RuneScape:Yew Grove

The Yew grove is a page where community members can discuss larger changes to the wiki, such as policy proposals. It serves as a way for anyone to get involved without having to find the relevant discussion page. Messages should be left on this page, not on the talk page.

What this page should be used for:
 * Policy proposals or changes
 * Discussion of community processes (such as RS:AOTM)
 * Changes to significant wiki features.
 * In general, anything that the community at large would be interested in.

What this page should not be used for: __NEWSECTIONLINK__
 * Discussions about deleting a page. Use RS:VFD
 * Requests for adminship. Use RS:RFA
 * Discussions about the Wiki's theme. Use RuneScape:Theme
 * Discussions that belong on an article's talk page.
 * Anything that does not have a wide impact.

GEMW annoyance
As probably a lot of people have noticed, many other users are updating only the current price on Exchange: pages, and not the times and last price. I think we should discuss if we should employ a policy saying that if it's done wrong, we just revert the edit. I've been fixing other peoples' incorrectly added prices for a while now, and it's rather annoying. This (Nothing meant towards this specific user. Just an example.) is what I'm talking about, and it's happening a lot.

I vote Neutral on such a policy I mentioned earlier. I'm fine with fixing others' incorrect doings, but it's getting annoying.

So, yeah, discuss, vote, whatever. 16:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Uh, I don't know if I understand this correctly, but it took me about 5 seconds to fix that mistake. I think reverting is just counter productive. =P 22:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I admit I'm still new to wikia format and templates, so this may be a dumb question: Is it possible to simply update the GE Market Watch template to automatically add the current time of the edit, and the price of the previous version, to their respective fields? Or is something like that just no possible/viable? Regabuh 22:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral It would be easier to just use the current price and date and leave out the last price and last date now that Runescape is introducing the GE price database. I would update the prices more if I only needed to update price and add 5 tildes and not copy old price and copy old date. I'm more interested in the current prices in the various articles that utilize the GEMW data which depends more on the current info and not on past prices. I can always go to RuneScape if I want to know the up-to-date price trends; I don't trust the trends arrows in GEMW anyways because they are not always updated or may be in error. Chrislee33 23:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - I think that if your already taking time to revert the edit it wouldn't take that much more time time to correct it, now that the GE database has been released couldn't someone create a bot to pull the prices for each item off of there once a day or something? and does anybody know why the wanted pages are full of exchange pages that have been created? Reddo 01:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment It's funny Reddo should mention bots - I'm doing just that very thing with User:PointyBot at the moment. Give me a few days and I should have something up and running which will be able to update GEMW prices automatically from the Grand Exchange Database on the RuneScape site. Pointy 01:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I'm not sure if this is true, but from what I've heard, rollback reverts are only for "simple vandalism". Those who update the price are usually trying to help the wiki, and it is our policy to always assume that at first. So, if we consider it being done incorrectly "simple vandalism", wouldn't that be against the policy? Butterman62 (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Would be possible to Automate this with the new Grand exchange thing on the RS frontpage. Blazel 17:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

"LOL NOOBS GO **** YOUR MOM"
Special:Log/block

In other words, there's been a huge amount of vandalism lately. Unlike the usual 1-3 blocks a day, admins are dishing out 7+ of these a day. I'm suspecting that it's a Total Rune, Buck Nell, or www.4chan.org invasion, but that's just me. Seriously, what the hell is going on?


 * Out of the 18 IP addresses blocked today ("today" being the day in my time zone):
 * 11 North American
 * 5 European
 * 2 Australian


 * 13 appear to be residential/business ISPs
 * 5 registered to schools/universities


 * None of them look like open proxies... in other words, this is a product of our growth recently rather than an attack by one or two persistent vandals. (Over 200 accounts/IPs made 5 or more edits last month.) I notice there have also been a dozen or more blocks given out for each of the last few days, as well, and if I were to check their locations, the results would probably be similar to those above. Skill 04:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've always wondered why some IPs are just registered as "residential/business"... don't these things have a country? 06:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The databases I use (the ones linked at the bottom of IP talk pages) all seem to have registration addresses... not sure what you mean. Skill 07:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, nvm, I misread, I didn't notice you made the same list twice (1st, the 18 IPs by country, and 2nd, the same 18 IPs by school vs non-school). 13:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious about the security system on the wiki. It seems that the majority of vandalism is perpetrated by anonymous editors, so why do we allow anonymous edits? I know that the wiki is open to everyone to edit, but if we do it by account, the kiddies who vandalise may be less inclined to do so if they have to set up an account, as I imagine most of them have the attention span of a gnat. I'm sure that this has already been discussed before, but it would be nice to hear the reasoning. Hurston 14:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there are plenty of anonymous users that make positive edits, as well. Especially in the past few months, I've noticed, there are quite a few more anons that add content. I'm sure it would eliminate most of the vandalism to disable anonymous editing, but we would probably lose all those other anons, as well as the fact that it's highly unlikely that Wikia staff would do it for us (none of us can). Skill 23:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see a huge problem in this.. there are plenty of admins and regular users reverting it and blocking the offenders. Like Skill said, it's a product of our growth. Vandalism is vandalism. Just because there's a lot of it in one day, doesn't mean there is an attack or invasion. 02:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly. I don't think vandalism is the biggest of problems right now. I have never seen live vandalism on the wiki. That's because the admins do such a great job reverting it. Keep up the good work admins, Cheers, [[Image:Kandarincrest.gif|25px]]  C  hicken  7 [[Image:Kandarincrest.gif|25px]]  talk  support-the-namespace 05:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Chicken, cheers to the admins, to the bearaucrats...but what about regular users like me and ben? Its really not just the admins reverting vandalism. Just something to refelct on., 04:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, Regular users do a lot of the work as well. I just meant like blocking other users and stuff. Cheers, [[Image:Kandarincrest.gif|25px]] Chicken7  >talk>sign 06:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Resurrecting an ancient topic, I'm not concerned about vandalism in the mainspace (anyone with a brain realizes that chickens do not drop d chains). What I am worried about is vandalism towards the GEMW: It's very difficult to detect, and compromises the GEMW's credibility as a reliable price guide. I have no opinion over what should be done to protect the GEMW, but it's an issue that really needs to be solved.


 * One thing we could do is semi-protect the GEMW pages. I am very hesitant to do that, as I've also seen some useful anon edits there as well... but the GEMW pages (especially the individual item pages) are rather technical for the new wiki user to understand.


 * Once a useful bot is made for extracting the data from the Jagex pages and at least transferring the more useful data to here is done, the requirement for anon updates on the hard price data is going to be significantly reduced. They certainly aren't doing anything more than simple vandalism, and other than the item pages I haven't seen them doing something like hacking into the templates.... which could do significantly more damage.


 * BTW, while I'm wading through some of the bot scripts... is there anybody currently working on a 'bot right now for extracting the Jagex price data? I would prefer to make something cooperatively than to spin my own in "competition".  --Robert Horning 22:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * PointyBot's got a list of 3200 items in an Access database it scraped from the Exchange site, and 7000 prices points for those items, but I've hit a problem with how to upload those prices in a way that allows it to work with more than one person running the bot. I don't want to be a critical point of failure on the GEMW prices so I need to make it so multiple people can run the bot and it 'just works' without flooding prices and charts all over the show. I'm trying to make progress, but I'm stuck for time at the moment, so I can't make any promises I'm afraid. If someone else beats PointyBot to the punch that's fine with me :-). In the meantime, if you want a data-dump of items let me know and I'll post it somewhere in table form if that helps. Pointy 00:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Explicitating who may participate in RfAs, AotMs, VfDs and the like
This RfB has brought forward a disputatious issue in regards to whether the applicability of one rule found in UotM is or can be blanketed to those other areas where opinions of support and oppose are found. There are some that argued that it did however, after having researched past RfAs which took place after the policy change found in UotM, I did not find a single example of someone being denied a vote due to lack of mainspace edits and to the contrary, found examples such as this one (that took place six months after the UotM rule was initiated) where someone with less than 50 mainspace edits was challenged but ultimately allowed to participate in the disucssion. So as of right now the reality is that de jure and de facto, the only place where one must have a minimum of 50 edits is UotM. Despite this, we have some users and at least one administrator who believe that this policy should or is extended to other areas. And so I have created this discussion so that we may finally clarify and crystallize the rules.0 Let me clarify now that this discussion does not include UotM since the rules was already publically discussed and had been developped exclusively for that area and additionally, the 50 edit requirement in a situation where only support votes are allowed and no negative vote can be expressed makes sense. So now as to who may participate.

