert. Don't we get vandalism often anyway? If you want, player-articles could be semi-protected.

…That's kinda' what userpages are for.

Chiafriend12, RuneScape talk:Players don't deserve articles#Why?

User pages are not content articles. They are used for users to put whatever they want on it. Famous players like Zezima or Durial321 don't use the wiki. User:Zezima isn't even Zezima.

[Zezima] is already covered in the highscores article…

Dtm142, RuneScape talk:Players don't deserve articles#Why?

…why not just keep the present redirect?

Skill, RuneScape talk:Players don't deserve articles#Why?

White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 00:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Per WP:BLP, biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research.. There is no possible way we can create such articles that meet these requirements. The glitch and riot articles are bad enough as it is. This would only make it worse.
  • I don't agree with your requirements. Is it really worth creating a long discussion every time an article about a player is created? I think it would be a waste of time, because no player is notable enough for their own article in my opinion. If you really feel that it's necessary to document such material, why not request a sister project?
  • If some player articles were allowed, it would lead to more. Why would we create such a high maintenance project for something that adds next to nothing to the wiki?
  • If other fansites document them, that doesn't mean we have to. Some other fansites support macroing and RWIT - does that mean we should too? Let players have their privacy.
  • The purpose of this wiki is to document actual canon created by Jagex, not to create two sentence vandalism magnets. Non interactive scenery is more notable than any player, but we don't have articles about those. A few thousand 11 year olds knowing your name doesn't entitle you to an encyclopedia article. Dtm142 18:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh no, I'm too late! I know this is an old topic but this discussion didn't end. I don't know about major/well-known players that much like Durial321 and stuff. This wiki is for information. We need to have information about what people might want to know about. People might hear it ingame or see it mentioned somewhere and want to know. We're not gonna say go look at RuneHQ or something. So Wikipedia has articles about famous people from prime ministers, to cricket players to criminals. And from what Dtm said above in his last point, I though the wiki's purpose was to document everything that people might be interested in about RuneScape. Like our tagline: ("From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape"). Maybe a template/tag at the top of the article stating that player articles need discussion before being created. In Dtm's second dot point, he says something that documents "next to nothing" to the wiki. It would document a lot more than this article. Anyway that's my view. Probably no one is going to look at this :P Chicken7 >talk 11:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
2/3 cake is notable and it is actually possible to verify the information in the article. It was decided a long time ago that every item would get its own article. I do not fully agree with this, but I do not feel the need to change it at this point. On the other hand, I could add to the Zezima article that he is really Andrew Gower's cousin and you wouldn't be able to do anything about it. The information would be almost purely speculative. Other than that, it would never go beyond what we already have documented. Player articles also will attract the wrong type of people to the project. Overall, this would not be worth having to deal with BLP issues. Dtm142 02:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Then protect the page, or put a tag at the top of the page, like Chicken said. If something unverifiable is put on the page, revert it. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 00:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Protecting a few pages will not resolve the problems involving vanity pages, BLP issues, and lack of notability. Could you give me an example of something that is verifable that does not already exist in one of our articles? You are welcome to go ahead and put this information on a sister site. However, it does not belong here. This is not the direction that the RuneScape Wiki should be allowed to go. Dtm142 23:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
True... problem may just be verifying information about the person. What all could be put on the page to make it an article and not just a pool of speculation and really pointless or information that doesn't need to be there ( Age, School, Real name etc.)? I bare no ill will toward the rich and famous of Runescape but do we really need to start acting like the paparazzi, searching for the story leading up to what made ( insert famous player's name here ) famous?? I've learned all I ever wanted or needed to know about the famous just by searching there name here. If you decide to make player pages, I want one saying that i'm the biggest noob/idiot/etc on rs and this wikia . Carbonite 0

