RuneScape talk:RuneScape Wiki is not...

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
This talk page is for discussing the RuneScape:RuneScape Wiki is not... page.

If RSW isn't a player dictionary or update database, then why do we have a player dictionary and update database? Perhaps it was meant that the whole thing isn't a dictionary or database, but in that case, those lines probably don't belong here. Skill 05:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that was copied from DRSW, so I'm pretty sure the list of things apply to DRSW, and not all apply to RSW. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 06:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed changes[edit source]

OK, I think there needs to be a discussion on proposed changes before we go ahead and make this binding. It was brought up on the forums that the trivia policy needs work, so there's something to talk about for one. Other parts need to be changed also - discuss away (but no voting!). Skill 20:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No polling pl0x. People take advantage of the "majority" when really they majority is only like 15% higher, HARDLY consensus. ChristineTalk 20:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change: "Wiki business should stay on wiki"[edit source]

Okay, this would basically say that all wiki-related decisions would have to be held on the wiki.

The reason I put this is, a lot of the editors who edit don’t look or post on the forums. For example, when a poll was held for two weeks on weather or not to make RS:NOT a policy, almost no major editor and no sysop voted.

Thoughts? Sysop crown.svgTes FanSysop crown.svg 12:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Dragon medium helm! Whaddaya know?Chiafriend12Better than rune!Loon is best buttlord 19:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Yep, it needs to be on the wiki itself, not the IRC or forums. The latter isn't as frequented, and it's nearly impossible for everyone involved to be on IRC simultaneously, so it's best we avoid them when making binding decisions. Skill 22:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Added a section here. Skill 23:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that's a very good idea. --Wowbagger421 01:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Trivia[edit source]

It was brought up on the forums (specifically, this post) that there are many opinions regarding trivia. The section as it currently stands hasn't been edited by anyone but me (except for a punctuation fix), so I'd like to get some broader input before this is made into policy. Skill 00:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Took out the section entirely, since it doesn't appear to be agreed upon. Skill 02:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Approval as policy[edit source]

Before this can become binding policy, there has to be consensus from the community. Please express your opinions and discuss any changes you would like made here. Skill 02:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It feels like RS:NOT#BUREAUCRACY isn't being enforced enough. In voting pages (like VfD and NfA) experienced editors make up the majority of the voters. Just saying May be coloured blue in the near
Give me an example please. Experienced editors seem to vote more often than newer ones. Also, note that decisions are based on consensus (general agreement), not majority (more people support than oppose). Dtm142 19:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
FFS, I'm not trying to prove anything. More users should just be encouraged to vote instead of the usual motley crew of professional, jaded veterans. Also, voting booths are closed at one user's discretion, often with new "points" in the discussion. See the last line of: RuneScape:Votes for deletion/Archive2#Tavvy_.28redirect.29 May be coloured blue in the near
Removed wanted pages clutter. C.ChiamTalk 07:05, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
Everyone IS encouraged to vote. In fact, we are one of the most lenient wikis out there (most wikis have a requirement to vote on a RFA/UOTM, like having 50 edits)

I don't see how we can change that unless we shove the links in their faces and say "VOTE!" (and we do point out new voting both on the main page and on the site notice). The most likely reason that new people don't vote is because they don't bother. Sysop crown.svgTes FanSysop crown.svg 20:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well put. I can't force a new user to vote. They're welcome to, but they don't have to if they don't care. Please try to be civil during this discussion. The "vetrans" aren't out to get you. Dtm142 21:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't saying "veterans" to be insulting. It was just being used for the handful of people who vote. I'm one of them. *waits for another user to shred through his post*
Yeah, you're right, we can't make them vote. May be coloured blue in the near
If someone doesn't care about a dispute enough to share their opinion then who cares about their opinion? If people care, then they'll vote. Why should they need to be encouraged? --Wowbagger421 06:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with these policies, i'd say put them as rules then let's see what changes do they need. Garouppa 11:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about player moderator confidentiality. It isn't breaking any of the 15 rules, and as long as we don't go into vast detail (naming player moderators, saying what you can and can't be muted for, etc) it shouldn't be much of a problem. Dtm142 19:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I would rather not get into the issue of deciding what does and doesn't constitute vast detail. There are a few things I can think of that seem harmless at first glance, but could in fact pose a problem. Better to just say that as a blanket rule confidentiality should be preserved in the article space at least. Skill 19:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to note that I split RS:IAR off of RS:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, but for the purposes of this discussion, it should be treated as if it were still there. Any objections to that? Skill 07:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This discussion appears to have stalled, so barring further objection, I'll take off the under construction tag and put this in Category:Policies in a day or two. Skill 21:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Skill 19:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
It's cool with me. May be coloured blue in the near