So who should be allowed to participate in these discussions? I'd like to start off by reminding everyone that these requests for admin, for an article of the month even the vote for deletion is not simply a question of getting a democratic majority but of a general consensus formed between those people participating so though while 60% of the people may think an article should be deleted and 40% think it should be kept, they can come to a concensus of a merger. As a corollary, in a situation where 70% of the people voice a support opinion without cause and 30% of the people state that they oppose but provide then first and foremost, there is an evident lack of consensus and second, it is not the vote that matters but the argument behind it and so a strong, reasoned and persuasive minority vote will determine the end result over a weak and generic majority vote. We don't bring votes here, we bring arguments and no argument should be nfor reasons that go beyond the breadth of the argument itself. So if a new user or an anonymous IP or an administrator or a bureaucrat gives a unique position or a good idea either in support of a position or person, in opposition or to form a consensus, their voice should not be nullifed and striken out simply due to the mistrust of others. This is probably why there is no rules banning them and why we should explicitly state that yes they can participate. To buttress this, I'd like to quote other official policies.

First of all, we find these truths to be self-evident, that all editors are created equal: "Editors come in all shapes, sizes and powers; from the bureaucrat, to the admin, to the standard editor, to the unlogged IP address. It's also possible that although you do not know it, the editor you're talking to is a player moderator, forum moderator or even a Jagex staff member. In addition, a member may have very high levels in some skills, and specializes in them a lot. An editor's status, popularity, attitude, demeanor, or in-game experience may influence the way we think about them. However, there is no person on this wiki that has more authority than another, no matter what, because all editors are equal."

A good contribution is a good contribution, a good idea is a good idea and so if someone gives a good reason why an article should be deleted or a person shouldn't be an administrator, their "title" should be irrelevant. I also know that a concern of some people would be sockpuppets. Well first, I would say that all editors must assume good faith in others: "Assume that when an editor makes an edit, it was to help the wiki, not to vandalize it. Since anyone can edit, we must assume that most people who work on the wiki are trying to help it, not hurt it. If you are positive someone made an unconstructive edit, then feel free to correct it." Remember, we aren't really "voting" since the majority will not automatically mean that something passes or fails. If there is reason to believe that an editor may be a sockpuppet such as being the single edit of an IP or having come back after two months of nothing to vote, then you can note that in subscript without striking out their comment and if the proof is incontrovertible, then it may be removed. Regardless, ideas are what reign in these fora and if you provide a good idea to support your position and indicate that a particular person or persons parrot someone else or don't even provide any reason, then in the forming of a final concensal agreement, they would not have any particular influence.

Finally, let's remember what the Runescape community is not:

"a democracy: Community decisions are based upon consensus, not polling. When contributing to a discussion, an argument should be given for your point of view, instead of simply voting. Others will then respond to your argument, and eventually a consensus should be reached one way or another. Once all arguments have been made and responded to, the discussion may be closed by an administrator or bureaucrat, regardless of the time elapsed since the nomination. Closing administrators are given limited discretion in determining whether a consensus has been reached in a discussion. If you feel that the decision made was poor or did not reflect consensus, you can appeal the decision on the closer's talk page, or at another community process. Decisions should never be made simply on the basis of majority vote."

"a bureaucracy: Wikis are not intended to be run by a cabal of administrators, or for that matter, experienced editors. Policies and guidelines should achieve a consensus before they come into effect, and should be written down in project space for all to see. They should be designed to improve the wiki, but can be ignored in cases when they are not accomplishing this task. All users should be able to participate in the development of policies, and in other discussions.  There is no power structure of any sort. Administrators are not "higher" than regular users in any way, other than having access to administrator tools. Likewise, bureaucrats are not higher than administrators, except again that they have access to bureaucrat tools. All editors are equal. "