I wonder whether it would be an appropriate compromise to have just one article, called something like "List of infamous players", and have a list of usernames in alphabetical order with links to the articles that their name may be connected with (i.e. what they are infamous for). For example, Durial321 would be listed as something like "perpetrator in the World 111 Glitch". This would give users a resource to look up a player whose name they may hear mentioned in RS chat, whilst still only giving said players recognition in terms of the game or past events, which we already document in those articles anyway. Zezima is notable as a player whose opinion was quoted on the back of Betrayal at Falador, as well as for his high score. Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 02:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Again we have the issue of notability (everyone will try to get themself added to the list). We already have redirects for Zezima and Durial321. That is more than sufficient for our purposes. Dtm142 18:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I know I am a year late for this discussion, but I totally agree with all of C Teng's points. The only other thing I have to say is in response to Dtm's Wikipedia link - RS:NOT#Wikipedia. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  08:54, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

We may not be Wikipedia, but we still aim to create a reliable source of information with similar standards. There is no way to do this with RuneScape players without turning the wiki into a tabloid. A wiki for RuneScape players already exists [ here]. Improving it would be much more productive than trying to add like content to our site. Dtm142 22:50, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

New wiki?[edit source]

I sort of agree with C Teng. But then again, I sort of agree with Soldier. Shouldn't there be a new wiki about famous and infamous players? [[File:Durial321.PNG]]User:Reeser111[[File:Durial321.PNG]] Im on ure world, PWNing ure account 02:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There aren't enough famous RuneScape players to make an entire wiki for. I still think we should make some exceptions for this rule here. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 15:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
If either of you wish to start a wiki on this subject, go right ahead. This policy is only in effect on this wiki. Dtm142 17:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

How about J-Mods[edit source]

What about Jagex Moderators, other than the CEO's and the Gowers, none have articles, but many have links. I think they do, but if not, tell me why (and I mean them as employees, not accounts)~~Signed,Bulbear4444Slayer's respite.png~~ 02:53, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

I think that articles about Jagex employees would be acceptable, as it is possible to verify information and it would not lead to vanity pages. I doubt that it violates the current policy. Dtm142 01:48, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Page needs complete rewrite[edit source]

No offence to whoever wrote this, but this page needs to be completely rewritten and renamed. Problems:

1. The first problem is the explanations given. This page says "players, no matter how famous at the time, come and go." Well, Carpentry and many J-mods come and go, but I don't see any policy against them. The second explanation listed here: "it would be difficult to determine who is qualified and who is not" is definitely not a reason at all. All that is needed is consensus and enough notability to expand the article beyond a short article.

2. It's rather odd to state that "players and clans do not deserve their own articles" directly. If a RuneScape player was featured in many newspaper articles etc., and was notable for a wide variety of reasons, it would be very stupid to follow this rule. There should be exceptions. See this Wikipedia article for a more detailed explanation.

