User:Chicken7/Existency proposal

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

Below is a proposal that I will place on the Yew Grove soon. Preferably, DO NOT POST YOUR OPINIONS ON THIS PAGE BUT ON THE DISCUSSION PAGE. It is a proposed proposal! I am seeking some other guys opinions on what else we should change, then I'll propose it.


Note: In this context, items refers to things/aspects, not in-game, tradeable items


Ok, this is probably going to be a very two-sided argument that will never get consensus, but here goes. I think there needs to be changes on our leniency of what articles we allow on the wiki. What topics are notable enough to have their own article? Are we going to have articles on items to be included in future updates for the game? I'm sure a lot of us have seen this mess of a discussion. I think we need to be more specific on what articles we should have, and what we shouldn't. Specific policies that will be affected are as follows:

Just to let you guys know, Sailing is actually allowed per RS:NIP point three, if you call it a notable urban legend. I would. But there needs to be some clarification. A lot of us are for articles about aspects/items/things that are discussed a lot and bare significance (notable). Others are not. Our tagline says "the wiki devoted to all things RuneScape". We need to have broad coverage of everything that is strictly related to RuneScape. Which do you think is going to get more searches in Google? ??? mixture or Dragon warhammer? Arcenia root or Music cape? Red cog or Sailing? Wikipedia covers things that are notable. What do we cover? I know we're not Wikipedia, but doesn't mean we can't do some things that lead to their success. If someone heard Sailing being mentioned in game, they are going to look it up. If they know about the wiki, probably look it up here. What will they find, a small section on some page (if VfD is successful).

The other items are those that have been confirmed to be included in the future. I think there may be a little confusion, but the RS:NIP does not even say anything about items that are to be released in the future, only in the nutshell. But articles for future items should be created. Of course, we will not be speculative which is a violation of RS:NOT#CRYSTAL. There is nothing wrong with writing about content that will be created with in future, if we are not speculative. That's why we've got Template:Future.

Last thing is whether we are to cover items that are discovered through the Model Viewer. This will probably not be resolved until Forum:RuneScape Model Viewer = Against the rules reaches consensus. For now, policy says we do not cover any such items. An example is the Music cape.

Discuss. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 03:50, December 6, 2009 (UTC)