Our policies say so, the spirit of Wikia asks so and so far this place has shown so: all editors are equal, there is no hierarchy and everyone should be able to participate in discussions. Let's make this clear to all.-- 23:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Support the idea of allowing newer users to vote - Ok, first off, that was one of the longests posts I've ever seen on the Wiki or on the Wiki forums. Second, isn't the same thing happening in the U.S. with voter ID cards? Third, it's "we hold these truths..." not "we find...". Anyways, to get back on topic I'd like to back up what you said earlier in your post. Indeed, since many people say that we are not a democracy and that we aren't actually "voting", I find it very interesting that some of the same people are trying to limit who can vote. Like you said earlier, if we really aren't voting then what difference would a sock puppet make? If someone just comes in and says "support - so and so is my friend irl" and that person joined yesterday and has 2 edits, it doesn't really matter since it's a consensus. If their "vote" doesn't contribute to the discussion or doesn't counter a previous arguement then it means nothing. If a new person who has been here one day and has 2 edits comes in and makes a wonderful point and supports it with links, their opinion SHOULD be considered, as it contributes to the discussion. I really don't think these "rules" are helping the Wiki at all... 00:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ilyas, none of the supporters have listed ANY links to validate their argument. Because a large number are new and know nothing about why Chia would be be good, because they don't know the community at all. Christine 01:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support unrestricted voting. In any discussion where we get a load of spammy 'me-too' votes the closing admin can simply note that these were treated as such when writing up the summary. It would only be a problem if we counted votes and used majority rule, but since we look to consensus instead I don't really see it as an issue. Putting a restriction on voting would, however, prevent 'unqualified' editors from making positive contributions to the discussion and that is A Bad Thing. Pointy 00:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest an OBJECTION keyword to respond to comments which really should be taken with a grain of salt:
 * Example:
 * Support Endasil is my best friend, he would make a great sysop! Signed, SomeNoob
 * OBJECTION This user has only made 10 or so edits in the last year and clearly is voting in the interest of Endasil and not of the wiki. Signed, SomeDenizen
 * This would allow us to clearly mark points to which we take exception while not removing their intrinsic right to have said it.  14:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * @Ilyas: I think the reason Christine (whatever, I'll name names) is so adamant on clearly marking those votes is because the process is so dependent on one person: the presiding bureaucrat.  We know that Dtm will always look at the arguments, we trust him to do so, but what if an inactive 'crat stumbles upon the decision, sees all the supports and less opposes, and without really reading the whole discussion decides the result?  I think a few of us are kind of nervous that all of that would rely on one person's discretion (all the more reason to be very picky with choosing a new bureaucrat) and so we want to make certain things clear to any presiding 'crat.  That said, I agree with diberville, and to clarify my stance, I don't think we should be striking-through new users' comments.  It's not a vote, and so clearly inlining an objection or a comment to a Support/Oppose vote that doesn't have a shred of reasoning behind it is sufficient.   14:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * To Christine - But what does "assume good faith" mean? It means not to assume everything is bad and to at least give people a chance. We wouldn't be doing that if we put a ban on ALL new users would, in fact, NOT be assuming good faith. 15:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To Endasil - All the more reason we need crats who are neutral and not on one side or the other. 15:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've been involved with two other fairly largish wiki communities (Wikibooks and Wikiversity), and the long-time precedent that has been invoked in those communities was in regards to not vote counts, but the quality of the argument being presented. This keeps out sock puppetry... which is from all appearances the reason you are trying to exclude new contributors.  Or am I mistaken about this? This shouldn't be an issue that "majority rules", but to look at intelligent discussions about the various issues that are raised.  In other words, a VfD discussion that has 25 votes in support that are mostly "Yeah, ugly page...needs to go", and one very well thought out and reasoned reply that demonstrates policies where it fits within the scope of the project and why such a page is desperately needed within the project.... I think the reasoned reply should outweigh all of the other essentially meaningless votes against.  In other words, improve the discussion, don't just count votes.  Or simply put, don't rely simply upon the vote totals. Along this line of thought, it is much more likely that a brand-new user could come up with a substantially coherent argument for one side of an argument... or perhaps even come up with a truly novel solution that might even resolve the issue in some way that all parties can agree upon.  I know this takes maturity and it is much easier to simply count votes.  But this attitude can help resolve issues without having to worry about such petty problems like how many edits one of the participants in the discussion has made or not made to represent how valuable their ideas are in the discussion.  --Robert Horning 17:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what he's trying to say. 17:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As a note, this no-voting precedent was made quite a while before RS:NOT, where RFA's were mostly decided by vote count, and the issue was raised when real-life friends of the nominee would vote. Since RS:NOT was made, and has been trying to move RFA's and the like into a consensus with disscussion instead of a voting booth, I think the precedent is redundant now (I feel I can safely say no one here wants to prevent IPs and new users from partaking in disscussion). Of course, we still have the issue of people going "Support - name", but that's a different issue entirely. =) 17:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but now that it is a consensus, it would make no sense to deny new users the right to "vote", or really just add to the discussion. 17:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, that's the point I was getting at.
 * And as I said in my somewhat sesquipedalian speech, so far the rules and actions of most people do follow this ideal but a small minority spuriously claim that only some may participate (as seen in the above linked discussion) and so that's why I created this— to explcitate, that is make abundantly clear, that everyone may participate and that an opinion, good or bad, can't be thrown out due to arbitrary non-existant rules that throw good faith and the Socratic nature of Wikia out the window.-- 17:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is saying that only some may participate...I think we all agree that a valid point is valid no matter who said it. But the problem is that most of the new people "voting" don't even have a point!  If I could think of the ideal (not saying it would be possible or practical) we would have a discussion where nobody really supported or opposed, but only said some valid premise with a link or two to prove its validity.  If we could get to that point, signing comments wouldn't even mean anything...either the premise would be true or it wouldn't, end of story.  00:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can tell you from discussions in IRC that at least two users are under the imprsession that IPs or new users are not allowed to participate in these discussions, valid point or not and that these are the rules despite all the contradictory evidence I showed them which is why I think it absolutely necessary to state that anyone can participate. As you can see in the discussion, one even restored the strikethrough "per policy" which doesn't exist anywhere but in the user's mind. And as an addendum in suport of your paragraph below this one, it is a sysop and crat's responsibility to look over a discussion to find a concensus or maintain the status quo in the case that one is not present; strikethroughs are unnecessary.  If one believes they are required for the closing admin, then it means one of two things: either the sysoping of the admin was a mistake or more probably, the strikethrougher does not assume good faith in the ability of the crat or sysop.  In either case, the person contributing to the discussion should not be punished because of the shortcomings showcased in others.-- 00:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyway, at this point, I think we all agree that this wiki is NOT a democracy, and therefore newbie votes don't really have a theoretical affect. The only argument I've seen to strikethrough such votes is that it provides a visible note to any presiding 'crat or sysop.  But, I think I've demonstrated we can achieve the same thing by objecting or adding comments to an invalid point, a sheep vote, etc.  So is there any other reason that justifies removing a new user's intrinsic right to participate in these vital wiki discussions?   00:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm not sure about using the word "objection" though - it's a bit over-formal and it's kind of confrontational as well. I think "comment" is more appropriate, and it avoids adding new 'special words' to the process. Pointy 00:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you've contradicted yourself here Endasil. Yeah, this isn't a democracy in the sense that we don't have to strictly count votes.  But what is being suggested here is that new users do in fact have a voice... based on the quality of their argument.  I know this is a bit much to ask from a bunch of fans of a game that is admittedly strongly biased toward the teen-age demographics (and asserted to be largely a pre-teen game by some harsh critics.... I don't want to flame this point any more), but maturity and an air of compromise is something that needs to be made in order to let the whole wiki concept work.  Writing a massive document (you can call this wiki to be a player's handbook for Runescape) collaboratively is a very difficult task and can push differences to the front if you let them.


 * For myself, I find strikethroughs to be offensive and a deliberate attempt to squelch a conversation. If a decision has to be made and action taken (presumably by an administrator), the person taking the action can be expected to be intelligent enough to be able to discount votes on their own.  Let the words written stand on their own.  There are exceptions to this concept, but that should be an exception rather than the rule.  --Robert Horning 12:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, where did I contradict myself? I've said that we're not a democracy, and that everyone should have the right to speak their piece.  I've said that strikethroughs tend to remove a user's right to speech and that instead we should be simply responding to comments with no weight (Support Endasil he's my cousin) with deliberate rebuttals.  If you're confused about the way I used "newbie vote", I meant that specifically to refer to the type of voting that's been happening on Chia's RFB--that is, a vote by a functionally inactive user with no useful argument--NOT to mean any comment left by a newbie.  So, if that's not what you think is contradictory, please tell me what was.   21:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Though I expect this conversation to continue, based on the pre-existing rules, everything said here and on parts six, seven and eight of RuneScape:Gaming_the_system, I am immediately removing the strikes from the RfB since they are effectively currently breaking the rules and gaming the system right now even if we all immediately change out position on this issue. If you see anyone restoring the strikes, please revert and inform them of their mistake.-- 21:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Asking for clarification The heading of this topic is clear in stating that AOTMs are part of what we are talking about, the discussion appears to have been predominately about RFAs and RFBs. I agree wholeheartedy that all should be allowed to participate in those discussions. But I also think that for AOTM the 50 minimum edits needed should remain for a vote to be cast.--24.195.240.91 18:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To somewhat reiterate what I said above and what I noted in the AotM, the insertion of the "50 edits" in AotM was done by one person unilaterally by copying and pasting the rules from UotM without any discussion a long while ago and since we can support or oppose in AotM and not UotM, like RfAs, RfBs and VfDs, raw votes of support will not be the ultimate deciding factor when selecting the article. Moreover, you are an Anon IP; why should I deny you your right to voice your opinion in support or opposition of an aritcle simply because you did not create an account?  Does that somehow undercut the quality of your argument or make your opinion worth less than mine?  Does that seem right to you, especially considering the cornerstones of Wikia being the assumption of good faith and the equality of all editors?-- 01:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To stop sock puppets is the only reason I think we need the edit count. If someone with less than 50 wants to comment or discuss I do not say they can't have a valid arguement. I would just hate to see someone making a bunch of accounts just to get "their" article as AOTM.--24.195.240.91 01:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well as has been noted several times above, it is the responsibility of the closing admin or crat to look not at the number of supports or opposes but at the quality or even the existence of the argument made. Also, if one AnonIP's single edit is a vote of support for someone's article or request for adminship, this would raise dubious questions as to the true nature of that particular AnonIP and others may raise the point that the voice of support or opposition is the first and only thing ever stated.  If one dozen virgin AnonIPs happen to vote one way or another with no new substantive reason of why they voiced their opinion in such a way, these votes would be subsequentally ignored in the admin or crats search of a concensus.-- 02:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There have been some recent things that took my eye with Skill's RFB that I want to address. This has to do with some people assuming that the fruit of this discussion was that vandals or sockpuppets could vote. In my opinion, this discussion has agreed that because we are not voting per se, any member of the community should be allowed to voice their opinion. I do not see, however, where this should have any effect on the rights of a banned member. There are numerous problems with allowing input from banned users, these being two: I think the bigger problem is coming from a misconception that some of you have with consensus. I believe some people think along these lines: "well, because we need consensus, everything is objective, and so only the argument matters, not who said it."" This is completely wrong!!!  Consensus is in NO WAY objective, it is still, and should be, completely subjective!  The role of argumentation in consensus decisions is to sway the opinion of dissenters when dissension occurs, however, it is perfectly possible for everyone to be at a valid consensus with no arguments given.  When you're on a board of directors, and you have a consensus vote, you don't think they go around the table and make everyone justify their opinion, do you?  No!  it's only when they're at an impasse that arguments or debates are needed. Before replying to me, please read this: Consensus.  13:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We are saying that it is perfectly acceptable for a user to create sockpuppets when they're banned to continue to try and be part of the community. I don't see any way that we should be allowing this.
 * Our decisions are made out of consensus, but consensus is about a general agreement between the members. Just like a shareholder from HSBC shouldn't be able to vote in consensus decisions in shareholder meetings at Citibank, neither should vandals (who are no longer part of the community) be able to voice their opinion on decisions which affect the community which they are no longer part of.
 * In regards to your first point, I agree and part of that is my fault. I was in a bit of a rush and trying to do my daily patrols as quickly as possible so while going through the dozens tabs I had open, I saw a strike and removed it.  The next day when I went back, I saw the person was another sockpuppet of a banned vandal, fortunately, someone had already restriked the vote but others may have seen my edit reason and believed then that even users who attempt to be detrimental to our community can also participate in it.  As to your second point, I'm not sure I understand.  Are you saying that you think that the argument doesn't matter as much as who said it?  Because though I agree with your larger point about not needing an argument or having to make sure everyone is in agreement for the right reasons if there's already a natural consensus but it is of paramount importance that when there is an impasse, the final consensus gets reached because of the more well-reasoned and persuasive arguments, not because "the important people" made them.-- 16:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, take what I said for what you called the "larger point." My point is that consensus is not the same as a courtroom, and we are treating it like it is.  We don't just form an argument, provide evidence, etc, and then let the judge/jury (a bureaucrat/sysop) make the decision based on the argument.  Consensus is still subjective, in that you can have consensus if everyone agrees the same way.