3. If suggestion 2. passes, this article needs to be renamed.

Thanks, Smithing 08:36, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

This page describes a policy that reflects the longstanding general consensus of editors on this site. It is not just the opinion of "whoever wrote this". Overhauling it, as you have suggested, would require a discussion on the Yew Grove and consensus from the community.
Carpentry, and other obsolete updates, were important to the history of the game. Many had a lasting impact, and it is possible to obtain reliable information about them. We actually have very few articles about Jmods (only founders, CEOs, and the like). They meet the same criteria (lasting impact, reliable information is available).
I do not know of any players that could have articles that wouldn't be short. There is probably no information that isn't biased or speculative that couldn't be included in one of our other articles. And a RuneScape player being featured in a number of newspaper articles (on a RuneScape related topic) simply doesn't happen. Hopelessly arguing about whether a player should be given an article is futile, largely because we aren't that kind of project. Dtm142 23:23, February 8, 2011 (UTC)
Let's see. "This page describes a policy that reflects the longstanding general consensus of editors on this site." I'm not so sure about that. Judging from above, there have been many challenges to this rule, and I think it would be more appropriate that it be changed to one that would cause less controversy.
"It is not just the opinion of "whoever wrote this"." I realize this. I'll check out RS:YG as well.
"Carpentry, and other obsolete updates, were important to the history of the game. Many had a lasting impact, and it is possible to obtain reliable information about them. We actually have very few articles about Jmods (only founders, CEOs, and the like). They meet the same criteria (lasting impact, reliable information is available)." The same can go for players and clans of the game, can it not? I'm sure someone who has been included in, say, a hundred reliable non-trivial sources, is notable, and would clearly have a lasting effect.
"I do not know of any players that could have articles that wouldn't be short. There is probably no information that isn't biased or speculative that couldn't be included in one of our other articles. And a RuneScape player being featured in a number of newspaper articles (on a RuneScape related topic) simply doesn't happen. Hopelessly arguing about whether a player should be given an article is futile, largely because we aren't that kind of project." Consider this, what if it did happen? It is discriminatory to allow Carpentry to be an article, then say, "even though the subject has been included in a hundred non-trivial reliable sources, and can be expanded to a fairly long size, it shouldn't happen." Articles like Carpentry are not notable by any standards in real life, but a player featured in a hundred non-trivial sources clearly is notable, and would probably be included on Wikipedia to be quite honest. You are not looking at the possibility of it happening, and you are not seeing the full side of the argument.
The fact is, this rule is discriminatory and unencyclopedic, and needs to be fixed to consider the possibility of a player becoming notable. Much less people would be disputing this if it were fixed, and followed this instead. I'm not saying that this Wiki is Wikipedia, I'm just making a good point. Smithing 03:01, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
Articles on players would have next to zero reliable information other than their stats. Then people will get angry on why their player is not good enough to have an article. This is one of the wiki's core policies and is very unlikely to be changed to nearly the complete opposite as you have suggested. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 03:24, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
I think that the "many challenges" to this policy are from people brand new to the wiki and want an article about them, not caring about why that shouldn't be. ɳex undique 03:28, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
I oppose the suggestion to make players stand with articles on their own. Most probably, although an online game is aimed to serve the players, it is not built and provided by the players. Most if not all of the in-game features are provided by Jagex in RS. I believe the RSwiki stands for an information centre, players as a whole is important to the game, although it is composed of fellow players the player population was, is and will be in liquid state. Except for some really important figures (like Durial who challenged the rules), any single player would have little effect on determining the direction of Runescape, but a general point of view among the players (like vote results) would affect the game. Thus, when a player come and go the game generally doesn't change, and that player mostly isn't known to other players. But yet Romeo is an NPC but being remarkable, because every player would have a chance to see him and he actually featured in RS updates. Rewlf2 07:33, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
@Evil1888 There's one example I can use countering your claims, and that is Zezima. He is notable for a wide variety of events. Consider his planned quote on Betrayal of Falador. His interview with Tip.It can also be used [1], as many other info, including his stats. Lastly, the poll that revealed that Zezima was one of kids top role models [2] in 2007 may be used. This could surely be expanded to be a considerable size. Therefore size is not a problem, and neither is verifiability.
@Rienn First, you have to keep in mind that this Wikia is for all things RuneScape, this should include clans and players as long as they pass a certain notability criterion. I mean, when you look at it from a worldwide perspective, you can easily see that players such as Zezima are more notable than 75% of the articles on this Wikia, maybe even more. Consider Zezima, who has many role models and has influenced people on RuneScape and in real life (as shown by that poll). I mean, Zezima is notable enough that he could be the subject in schools; many kids who view Zezima as their role models may use Zezima for school presentations, and it would be useful if notable players like him had an article. You could also argue that a teacher would use him to look at the influence cyber players (or the Internet) have on kids etc. Surely a player that may be used in schools should be a bigger priority than having an article about some worthless RuneScape item, and would be much more useful, especially if that player had an effect on the game multiple times. Smithing 21:41, February 9, 2011 (UTC)

I disagree on all parts, per everyone else. I honestly don't give a rip about said "famous players". (: sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 21:49, February 9, 2011 (UTC)

