RuneScape:Yew Grove

The Yew Grove is a page where community members can discuss larger changes to the wiki, such as policy proposal. As this page is viewed by a diverse number of editors, you can expect a fair and centralized discussion. Broadly construed, if the community would be interested in your topic, start it here.

Other
 * For promoting or beginning a project, use RuneScape:WikiGuild
 * For discussion of RuneScape itself, use the forums.
 * To list an ongoing discussion, use the RuneScape:Requests for comment directory.

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

.OGG readers, and what to do with Adventurers' Tales
As a wiki, we stride strive to become a good one. We already are, but there is one thing that we could defely use. As used by Wikipedia, having the ability to play .OGGs while a reader is reading an article could make the experience on this site better.


 * Having trouble pronouncing something? An .OGG could be played to show the reader how to say it. (I would be willing to do this.)
 * If anyone was willing to do such a thing, we could have narrations of articles.
 * Plus some other stuff, which escapes my ming mind at the moment.

Someone in #Wikia a while back said that to get an .OGG player, all one would have to do is request a staff member to install it, and it should be pretty much as simple as that.

But on another note, do we need RuneScape:Adventurers' Tales anyone anymore? RSFF covers that now. If we deleted it (or whatever a verdict may turn out to be), it wouldn't really do any damage, as the actual content is in the respective users' userpages.

So yeah, discuss and stuff. 05:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I should stop trying to type stuff when I'm so tired. :")... 19:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

OGG
Support - I like the idea of having .ogg's for articles (definition). And you don't need to worry Chia, I wont let your ideas escape your "ming" (lulz). =) 06:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Support per myself. 19:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Support I'd be willing to do it with my *cough* webcam sound recorder. However, this will take up lots of space (just like animations). 19:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol I can also use my dad's headphones. 19:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - It's a very good idea. Only difficulty is the large amount of articles, and we'd need to recreate oggs every time someone makes an edit. -- 01:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Support One good thing about this is Firefox 3.1 will have built-in .ogg support. A lot of words from RS are pronounced a lot of different ways,it would be great to know the proper way. - TehKittyCat 17:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Support per Chia. Also, if you want to pronounce RS words correctly, use the Postbags (they sometimes give pronunciations). 02:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

comment Rather than changing everything to ogg, which would mean that to keep it up to date you'd need mayby 50 people who are expert at doing it, can pronounce all the words correctly and have little in teh way of an unintelligible accent changing it continually, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week without break. Rather than that, why don't we have a page with all the hard to say/pronounce words on a certain page, which uses .ogg formatt, so that people can learn how to pronounce the words.-- 14:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Adventurers' Tales
Neutral - Adventurers' Tales are fan-fiction, and I feel that they should belong in RSFF. I would like to suggest that a note is given to the authors to move their content to RSFF, and we put a note on the page to say "We have moved to RuneScape Fan Fiction, please list your stories in RSFF." 12:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep Adventurers' Tales. The RSW and the RSFF Wiki are separate. There is no need for us to remove it. 12:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We may indeed be seperate, but both are run by the same community. 19:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Support discontinuation - Per myself. Not really deleting it, but maybe removing most of the content and replacing it with 'yadda yadda, this has been discontinued and stuff, please use the RuneScape Fan Fiction Wiki instead'. 19:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per Chia. And it's "strive", not "stride".

Same community? How do you know that? Just because you and a few other RS-Wikians go on, doesn't mean everyone does. What would we do with the old ones? Merge them into the other wiki? We're separate wikis! 16:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * RSFF is part of the RSW community because nine out of ten users there (Heck, we don't even have ten active users XD) edit here also. And I meant "discontinuation" as in 'accepting no new submissions', or something. For the stuff already in the respective userpages, it would stay there, per RS:DEU. Lastly, I know both are separate wikis, but that definitely hasn't stopped our 'crats (two at least, I'm pretty sure) and others from trying to dump articles into another wiki. Go talk to them on that matter ;). 03:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why we even half to discontinue it. Sure, we can let RSFFWiki have it. That doesn't mean we can't accept submissions. What's wrong with that? And why would we direct other users to a different wiki? 02:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Keeping

RSFF is for solely tales/fan fiction. the RSW is for All things runescape, including runescape tales. However, I think that Tales/stories should be created on the author/editor's page or subpage, otherwise we'd have to make a category for stories, so they didn't get mixed up with fact. Thanks.-- 14:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The Yew Grove - Ground rules & censorship on the Wiki Guide to the Yew Grove
OK, from the recent spate of b****ing going on in the Yew Grove about other editors questioning the value of contributions, accusations of sockpuppeting, and polls about blocks, I think we need to lay down some ground rules. These will (if approved) be located at the top of this page under the "What this page should/should not..." section. So here goes...