 * If you put 12 Republicans in a room and tried to reach a consensus on the future of public health care, you could probably reach consensus without an enormous debate, whereas if you put 6 Republicans and 6 Democrats into the same room, some argument would be bound to take place before a consensus were reached. This is because Republicans are typically inclined to think in the same direction.  They are subjectively similar.


 * So consensus is still dependent on who the people in the community are, and what their opinions are. Consensus can be reached without an argument, but argumentation will often be needed to reach consensus.  What this means for us is this:


 * A vote from a banned user cannot keep us from reaching consensus. The community's consensus does not require the consent of someone who is not part of the community.   17:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, so... do you have a worry that people will argue to convince the closing admin rather than the community at large or is it something else? If so, I'm missing the sticking point you have.-- 17:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My original post was meant to get across two points:

17:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It's a misconception that consensus requires argumentation.
 * 2) Only members of the community may participate in discussions requiring community consensus. Thus, block evaders may not participate in community consensus discussions, because a "no" vote would imply the consensus hasn't yet been reached, when in fact within the community proper, it has.
 * I see and I agree. We have achieved consensus!-- 17:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Drop table/Input and consensus NEEDED
Because I do not want an edit war or something (or to get blocked) I say we need a discussion regarding a drop table. A drop table would have the average number of charms someone could expect to get by killing 100 of any of the listed creatures. This is not the same as a drop log because its' numbers will be based on the experiences of 2 or more people. More whenever possible. When the table was up I referred many people ingame to it and it was greatly appreciated by them. I further state that the table should stay based upon RS:IAR for any who would like to argue that it violates a rule. People, we need a consensus on whether it should happen. Please input.--Degenret01 02:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I know I am new as a registered user, but I have used this wiki for about 6 months now. So I am not a total noob. (Just a minor one). I am not sure that the table can be called a lot different than a drop log (isn't it like a SUMMARY drop log?) but the point regarding RS:IAR looks very valid. Even the statements of Butterman seem to suggest he would have not done so had he been aware of that. But shouldn't this be on Yew grove to get consensus? --Varthlokkur 03:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really Yew Grove appropriate. It's only affecting one page, and IMHO that should stay on this talk page. However, as to the drop log point, as far as I'm concerned, it IS a drop log. As far as I'm concerned, it DOES help the article. I'd rather a list like that then a T/F thing over which monster drops charms. Although, I'd prefer more than just 2 people killing 100 monsters each. So we'll need to work on that. =P Add at least 5, and probably at least 500 monsters, averaged out to be charms per 100. 04:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Degenret has a point with RS:IAR. I also told him on his talk page that I disagreed with the RS:SG policy, and that we could attempt to change it (I've initiated a policy change before, specifically RS:AEAE). And to be honest, I didn't know this policy existed on the RuneScape wiki before (but I've seen it on Wikipedia). Also, I realize the table's potential benefit to the wiki. However, also, it could also cause a lot of problems. For example, let's say a user did some testing, so he changes up the table a bit to say "20 gold charms" for so and so instead of 15. Then, someone disagrees, he says it's 10. Then another person does it, and he gets lucky and says it's 40. And on and on and on. However, the table could help and as everyone says, "anyone can edit" and "if you don't want your contributions to be mercilessly edited, then don't submit them". So, maybe it wouldn't be a problem, but then who knows.
 * Also, to another point, I think this should be on the yew grove, because maybe it's only affecting one page now, but it might will affect more later. Some day, someone will come along and try to do the same thing for, say, abyssal whip drop rate from abyssal demon. Then someone changes the rate, and someone disagrees with that rate, and someone disagrees with the table altogether, and here we go again. [[Image:Bloodbarrage.png|20px]] Butterman62 (talk) [[Image:Icebarrage.png|20px]] 21:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and Varthlokkur, your opinion is valued just as much as everyone else's. All editors are equal. [[Image:Bloodbarrage.png|20px]] Butterman62 (talk) [[Image:Icebarrage.png|20px]] 21:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Since this is a Yew Grove topic because we are talking about changing board wide policy, I'm going to move it over there so to those who wish to add their two cents, please go here: RuneScape:Yew_grove.-- 21:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yet another skin thread

 * See RuneScape_talk:Theme

Recent changes refreshes automatically
Hey guys. I've put some code in MediaWiki:Common.js from WoW Wiki that allows the recent changes to refresh automatically every 60 seconds. All you have to do is go to the recent changes page and select the "AJAX" box at the top of the page beside the header (it might take awhile to load). It's useful if you want to keep a window/tab open to the recent changes to patrol the wiki without having to refresh it all the time. It works in Firefox and Internet Explorer 7, though you must be logged in to see use it.--Richard 00:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, how come the admins don't turn green, and staff turn gold, etc? That's what it's supposed to do, but I've never seen it. 00:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It might be your browser. I see the colours in Firefox and IE7.--Richard 00:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My browser? Can I do anything to fix it? 00:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any colors for user rights groups either, but yet I'm using IE6. Gotta get that updated soon. [[Image:Bloodbarrage.png|20px]] Butterman62 (talk) [[Image:Icebarrage.png|20px]] 18:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