See [[w:c:runescapeclans|The RuneScape Clans Wiki]] for clans. You can [[w:c:community:Community_Central:Adoption_requests|adopt]] the [[w:c:runescapeplayers|RuneScape Players Wiki]] or edit the [[w:c:runescapeplayer|RuneScape Player Wiki]] but the likeyhood this we will have player articles is slim to none, it simply will not happen no matter how much you think there should be player articles. You can make a player article on your userspace (User:Smithing/player) but not on the mainspace. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 21:59, February 9, 2011 (UTC)

I also oppose allowing any players to have articles in any circumstance, it will make everything very unprofessional. ʞooɔ 22:06, February 9, 2011 (UTC)

I don't care about any of the articles on this Wiki bar RuneScape and 200 million XP, but that doesn't mean anything. The thing is, the reasoning behind this is very confusing and discriminatory, and no-one new to the Wikia or from Wikipedia would understand it. This needs a better explanation that actually makes any sense, rather than "players, no matter how famous at the time, come and go.". I already explained why this is a horrible explanation, and it needs to be changed, at the very least. I'm going to be bold and remove that line until a better reasoning can be provided. It's obvious that there is no consensus to change this policy, so I won't argue about that further. Smithing 01:59, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

Dispute[edit source]

There seems to be a dispute as to whether or not this phrase should be here: "However, players, no matter how famous at the time, come and go. Therefore,"

Here is a detailed explanation as to why my removal of this phrase should not be reverted.

1. The first problem is the explanations given. This page says "players, no matter how famous at the time, come and go." Well, Carpentry and many J-mods come and go, but I don't see any policy against them. There are also many items that come and go, but they are listed on this Wikia as well. This phrase contradicts this Runescape Wikia standards, and a better reason needs to be provided, or else those articles need to be removed (which I know isn't happening from reading the comments) .

2. Evil's phrase: "changing a policy with everyone disagreeing with you does not allow you to be bold and do it anyway". No-one disagreed with the removal of the phrase, they just disagreed with allowing players to have their own articles, and offered reasons for why they believed so. And even since I said I'd remove the phrase, no-one argued against it, and it took eight days for Evil to decide to revert it for no good reason. I even said myself: "It's obvious that there is no consensus to change this policy, so I won't argue about that further."

3. This is not policy. It's a very bad reason for why players don't deserve articles because it is discriminatory and does not comply with this Wikia's standards, as noted in point 1. All I'm saying is that another, better reason is added that complies with standards. Anyone is allowed to remove reasoning to a policy if they feel it doesn't conform to standards, and ask for one that does.

I will continue to remove this phrase until one that conforms to standards is added, or this one is expanded to conform to standards. Thank you, Smithing 15:50, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