 * Do not use language which others may find offensive - swearing, [I find B****ing offensive] blonde jokes, racial slurs etc.
 * Follow all behavioural guidelines, especially RS:AEAE, RS:DDD and RS:UTP.
 * Resolve disputes peacefully. That means no cheap shots and no come-backs.
 * Do not use this page to discuss other editor's blocks or bans, accuse others of breaking guidelines or criticising their editing styles. Use their talk page instead.

the list is obviously not complete, feel free to add to it. Thanks, 15:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This can be summed up as be respectful and considerate of others. Keep the same mature, professional attitude you would have at work (or school for those of you who don't work.) This is a community of responsible, knowledgeable people who share the same interest of providing accurate information to those who desire it. While people may have disputes, it does not belong on this page. This page is for discussion of community events, something that affects nearly everyone in the community. However witty and cool somebody may feel by talking back on the internet, it's really not as impressive as the originator may think it is. If it doesn't help better the encyclopedia, don't put it on this page. I understand that there are many younger users on this wiki who might not share the same sense of respect and equality as others, but now is the perfect time to start learning. Being a "badass" in the real world won't get you anywhere, and it won't get you anywhere here either. It takes a lot less effort, time, and energy to just be helpful and do the right thing. If you have a personal issue with somebody, use the wiki's e-mail, keep it off the talk pages. This will keep others from flaming and start even more problems. But please, respect other people, it will help everybody in the end. 16:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "This will keep others from flaming and start even more problems." - Did you mean "This will keep others from flaming and starting even more problems." or "This will keep others from flaming and stop even more problems."?
 * Heh, thanks stinko. It will keep others from flaming and starting even more problems. Meaning if it is kept personal between two people, nobody else will be tempted to add their two cents. 16:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Why do people that have been sysopped get to swear? They act like they have every right in the world to and they own the Wiki. It really bothers me. Just because you have a position of authority in the Wiki community doesn't mean you should get to say offensive things like cuss. [[Image:Prayer.gif]]Jediadam4 [[Image:Abyssal Whip.gif]] 18:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused on this previous statement. The only two sysops who have commented on this are myself and stinko, and I found all of our comments to be clean. I will look again though. 18:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Im not sure I entirely understand your concern Jedi. If the policies are the same as the of the beginning of my hiatus then swearing can be used on the wiki provided it's not being used to direct an attack on another user. Generally most people don't swear every second line as it dosen't look very proffesional. But certainly provided you are keeping your comments neutral and constructive I really don't have a problem with "cuss". --Whiplash 18:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see: Do not use language which others may find offensive - swearing. All I have to say to that is that this is NOT kindergarten. We had a debate on this awhile back and I rembember that the consencus of it was that swearing is allowed on the wiki provided it's not being directed at a user. As far as Im concerned the swearing thing should be removed. --Whiplash 18:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And to think this was supposed to solve problems... Anyway, I think RS:AGF should be added to the list. All too often people jump to the conclusion that someone is up to no good. 19:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As a policy or two may inhibit discussion, RS:IAR in particular should be added.
 * Adding on to the rules on "wittiness", what we need to avoid is active moderating. One-line comments like "Xpkerpure, please use proper grammar" and "lolonoob, remember that RS:AEAE" aren't helping anyone and can turn the Yew Grove into a uncomfortable or even hostile environment.  20:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to side with Whiplash on this. Swearing is part of daily life, and 99% of the time it is not directed at anybody. This is generally accepted as okay, as it is not intended to offend or upset anybody. If somebody takes offense to every "swear" or "curse/cuss word" thrown around, they're in for a lifetime of disappointment. Certain words carry with them a highly offensive meaning, and should not be used, imo, but for the most part, provided it isn't aimed at anybody, it is fine. 20:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In response to the unregistered users comment above. Most behavioural policies on the wiki are not seriously enforced, perhaps with the exception of the user treatment policy. --Whiplash 20:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I really think we should keep the "no swearing" rule ONLY on the YG, because I can guarantee that nobody will have legitimate cause to "cuss" about a subject of discussion posted here. (If you wish to debate this, please provide an example where swearing would be acceptable in a communal discussion). 07:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you ask me, swearing should be prohibited/limited to talk pages and userpages only. I know of young kids who frequent this Wiki looking for information on RS and whatnot.  Although "99% of swearing" is not directed at anybody, this gives the impression that swearing is cool and okay.  We do not want to instill this perception that swearing is acceptable, especially among younger kids.  