When is an edit minor ?
Hi. I'm a pretty new member here on the wiki and am trying to feel my way around without messing anything up. I was looking at RuneScape:Requests_for_adminship/Nq2h and got to wondering, when does this button get checked? For punctuation? Ok. Fixing 1 or 2 spelling errors? Ok. Rewriting 2 or 3 sentences so they make more sense? Maybe not. So I was looking at Edit help and Style guide and couldn't find any information on it. So I asked User_talk:Robert_Horning about it because I saw he knows a lot about the wikis. And he tells me there is no policy so go ahead and start a proposal here to get one. I don't know about all the different edit types yet so I am hoping experienced users can come up with some ideas.
 * For me, I mark edits as minor if it's a small thing, like fixing a few typos, punctuation (as you said above), a link, a redirect, bolding a title, one of those small things. There's really no standard median among users. It varies for everyone. 04:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * All my edits are marked as minor automatically by wikia, and I don't think a policy makes any sense. It's too easy to forget to check the box, or uncheck the box for those who use it automatically, and what are we supposed to do, punish those who forget...? I don't think a policy is even needed or sensible. Christine 22:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen you mark a lot of major things minor, like signing talk pages, and adding a section to an article? Why? 01:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Christine, you can change that in your preferences. Under the "editing" tab, there is a selection for "Mark all edits minor by default".  Just make sure that's unchecked.  It's usually off by default, but maybe you checked it by accident some time :) - sannse (talk) 09:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I want it like that, sannse.. =\ Christine 02:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My rule of thumb is, if I'm adding, removing or altering content, that is, if after my edit the information found on the page is different from what it was before, it's a major edit. Anything else, such as the stuff Chia enumerated, I consider minor.-- 01:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The main issue I have about the "concern" over if an edit is minor or not is how it may be perceived in terms of discussions for adminship (what started this whole conversation) or if a user may be considered a "difficult user". I do agree that some nefarious users can take advantage of the situation where most people consider a minor edit to be something to avoid reviewing when pressed for time in either doing a recent changes patrol or looking at their watchlist. It can be an indication for if somebody is being systematically damaging to the project or not. In a broad sense as well, you can gauge the use (or lack thereof) of the minor edit flag to determine how seasoned the editor is in terms of how they apply the flag on what they edit.

But at the same time, don't think this is an issue that should even be raised at all in terms of granting administrator rights. The minor edit flag is a very deep and personal issue, and something that varies considerably from one user to another. While it may be an indicator of problems, it certainly shouldn't be used ever as the "prime" evidence that somebody isn't fit to become an administrator or to get their account blocked. Furthermore, I would consider it to be very rude behavior to be highly critical of another user's pattern of using the flag if otherwise they are making useful contributions to the wiki.

I support continued discussion about what constitutes a minor edit or not, and that is something that certainly would be useful to the newer wiki users among us. Heck, I would like to learn a little bit more about what others do with this flag. But I rank its use as something akin to somebody using the spelling for the word "color" or "colour" and should be treated the same. --Robert Horning 12:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I use the minor checkbox for, like Diberville said, pretty much anything which does not change the information contained in an article, and for which I would not want to waste the time to be peer reviewed. An exception to this is that I will mark heavy restructuring as major (drastically changing the organization of a page, etc). I will use the minor flag if it's simple rewording without changing content.

I'm against the idea of using minor as a default, because one of the main uses of the minor flag is to filter out what you want to see on recent changes or your watch list. For this reason, I think we should always err on the side of calling a minor edit major, rather than the other way around. It's better for another editor to check a "major" edit on their watchlist, only to find out that it's a spelling correction, than have another editor avoid checking a "minor" edit on their watchlist (because it's marked as minor), and perhaps let a factual inaccuracy slip by.

I do think we should have a note of this in the Style guide or something, just for new editors and consistency. I don't think it's something that should be rigidly enforced, however. It wouldn't be there for the sake of being a rule, but rather as a guideline for curious new users. 17:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Special:Userrights
If a b'crat wants to make a user an admin or give rollback, the new special page Special:Userrights should be used. This page incorporates Special:Makesysop and Special:Giverollback (which no longer works anyway), so it is still possible to give users rollback rights.--Richard 16:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

editing help anoying!
Every time I'm trying to edit something some stupid window pops up giving suggestions this is very annoying cause i cant close it so i have to click a suggestion and then remover it from the text!--j-g 14:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've found how you can turn it of now but its very complicated to turn it off this should be made easier!--j-g 14:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I also found this annoying and turned it off in my preferences. To anyone else out there that doesn't like this feature and can't find where to turn it off, you go to Preferences -> Editing -> Enable similar articles suggestions, and uncheck that box. Other than that, I think it's a general Wikia feature and not something the admins at this particular wiki have any control over. 18:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to turn off either the tips or link suggest (or both), go to your preferences, click on the "Editing" tab, and check the boxes "Do not show editing tips" and "Do not show link suggest". They should then go away; I've turned them off and they haven't appeared again.--Richard 22:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

While it's true that this feature is absurdly glitchy, and should have undergone testing before being integrated, you can dismiss the dialog by hitting the Escape key on your keyboard. 22:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

YouTube embedding policy
Currently, we have no policy on YouTube videos being embedded in articles. Some users remove them anyway, with nothing currently to stand on. I recommend that we make some policy on embedding YouTube videos. I say that the video must portray no opinions (like how a review is very opinionated), and be informational, and stuff like that.

I have footage of a weird version of the death glitch myself, but HyperCam nor Windows Movie Maker lets you export clips as .gifs, only .wavs (I think they're .wavs.).

As a note, if something gets passed saying that videos aren't allowed in articles, many cases would still fall under RS:IAR. 00:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't really enjoy YouTube videos within articles since there are technical issues that may crop up, copyright problems can arise and aesthetically, it doesn't look very nice. However, I personally think that they can and should be included if they convey some information which for one reason or another can not be conveyed through a simple textual or pictoral display, the creator of the video has given their express permission of its use, and the video itself avoids using loud music, swearing, biased opinion and respects all other current rules within policy; in short, the video must be encyclopedic.-- 15:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with not letting youtube vids into main articles. There are so many issues (mentioned above) that can easily arise.   [[Image:Drunk Dragon.PNG|Drunk dragon]]Cheers! Atlandy 19:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think YouTube articles should be kept. Most are very useful. Also, if the creator has to give licenses, then I don't think many would be allowed on this wiki, anyway. I say we just keep it like it is. 20:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoa, hold on there. No matter our opinions on the validity of YouTube videos in articles, wiki policy dictate that we can not use someone else's own intellectual property, be it a map, an image, text or anything else, without their express permission.-- 20:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, but I never saw any. I assumed that they wouldn't mind unless they directly said, "Do not use this!" 20:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well if you check below the edit window, it says in bold lettering "Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!" Here's our policy and it links to the umbrella Wikia policy which in a nutshell means that you have to assume you can't freely take and use someone's intellectual property unless there's something that expressly says you can.-- 20:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * RuneScape videos, as all the images and animations on this wiki, are copyright of Jagex, not the video maker/image taker/animation taker, and of which qualify under Fair Use, so that isn't a problem. 10:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're confusing the right of a YouTuber to make a RuneScape video without Jagex's permission versus the right of this wiki to use that video without the creator's permission. The former is allowable, the latter, which is what we are discussing, is not.-- 15:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I want to clarify the "fair use" argument about Jagex's intellectual property. Based on quite a bit of legal precedence and statutory law, what happens on this wiki is largely a derivative product, not really in the spirit of fair-use. What this means is that the content comes from Jagex copyrighted material and draws largely from that. We use so much Jagex material that claiming a "fair use" exception is really more of a joke than anything else, and IMHO not a valid legal excuse.

There is a defacto agreement to allow us to use Jagex content... as I have a very hard time believing that Jagex has never heard of the Runescape Wiki and hasn't had lawyers come and check us out. That none of us are making money off of this website (Wikia is, but not us, the contributors) certainly makes it quite a bit harder to prosecute the "authors" of this website. There is also a statute of limitations, both within the USA (where this website is hosted) and in the UK (home of Jagex) that requires the person whose copyright is being violated to step up and claim copyright violation.... usually (in the USA) with a DCMA "cease and desist" letter. That Jagex isn't being more forceful about the copyright is due to the benevolence of Jagex and their property, not due to some very liberal interpretation of fair use (or "fair dealing in Europe") copyright doctrine.

In other words, we exist because Jagex thinks having a bunch of fan sites that do screen captures and reproduce content from their web servers can help their bottom line, and that we act as a sort of advertisement branch for the company... or at least "free publicity" under theories of good public relations. All that it would take to shut down this wiki is some idiot of a new CEO/lead lawyer to get their "panties in a bunch" and decide to file that cease and desist request with Wikia.

BTW, this has happened when Paramount Studios went on a rampage and did just that against a whole bunch of Star Trek fan websites.