Not A Quest Guide?[edit source]

Is this place a quest guide or no? Planeshifted 22:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

We do have quest guides, and I don't believe the policy currently mentions anything about quests. Skill 22:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a democracy[edit source]

In any discussion, the primary goal is to reach a consensus. However, in some cases, we have spent weeks arguing without reaching consensus. On major issues, after a significant amount of discussion has taken place with no consensus being reached, I suggest that the issue be decided by a democratic vote. Only a bureaucrat could begin the vote. This way, we can at least reach a conclusion fairly and close a discussion without having endless argument. This could also help us decide policy issues, such as the redirect policy and the Tavvy debate currently occurring. What do you guys think? Slayer-icon.png Gangsterls Divination-icon.png talk18:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If we can't gain a consensus, then we default to the status quo. I agree that the "Tavvy" debate is a waste of time and energy (honestly, who cares?). However, consensus basically means that the community as a whole (in general) agrees on a particular decision. Also, bureaucrats carry no more authority than any other user. It is literally access to two special pages. Dtm142 18:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
A consensus does not equate to a majority vote. The idea is that a general agreement forms among editors, not that 51% of voters get their way and the other 49% are left in the cold. Take the current Tavvy debate. Will we ever get everyone involved to vote in the same way? No. But at the very least, we can see if a significant number of editors agree on something. If it's a pretty even split, then we should revert back to the way things currently are, as there's no consensus to do anything. Now, I'm not saying the vote count is entirely meaningless, as it indicates which argument the community has accepted. But if a consensus really has formed, it'll be obvious looking at the discussion that this is the case. If you really can't tell what the consensus is, the odds are that there isn't one. Skill 21:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Knowledge base content[edit source]

"editors should try to avoid usage of content taken directly from the Knowledge Base unless it is essential to readers' understanding of a topic, as we have no permission to use it except fair use." Personally I quote the knowledge base quite a lot, whether it's numbers for experience gained or passages of text to back up claims made in articles. I do cite the relevant page as the source though, so surely this is permitted? Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 07:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a democracy (redux)[edit source]

Although it does sum up the message intended, it appears more to state that we are not a direct democracy. The reason I'm bringing this up is simply because we are a form a democracy that's called a consensus democracy, and some mention of this should be made (as well as a link to the corresponding wikipedia article for more information on the topic). -Byte_Master bytesig2.png bytesig3.png 12:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Shortcut: Pretty Good Idea (PGI)[edit source]

I made an edit to the Not-Web-Host section. If it meets with general disapproval, it's fate is to be deleted. Que sera, sera. In the meantime, it seemed like a Pretty Good Idea. This edit is, of course, open for discussion, unless someone deletes the discussion, lol.

Sigh... you're getting paranoid. If you're afraid that every single one of your contributions will be deleted, then it might be better for you to edit another wiki.  Tien  14:33, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Not Jagex[edit source]

That section needs to be re-written by someone as since be became a silver fansite it would be possible to say that we are supported and endorsed by Jagex. I am not sure whether that would be technically the correct terms to use, though it would be confusing to the layman at least (and me if I wasn't following wiki politics). I would do it, though as everyone knows I have the same writing ability of a glass of water. Lol Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 04:54, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

I think technically we are not actually supported nor endorsed, they say that is for Gold and Platinum. I've had mods tell me to stop saying our name in game as of yesterday. --Degenret01 05:23, April 24, 2010 (UTC)

Changes[edit source]

Didn't notice the crystal ball part, sorry. A revert somehow removed the id's which I added back by switching to the version prior to the revert, assuming nothing else was changed. Mark (talk) 22:17, October 2, 2010 (UTC)