I don't think swearing is offensive, but I flinch every time I see a swear word in this wiki, knowing that some kid might see it and start using it at school the next day.  Imagine when the teacher asks "Where did you learn that word?" and the kid replies: "The RuneScape Wiki - the wiki for all things RuneScape."  LOL.  07:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You do have a point az, but at some time people need to come to the realization that we're not living a sheltered life, and the real world exists. I agree that swearing should not be allowed in articles, but on discussion pages such as this one, talk pages and such, certain non-offensive words that are considered "swear words" are acceptable, imo. If the concern is about young children seeing "bad words" and using them the next day, then the Player Dictionary article needs to be deleted. In all honesty, television is far more vulgar than pretty much anything kids will see here. 16:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the edit conflict Karlis =P, here was my original message... Azliq: I completely agree with you. How about limiting swearing to user talk pages and the player dictionary, because according to RS:DEU, we're not allowed to have swearing on user pages. Since this discussion is tipping over to a debate about the censorship on the RuneScape Wiki, I've changed the title to observe the views of others concerning the oppression of vulgar language amongst the younger people who may visit our Wiki. Karlis: the player dictionary has a language warning at the top of the page. Now regarding your comparison between the Wiki and TV. Television censorship (where I live) is much harsher than the Wiki's, there are content warnings, ratings and restricted time periods when shows and movies can be shown. Although I do not want our Wiki to end up like this, I do propose some protection. Moving on... "...certain non-offensive words that are considered "swear words" are acceptable..." I think that no swear word is acceptable, but some are tolerated more than others. The word "crap" would be more socially acceptable than "f***", right? 16:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Gonna reset this back to the left. I understand the difference in censorship based on countries, but I find some things trivial to censor. And yeah, I know about the language warning on the top of the page, but if a child is going to "learn curse words" from the wiki, a warning is not going to stop them. Now back to my opinions of trivial censorship. Words such as "damn", "hell" and "crap" are generally accepted by younger kids as borderline "bad words" yet are acceptable pretty much everywhere. I agree that certain four letter words are too far, but we need to have a more realistic stand. OK, from the recent spate of b****ing going on in the Yew Grove... ..work has been a pain in the a** this week...  ...I have had a lot of sh** going on this week... These all have "curse" words in them, by traditional standards, yet are not offensive. I want to know why something like this should be censored, when all that these words are doing are simply adding emotion to the sentence. Not that I am arguing that I display anything like this on my page, nor would I put it on anybody elses page, but I don't believe people should be shunned for it, or it should be looked down upon because the user is a little bit more mature than others. 16:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Seconded. 01:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, so I agree with you on the point that some words should be acceptable. Now going back to what you said, I really don't see that adding emotion to one's opinions stated here in the Yew Grove is a necessity. I proposed these guidelines because I have observed experienced editors drop the "s" bomb in discussions and use it excessively. THAT sort of language is what I want to control in the YG. And BTW, "b****ing" is a verb. 08:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure "some" words may be acceptable, but which ones should be accepted? How do we decide which ones are acceptable, and which ones are not? I feel that since this Wiki is about RuneScape, I propose that we follow the censorship based on the RuneScape game itself, i.e. the Chat filter. Jagex had introduced the Chat filter to filter out profanities and swear words from the game because they knew who the game was catered to: for people of all ages; played by people from different origins (countries) and ethnicities. Being a Wiki dedicated to RuneScape, our audience/visitors will be the same people playing RuneScape. I wouldn't mind if swearing is allowed in a Wiki dedicated to "GTA: San Andreas" where the game itself is rated Mature (17+), but on RSWiki...? What I would like to see among editors (especially admins) is self-censorship: in Project pages (like this one), article talkpages, "edit summaries", etc. See this page: So What's Wrong with Cussing?  12:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I keep a sense of professionalism on the wiki, so I do whatever I can to keep my language clean and civil. What people type on talk pages and user pages is their own thing. Let me try to summarize... On pages with community discussions or where the general public of the wiki is going to view, I agree that language should be kept clean. On userpages, actually maybe just user pages and subpages, we should be a little bit more lax. I disagree with people posting profanity on others' talk pages, so I guess just your own userpage, really. I stick with my initial post in this discussion, I feel it sums up well how I feel. Where that was more directed at overall attitude, it could apply to language as well. Be respectful and mindful of others. 12:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, this discussion has turned into whether or not profanity is okay, and it has been drawn away from guidelines and overall "appropriate attitude" when discussing on the yew grove. Lets recap for those who don't feel like scrolling up, and highlight other areas that need to be discussed...