I highly doubt that including some "YouTube" videos is going to change that status... as long as the "authors" of those videos have either given explicit GFDL (or GFDL-compatible) copyleft licensing terms or are "officially" released by Jagex (as we are running ragged over Jagex copyright anyway, a little bit more doesn't make a difference). I do agree with Diberville that it should be something encyclopedic in nature, and demonstrating something like one of the riots or some other feature in a fashion similar to how we are using animated GIFs right now. All YouTube would be in this case is a free content hosting service, and helping to "offload" some of the data storage requirements from Wikia... who could also be "hosting" the video data as well all things considered.

The real argument is if we should allow external (to Wikia) content storage at places like YouTube, or should all of the content be hosted "locally" on Wikia servers. On that point, I really don't know what the best answer is. Certainly it would be useful to know if Wikia is hesitant about having a huge video archive or not... due to data storage requirements. --Robert Horning 16:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I will step away from the legal and fair use issues that Robert has already addressed and comment simply on the aesthetics. And on 99 percent of the RS vids I have seen, they really really suck. I feel they lower the overall quality of any page they are on, and therefore lower the overall quality of the wiki. We (i.e. all good contributors combined) put in hundreds of hours a week overall to make this site not only as informative as possible, but to do it in a neat concise way. The vids do not add to the neatness. Now, to be fair to the claim that some of them are informative and helpful, maybe the videos can be put on an article subpage linked to from that particular article. So each user can decide on thier own if they want to open it.--Degenret01 18:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"zomg it's not perfect"
Take a look at the deletion log. http://runescape.wikia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=

While a good portion of image deletions are to remove personal images, one type of deletion keeps standing out: "Low quality image". I've seen images that were serviceable--not perfect, not terrible--but were deleted anyway.

Our expectations for images are way too high; when a new editor's work is deleted, generally scares them away from from contributing here, anyhow. I can understand an uber compressed 50x50 screenshot being deleted. On the other hand, taking out images because they are JPEGs or not "cropped"/edited 100% to RSW "standards" is unacceptable.

Thoughts?


 * These "low quality images", were they actually in use in an article and adding to the article? And are the replaced before they are deleted? I think if the pic is decent enough AND the only one we have of something, then it should stay. Where are the criteria set for what is high or low enough quality? Is this a personal judgement done by each sysop on thier own? --Degenret01 02:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing in RuneScape:Images_and_media_policy addresses those questions.
 * I agree, all images, no matter what quality, should be kept until a replacement can be found. 01:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which, I've had some of my uploaded images deleted for no reason whatsoever. For example, a while back, I uploaded pictures of the blessed d'hide components. Chaoticar put them under speedy delete, my pictures were removed and he uploaded his own versions! The same thing happened more recently with Kytti Khat when I put up a picture of the updated Summoning and Smithing level up message pictures. Look on the history of Summoning and Smithing for proof! None of those pictures had any problems but were taken out and deleted anyway. -.- 01:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sometimes this has to do with making images transparent (Kytti khat explained this in both edit histories, if you look). Users on Monobook or a white-background skin often won't notice that an image has a white background, but those of us who have an off-white background sure do.  Often times we'll simply take the white-background image, download it, photoshop the background out, and reupload it under the same name.  In the case of Smithing and Summoning, the old ones were deleted--instead of being reuploaded to the same article space--to be consistent across all skills (Anvil Updated.png vs Smithing detail.png)   11:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This topic has been up for a bit and not generated enough discussion. In the cases referred to by Arias Knight, I see it very easy for people to get annoyed or their feeling hurt and then edit wars erupting over versions of images. (I am NOT saying Arias would, just saying those are the types of cases that could cause it). I believe we should generate a policy stating if the current image suits the needs, then a different version should not be uploaded. With certain exceptions. Such as, if we are switching to the new skill icons, then all should be updated. (although this particular case could have it's own particular discussion, as the old icons are still used on the display, and the new icon only comes up when its clicked on. So which to use?)--Degenret01 02:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to add my two cents worth: Is a policy on the matter really needed? The only reason (as Endasil pointed out above) that an image would usually be replaced is for a transparency issue or because the file is out-of-date, both of which are perfectly legit and shouldn't be a problem. If, on the other hand, the file is replaced with one of equal quality, I still don't think there is any reason to worry. It has the same overall result. The only reason I could see for the need to curb this would be if someone (for some reason) was doing this excessively, and I think that in that case a simple talk page message should be enough to sort it out.  12:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thats all good enough as far as it goes, but we havn't addressed the original question. I got away from it too. Regarding in use images the do NOT get replaced and are just deleted. Ok, C Teng didn't get away from it. So what's to stop a sysop from just deleting images they feel are not good enough even when they are in use? And there is not a current replacement? So we prob do not need a policy, a general guideline would be fine.--Degenret01 13:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Other languages
Here, the community decided to add a set of links to the sidebar for our sister wikis. For convenience, the default setting of the links would be collapsed. However, I don't think it works as well as it sounded. The MonoBook skin's sidebar takes a few seconds to collapse, which blocks the search bar. The Quartz skin's sidebar cannot be collapsed, and takes too much space. I did vote for the sister wikis links, but I didn't think it would be like this. I now think that having a link to sister wikis is pointless. It is simple to just go to the Main Page and click the link there. Instead of links linking to the Main Pages of other wikis, we could have an "other languages" table, like from Wikipedia. Clicking on the links there would take you to the same article on a wiki with a different language. To do this, all you have to do is put language letters:article on the page. For example, if there were a "Yew Grove" on the Spanish RuneScape Wiki, you would put, .The only page on the wiki that uses this is the Main Page. But I think that if there were links all over the wiki for this, it would be a lot better than the "sister wikis" link we have now. 01:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I also dislike the collapable sidebars. A lot of wikis use the article linking for different languages and it gets positive responses. I think it would be a good idea. You should also tell the other language wikis about the idea so they can link to the english RS Wiki (here). It might get a bit tedious though. Cheers, [[Image:Kandarincrest.gif|25px]] Chicken7  >talk>sign 09:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to add the languages to articles. Anyone else, please help. If we get enough language links on enough articles, maybe the sister wikis links can come off. 20:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"Ask the community" page
I'd like to set up a community page that would be a question/answer type page (or even eventually a series of pages) with one fundamental rule:

No question is too stupid or out of place to ask... especially if it is related somehow to Runescape.

Eventually I'd like to turn this into a sort of FAQ page for questions about the game where they may even be sorted into questions about different skills or perhaps other kinds of categorization. The goal here is that a new player can check out to see if a similar question has been asked before, and to use the wiki interface to help sort through these FAQs. *NOTE* this is not a forum in the traditional sense, but rather a way that new players can ask a question in a non-threating environment.

Those of us who have been playing the game for a couple years or more can (hopefully) come up with a sound answer to the questions.

I'm thinking something like "Who is Andrew Gower?" or "What is the little cross swords that I see on the bottom right side of the screen?" (The multi-combat indicator, FYI)

Why I'm posting here is that I'm trying to come up with a good name for such a page. A few come to mind, but I'd like to find something as fitting as "Yew Grove" that captures the spirit of the game. "Lumbridge Tutor", "Noobs 'R' Us", or "Castle Chronicles" are some suggestions, but I'm fairly certain some better names for such a FAQ page could be suggested. Any ideas? --Robert Horning 04:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I constantly see the question "WTF is that?", but maybe it's not very appropriate lol. Noobs 'R' us sounds ok, or maybe "Help, I'm a noob". I'm sure in the end lots of people here will say noob is too negative, but I like it anyhow. I call myself a noob all the time. It's just a funny word to me.--Degenret01 06:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I remember it took me forever to figure out what those little cross swords meant and why some NPCs stopped attacking me after a while.  If you're looking for name suggestions, how about Mr. Mordaut's classroom?  I mean, the dragon is already smart enough to pick out the featured articles in here.-- 16:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Summer School at Tutorial Island, maybe? (no offense meant, at all) Diber's works too... Hmm... or maybe "Adventurer's Training Grounds?" There's alot of name potential...