In no way do we have to conform to a standard set by Wikia (may I introduce you to [[w:c:uncyclopedia|Uncyclopedia]]) unless for a legal reason. Carpetry is part of RuneScape's history (a player has nothing more than stats) and if you want that gone go make an RfD. If you want something rephrased on the policy, you need consensus to do so (so it will remain reverted until then) and continuing to add it back is edit warring (RS:3RR). Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 20:38, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
I have, and there was no discussion on it for 12 days counting, so that means there are no objections. Therefore, you need consensus to add the material back. This change was uncontested on this Wikia. What you're doing is edit warring, I've already tried discussing it, and obviously no-one objects to it. If you do, please respond. I will have an admin look at this if you continue reverting. Smithing 22:33, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
Well, I should first say that I really don't care whether the phrase stays or goes. I don't think it's an important part of the policy, and it doesn't make a difference to its meaning. However, I will say that you can't call a consensus here due to "lack of objection." The lack of comments is much more likely because no one knew that this discussion was going on than because no one had objections. I see that no one has come and supported your change either. --LiquidTalk 22:40, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. But I don't think no-one knew, there were about twelve comments to my original three suggestions to the article, and this one has not been taken care of. I personally don't think anyone cares, as there's no objections, and there likely never will be. Waiting years for responses is not my cup of tea. And besides, I don't think the original change to this article that added that reasoning reflected consensus in the first place, so you have to consider this before reverting. If you can find the original discussion, I will wait for consensus before reverting. This phrase was first added by Azaz129, I do note, but there was no discussion on this talk page to originally add it, so there needs to be consensus to add it, not delete it. Smithing 22:53, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
"Therefore, you need consensus to add the material back." You're saying that consensus is not required to change a policy, but consensus is required to change it back to what it was? That's flawed logic. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 23:03, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I should've rewrote that. There was no consensus to add that material in the first place. I'm not saying whether or not it's required; I've been on Wikipedia for several years with no problems and I know it's required. Can you provide proof that there was consensus in this case? I can not.Smithing 23:11, February 27, 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I've looked at RS:CONSENSUS and it seems to agree with me for the most part. Quotes:
"It is impractical to wait forever for affirmation: in the meantime, it is best to assume that silence implies consensus." There was silence for many days, about eight or so before being reverted. I also note there was no consensus to add the original quote in the first place.
"In essence, silence implies consent." Same thing.
I'd like to expand on what I said earlier. If there was a typo, would you need consent? Absolutely not. It's the same with this. There's an improvement that can be made, and I made it. No-one disagreed with this, silence means consent. Why are you, Evil, reverting a relatively minor reasoning behind a policy? There was implied consent before being reverted, so that means now you need consent. I note there was no consensus to add that piece of info in the first place. I will wait a week before making another revert (if my edit is reverted) if there are no more concerns. Smithing 00:10, February 28, 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for triple posting, but i have PROOF that the comment: "

"However, players, no matter how famous at the time, come and go. Therefore," was added with no consensus. Evil, you need consensus, not I. Azaz129 added that phrase on December 1, 2008 [3]. However, RS:Consensus was not policy (nor on this Wikia for that matter) until May 28, 2009 [4]. There was no discussion about this phrase anywhere. Smithing 00:26, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

Actually Smithing, no he does not. Policies, rules, guidelines, whatnot, can and should be reworded or expanded upon if an editor feels the point is not coming across properly or clearly enough. As long as the meaning is not changed, just clarified. In this exact specific case, the extra sentence really is not needed, sure. But we would absolutely never get a single bloody thing done if we needed consensus every time someone wants to fix up a few words here or there. Letting bureaucracy get in the way of getting something done is a horrid concept.--Degenret01 01:31, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. The problem from the beginning was this phrase was this phrase was not getting any point across and is useless in this article without further explanation (such as about its historical significance). I would add a reason, but I disagree with the policy itself so would be of no use. This later became a problem after Evil1888 reverted my removal of the phrase, claiming there was no consensus to do this (when in fact there was no consensus to add the phrase to begin with). If you want to expand on the above noting historical significance and whatnot, go ahead (not sure if consensus is needed). However, this phrase should not stand on its own, and is of no use to the policy. Evil1888 did not make any useful changes to the article in this case, he just made unnecessary reverts. Smithing 02:07, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion[edit source]

After spending a lot of time thinking up of a new reasoning that can explain why this policy is in place (that is fair), I've come up with one. Please voice you agreement or disagreement.

"Every player is equal, and no player is more deserving than another to have an article. However, it is completely unreasonable to have articles on the over 156 million registered accounts[5] of RuneScape. Therefore, players don't deserve their own articles."

This is a million times better than the reasoning that we had previously. Smithing 03:48, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - We almost never use talk pages. For purposes such as this one (rewriting a policy), please create a thread in the Yew Grove. --LiquidTalk 03:57, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

I did here. Hopefully, this will prevent unfair reasoning from being added onto the policy from suggestions on the Yew Grove etc. Smithing 04:35, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

Meh. Every reasoning for this policy is bad, save a couple decent arguments from Dtm above. From like, two years ago. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 01:46, March 10, 2011 (UTC)