*Do not use language which others may find offensive - swearing, blonde jokes, racial slurs etc.
 * Follow all behavioural guidelines, especially RS:AEAE, RS:DDD and RS:UTP.
 * Resolve disputes peacefully. That means no cheap shots and no come-backs.
 * Do not use this page to discuss other editor's blocks or bans, accuse others of breaking guidelines or criticising their editing styles. Use their talk page instead.
 * I will finish this when I get to work, time to go! 12:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, let me just provide some background information about the proposed additions. ...blonde jokes, racial slurs etc. This is based on the guidelines which many users of the official RuneScape Forums may be familiar about, this was taken from the Forum Code of Conduct. ...'''Resolve disputes peacefully. That means no cheap shots and no come-backs.''' This is based on Wikipedia's dispute resolution and civility policies and the negotiation essay. Our Wiki is based on consensus, and it will only keep going is if we can make decisions peacefully without contributors getting angry. Sure, a debate is healthy and is what brings up brighter and more efficient ideas, but don't go overboard. Use their talk page instead. OK, the main thinking behind this was the debate over a certain editor's recent indefinite block. I thought that an argument regarding an editor or the status of their account would be better suited to a user talk page, rather than the YG. I agree with Az on the censoring of words according to RuneScape. 13:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Az. This wiki already is enforced according to most RuneScape rules, I can't really see why, with a few exceptions, this shouldn't be the case here. Now, my question is about euphemisms... For example, crud over crap, for instance. I don't see why these would be any problem, though I'm open to discussion on that. --Pikaandpi 13:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My argument is that language of an offensive nature should be removed because there is no reasonable cause to use it in the first place. When are we going to use the word "crud" when talking about our Wiki? 13:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll have to admit I'm not sure how to respond in terms to the first sectence, as it kinda renders what I was going to say obslete <_< Buto for example "I'm sick and tired with all this crap" could easily be replaced with "I'm sick and tired with all this crud." Not so much talking "about" the Wiki, but within the Wiki about, say, RuneScape itself or whats happening in the real world. --Pikaandpi 13:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Language of an offensive nature, yes. If you are offended by the word crap, it's time to grow up a little bit. 14:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * When you put it that way... obviously the word is not offensive, "You're a piece of crap", "You're full of crap" can rub off as an attack. 14:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing personal, Karlis. But, "Crap" by definition is excrement and the act of defecating. See The Free Dictionary's first two definitions. The dictionary also mentions it as a "vulgar slang".  Although I'm not offended by euphemism use of the word, the word itself is disgusting, and similar words may be used instead.
 * Lets just put it this way. RuneScape requires their users to be age 13 or over. We can follow similar guidelines. Children 13 years old are mature enough to deal with some words. From what it seems, there is going to be no way to settle this as non-offensive words can be used in an attack. I think we are going to have to deal with this on a case-by-case basis. If I see something like "All I got form my slayer mission was a bunch of crap" or "I didn't get a damn thing from barrows" I'm not going to take any action, as it would be rediculous. If it is an attack at another player, then obviously the circumstances are different. I really think we need to get off the topic of offensive language and more on the topic of offensive content. There is a huge difference between the two. 14:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Guide to the Yew Grove
OK, since the current discussion seems to be going nowhere, I have another proposal. Instead of having the "rules" section as stated above, I think we should have a link to a Yew Grove Guide essay. It would state the rules (remember, ESSAY, which means you don't have to follow them) and much more stuff, like how to make a proposal, giving feedback, etc. I'll start drafting. What do you think? 04:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a interesting idea, where would you put it on the wiki to make sure everyone who needs to view it can view it? -- Rune ldr 88  03:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was thinking probably at the top of this page... 04:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, that sounds good. The essay looks fine so far. 02:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There should be no cursing at all for a few very simple reasons: -- 17:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We attempt to follow the same fifteen rules that Jagex established in game and rule number one is no swearing.
 * RuneScape:User treatment policy states: If you have a disagreement do not try to solve the issue with verbal insults or by using profanities. The use of profanity, even if not directly used to berate someone else violates this policy in any argument.
 * We are primarily an encyclopedia. I can't see any reason why even on the article talk pages someone would use cursing unless they have a limited vocabulary or are trying to be "edgy".
 * RuneScape is skewed primarily towards children. Though this place is not a "shelter" as has been noted above, it is even less a place to be exposed to such things.
 * Would you use epithets when talking to someone you just met or in front of a large crowd? This is essentially what it is like writing on the Internet and often people forget that there are other human beings on the other side.  There is no chance that you can offend someone by not swearing but there is a chance that you could offend them by swearing so to me, the choice between the two is obvious.
 * It's just basic common decency to curb the language.