 * Regardless of what the name turns out to be, I like the idea. --Pikaandpi 17:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Wise Old Men? :P Nah I don't have any good ideas for the name, but I do like the idea of the page.  Being probably the longest-playing player here, I could see myself being able to help out a bit with some answers, too.  I have a couple of comments.  First, I think that it's really important that this should be able to teach people how to search smartly for answers on the wiki.  Even if we're answering FAQs, the answer is probably somewhere on this Wiki, and by providing links to where that information is stored on an FAQ, we should be helping newbies better use this site.  Second, I think it's important to have a "post anything" page separate from an "FAQ" page.  Basically, we should have a mechanism for "promoting" a question to a (or the) FAQ page.  22:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Would this sort of be like the Wikipedia Reference Desk? If I understand this right I think it's a good idea. I would like to consider having it in the forums, since that's where a lot of RuneScape-based questions, and it would help reduce the number of one question threads that are answered and then fall to the bottom of the forums. 22:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The reference desk is very close to what I was thinking about, but to also link it to a sort of FAQ list that would be built up over time based on the kinds of questions that would be asked. In other words, a genuine "Frequently asked questions" list.  I'm not against linking this into the forums as well, although it should be noted that the forum community and the wiki to seem to be different communities even if they are both hosted by wikia.  The overall goal here is to make it easier, not harder for somebody new to this community and website to ask a question.  If the forums can help with that overall goal, I'm 100% for it.  There will still be an article page that would help explain the forum and contain links to the FAQs.  If the user is more into wiki editing, I don't think that should be discouraged.  This doesn't have to be an either-or situation.


 * BTW, I completely agree with Endasil here in terms of linking to articles and encouraging answers that point to specific sub-sections. This could also help us out in terms of writing better articles, as occasionally I've even been a little bit puzzled by a particular quest or stumped about some game feature that simply wasn't clearly explained as well as it could have been.  Often those of us who are veterans forget some of the details of this game that we take for granted that are bewildering to new players... or we've adapted to the changes over time.  --Robert Horning 01:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Quest guide policy
I want to add a supplement to our Style guide to dictate how guides (Quest mostly) should be written. There have been recent changes which I find particularly appalling from a readability/grammar standpoint.

My draft is found at User:Endasil/Quest style guide. Here's a few examples that summarize the article:

Bad: Slightly better (Bulleting): Slightly better (2nd person): Better (Imperative):
 * Reldo is located in the Varrock Library. The player should talk to him.  Reldo will warn the player that Manbearpig is about to attack!
 * The player should talk to Reldo. He is located in the Varrock Library.  Reldo will warn the player that Manbearpig is about to attack!
 * You should talk to Reldo. He is located in the Varrock Library.  Reldo will warn you that Manbearpig is about to attack!
 * Talk to Reldo, located in the Varrock Library. Reldo will warn you that Manbearpig is about to attack!

The main theme of the guidelines are that, even though we are an encyclopedia, we are also a player manual. That means that some articles will not be encyclopedic in nature, but rather manual-like in nature. All these changes from "you" to "the player" are not written with a user in mind. You wouldn't write a manual to assemble an Ikea chair, saying "The customer should now screw in screw D9 into hole A7," would you? Comments please, there's been enough edits that I've wanted to undo recently due to bad style, but we don't have a very good style guide for this. 23:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right, it is a lot better that way. I've noticed that users sometimes change to what you say is good to what is bad. I say add it to the Style Guide. 23:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In the imperative sentence can't you just totally remove the word "you" in this case? to say "Reldo will warn that Manbearpig is about to attack!" I think it works well, but I haven't taken an english class in....ummm, omg, like 20 years lol.--Degenret01 00:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've seen some articles that simple replace the word "you" with the words "the player", and it sounds awful when I'm reading through the article after such a revision. In fact, the earlier indefinite article works much better.  BTW, I do agree that a better style guide can help, but it isn't quite so easy as a cut and paste, but rather requires some serious editorial skills and command of the English language.  For example with the above sentence:


 * Speak to Reldo, who is located in the Varrock Library. Reldo warns that Manbearpig is ready for an attack!


 * I'm not even saying this is perfect, but it does away with the "you" or "The Player" and allows the sentence to flow better. I've noticed that in many places where "the player" is used, it should be a more indefinite article such as "a player" or "players" as well.  Modern English doesn't use a hard article such as "the" all that often, particularly compared to other germanic or for that matter even latin-derived languages.  --Robert Horning 06:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, the only time I've ever thought that saying something like "players" was acceptable was when it actually referenced players. Such as "players often find this boss difficult."  Give me a sentence where you ever use a singular player, and I'll make it better (IMO) without.  I think we should always use second person over "player".  12:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I always wondered why there were so many different styles of writing. 1st person, 2nd person, 3rd person, etc.  I had been using 2nd person tone for editing articles, until I was told not to use the word "you".  Then, I started using the "3rd person" style ("the players should, they could, they may"), and the article got "undo-ed" for bad writing style.  Admins, can you guys make up your minds? LOL. I really like to clean-up articles.  Especially messy ones, like quest guides. I add sections, make them neater, etc. But at the same time, I editted the style: removing "you"s, and introducing "better" substitutes ("they", "the player", etc.) In my opinion, most articles should use the third person tone (i.e. NPCs, Monsters, Items). However, when it comes to Quest guides, I'm at a blank. Using third person tone make the guide seem more serious/professional/encyclopedic, but can be an eyesore. Using 2nd person tone, with "you" make it seem personal, and un-professional. I agree we're helping players with quest (by writing "manuals"), but we should distinguish ourselves from other fansites. After all, we are wikians. [[Image:Skill_Capes.gif|20 px]] Azliq7 Talk Edits [[Image:Skill_Capes.gif|20 px]] 14:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

My quick two cents: Aren't the things that are supposed to make us different from every other fansites are that 1) anyone can edit and 2) we're an encyclopedia? If we're an encyclopedia, shouldn't we use an encyclopedic tone, which at the very least requires the third person?-- 15:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it sounds better. We want to be the best encyclopedia for RuneScape, even if it's different from other encyclopedias. If you look on armour, there's even a tag that says it should be in the third person, which I think we all disagree with, too. 20:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This was added to the Armour article by one user, and I disagree with it completely: "Strategies should be in 3rd person tone ("The player should...") instead of 2nd person tone ("You should..."), and should not sound commanding ("Do this/that...")". We have nowhere stated this as policy, and it should not be taken as such.  In fact, we recently featured Kennith's Concerns, which used only commanding tenses.  22:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To Diberville: even if we strive to be an encyclopedia (which isn't necessary for a Wiki...just because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia doesn't mean Wikis are supposed to be), when we add guides or strategies, they are unencyclopedic by nature. There's the reason that Wikipedia has a policy against things written like a user manual...they aren't encyclopedic!  So we are already differentiating ourselves from an encyclopedia, in that we are more acting like a game manual with encyclopedic tendencies.  You have to ask yourself:  what is the virtue of writing quest guides like an encyclopedia entry?  If there is no virtue, by RuneScape:Ignore all rules, I say we write it in a way that is digestible for English speakers.  The whole idea of writing "The player" all over the place makes us look like illiterate fools.


 * I do have some experience in writing technical documentation. I'm in an engineering program.  Here's a document that backs me up: .  While almost everything in that document applies directly to our quest guides, there are a few paragraphs labelled "Writing style" which I'd like to quote directly.  The first and second paragraphs convey exactly what I'm trying to say.  The last paragraph seems to counter what Robert was suggesting.  Bolding was my addition, for effect.

22:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll admit that I even "break" my own rules here. I got involved with writing Perils of Ice Mountain on the day the quest came out, and it was a sort of fun experience writing a quest guide when such a guide didn't already exist... and proof of where the power of a wiki can be over a more static website.


 * Most technical writing is incredibly dry and to be honest, is something seldom read by anybody in part because it is so dry and boring. As an engineer I was also a part of a successful proposal with my former employer to hire somebody with an English Literature degree and a strong basis in liberal arts to help write technical manuals, explicitly because most engineers don't even know how to write a good memo to their immediate supervisor much less to any customers.


 * In one case, just to see if anybody was even bothering to read the manual, we put in a postcard that even had a business reply mail postal mark (so they didn't even have to pay postage) and a promise of a $100 drawing if you sent the thing in. We got a flood of one post card out of about 3000 manuals that were sent out to customers (on $100,000+ products, which is why there was a relatively low volume).  Based on most phone calls I had to answer when doing technical support, I would say most people don't read the manuals even when they are comparatively well written.


 * More to the point here and going back to my experiences with writing the quest guide as I was playing it, a more informal style seems to be the natural way to write things. The quest guides certainly need to be something that others would want to read, and it should flow as if it is written from one friend trying to speak to another and help you through the quest.  The goal is that it should be read and not necessarily something to impress an English professor.  The real question then is how can the quest guides be improved to achieve this goal and not necessarily sound like a poorly written recipe for Apple pie.  I'm also more than willing to admit that I'm wrong here, as long as we can achieve this basic goal.  --Robert Horning 04:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the tone or style that should be used, whichever one we do use should be used uniformly throughout the Wiki for cohesion and uniformity. As long as it's not a "u should go up to McGrbrs wood l8tr to get red worms, lol" style, I'll be fine with it and I don't find that the quality diminshes or increases whether it be second person indicative or imperetive or third person using definite or indefinite articles.-- 13:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
I report every vandal on sight, view User:Buzz 9 1990

But i think that reporting isnt enough.

Do you think that i could get rollback rights??

View

10:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Buzz, you don't need a Yew Grove discussion to get rollback rights. Just ask a b'crat on their talk page.  But you should know, the only thing rollback does is revert vandalism slighly more quickly.-- 15:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighted by Jagex Ltd.
We don't really have a policy on images directly from the RS site. Should we go about deleting these or does doing this not infringe? I've seen quite a few taken from the main site and I'm not sure what to do about it. Removing these pictures would be detrimental, but photos by users look better anyway. 21:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To the best of my understanding, the use of screenshots etc. from in-game are treated exactly the same as any images found on the JaGeX site.


 * From this, I'm assuming that the use of any JaGeX material (which includes screen-shots and images from the website) "may not be used except for personal (non-commercial) use". Again, I'm assuming that as part of wikia we are non-commercial and therefore we are allowed to use any of the images on the site in addition to the images that come directly from in-game.
 * In regards to actually using website images, I agree that user-generated screen captures of items/places etc. in-game do often look much better. There are a few cases, however, when the knowledge base may provide a better image (although I can't think of any off the top of my head). In these cases, I don't think we should be making a policy to prevent ourselves from using them.
 * If I'm on the wrong track about the whole free-use deal, maybe it's our Copyrights policy or similar that is what we should be looking at expanding.
 * 05:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The only problem with this sentiment is that the terms of the GNU Free Document License explicitly contradict the non-commercial nature of what you are trying to suggest here. While I will openly suggest that nobody that participates in developing the content of this wiki earns any body, there isn't anything that stops somebody from taking the content and publishing a for-profit printed manual that uses content from this wiki.  That is explicitly permitted by the GFDL.


 * Indeed, content added here that can be distributed via a non-commercial use only license is incompatible with the terms of this content license.


 * BTW, Wikia is far from a non-commercial enterprise, and in fact they are very much a for-profit entity that primarily earns their money from sidebar advertisements. Relying upon the non-commercial nature of Wikia isn't something that would hold up to close scrutiny in the long run, and could be potentially damaging to this wiki and community.


 * The relationship between this website and Jagex is a very interesting one, and at best the only real rationale for using the screenshots is what is called Fair-use doctrine under United States law... and interpreting this as broadly as possible in a fashion that normally wouldn't be permitted under UK law. I say all of this because on this website we very much go over the top on fair-use and can be largely considered a derivative work instead... deriving the content from a copyrighted work called the MMORPG game "Runescape".


 * Ideally it would be best if we, as a community, could get formal copyright permission from Jagex to use screenshots from the game to help illustrate the contents of this website. It certainly is very helpful and adds some flavor to what would be otherwise a rather bland set of webpages.  I'm not saying that any of the other wikia gameing wikis are any better or worse than we are, but this issue isn't nearly so cut and dried.


 * BTW, in all of this I'm not trying to suggest that we should go in some sort of administrative rampage and delete all of the images copied from the game via screenshots. All I'm suggesting is that the potential exists for Jagex to make a formal cease and desist request to Wikia under the terms of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.  If such a situation did occur, it is possible we would have to delete all of these images from this website and may even see this website temporarily (or even permanently) shut down.  A little forward thinking on the part of the participants to this website could avoid this potentially terrible situation.


 * I don't know the solution to this issue, and I don't even know if there is one that could avoid this potential legal bombshell. Screenshots by users or images copied directly from the Jagex web pages are irrelevant in this case, as both are potentially infringing on the copyright of the same company:  Jagex.  In-game screenshots potentially have more rationale in terms of fair-use, but it is a rather weak excuse.  This is certainly a situation that the participants of this website need to be very much made aware of, and mis-information like what is above needs to stop.  The information on this website can be used in a commercial manner, and indeed it is being used in a commercial nature even now.  BTW, I don't know how much "profit" Wikia makes each year, and I rather suspect it isn't all that much, but that is also irrelevant to this discussion.  --Robert Horning 10:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't give legal advice of course, but maybe I can clarify a bit (for those that don't know, I'm part of Wikia's Community Team).


 * The text of this wiki must be under the GDFL, which explicitly allows commercial use. Wikia provides database dumps of the content, as part of our commitment to the GDFL and freely available content.  So that means that text needs to either be original, or taken from a source that's GDFL compatable (in most cases that also means attributed).


 * Images have always been considered separately, and "with permission", "fair use", "Creative Commons licensed" and other rationale are allowed. In fact, for a lot of fan-based wikis, the biggest rationale is "the game/show/whatever owners don't mind fans using this on a fan site, because it all promotes their work anyway".  That seems to be what JaGeX is saying in the quote above.


 * One important part of this is that this is your wiki. It belongs to the community, hosted by Wikia.  It's a similar situation to many free web-hosts, who show ads but may have non-profit groups using the space.  Of course... we do considerably more than a web-host.  And because we are hosting for a community rather than individuals, our conditions for hosting include social rules (no, you can't run amok and ban everyone, the Wikia Community Team will step in if that happens! ;).  But the situations are similar enough to make this all work.


 * So, use images fairly, label them with license or permission information to make it easy for everyone to know the situation, and don't worry about Wikia's (one day!) profits - they aren't the key to this :) Hope that helps! -- sannse (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about it; none of the other fansites have been taken down over using Jagex's images.--Richard 20:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My point was that this isn't a "non-commercial" or "non-profit" situation here. Some of the fan sites actually are, so comparing this situation for this wiki to what other fan sites are doing is irrelevant.  I will say, like I've said above, Jagex isn't prosecuting here or actively trying to enforce copyright.  As a matter of fact, this lack of enforcement is a positive thing... so far as Jagex will eventually lose copyright standing on these images over time.


 * I will say that the images on this website (Runescape Wikia) generally haven't had fair-use rationale established other than as a general site-wide status. In fact, when I've tried to upload free images to this wiki, I've had them deleted as not relevant to the game or the article in question.


 * BTW, in regards to the text of this website, it isn't nearly so big of a deal. Nearly everything I've seen is more or less original content, or legitimately quoting referenced passages from the game or some other Jagex publication.  I'm certainly not worried about that, but the issue with the images is a little bit more of a concern.  Also, the courts have been far less forgiving about allowing fair-use for non-textual copyrighted material... particular music and video but images have also been prosecuted.  All I'm trying to say is that this is a legal grey area, and something that some other websites... notably Wikipedia but also a few others... have legitimately been quite paranoid about.  --Robert Horning 01:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)