New Additions to the Main Page
While browsing some other sites, I figured a featured picture and a "Did you know?" section would make the main page more attractive. These would be changed monthly. 03:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What are you suggesting we put in that section? Trivia? Updates? What? -- 03:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A high quality picture showing something in RuneScape and just some info people might find interesting. Perhaps we could tie in all that scattered trivia to become something people will read in an organized section? 05:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Great idea.. I suggest using facts from the Trivia section. For example: "Did you know that if a player loses their God book, they can go back to Jossik who will have found it "washed up ashore" and get it back for free, complete with all the pages it had beforehand." (from the God books article)  05:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The featured picture should be a high resolution picture of really well done areas of the game. Sounds like a great idea. [[Image:Gnomegoggleswithcap.png|25px]]TEbuddy 02:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * On the note of new content to the Main Page, i was thinking something similar to the RS GE DB's Item of the Week would give a nice touch as small side widget or some such perhaps nestled under the CTI Today:  section. Of course it would have to be relatively brief in size say only the item's name, inventory icon image, and examine text. Considering the sheer quantity of items it could actually be an Item of the Day feature, however I think that would be too much churn for this wiki currently.  19:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of adding a small "Did You Know" section. Add some trivia or useful tips in minigames or skills. 02:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Should this be put on Talk:RuneScape Wiki? 21:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Registration Revision (take 3)
Read this before you start commenting.

The amount of users blanking their talk page has dramatically increased, and personally, I think that needs attention. I am once again suggesting we change the registration messages to include a nutshell version of the rules because it's getting VERY old leaving a mention of RS:DDD on what seems like every new user's talk page. Personal images? WAY down since the last time I tried this, so I'm not concerned about that issue currently. Still, the amount of talk page blanking is out of hand.

The last time I brought this up, ONE PERSON suggested something, after which the suggestion was never posted in again. Don't leave me hanging, here...


 * I agree 100%. I also think that we still should outline the personal image rule a bit more as well. But as far as this suggestion goes, there have been times I wanted to protect their talk page just so they'd leave it alone. Maybe we could offer a short guide to archiving so if they want a blank talk page, they could simply do that rather than just blanking it all. 12:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to totally support the archiving tutorial, or perhaps even something more turnkey for those less inclined to follow such (an archive button or widget perhaps, but that might be beyond the scope of current capabilities). Perhaps many of these users are expecting blog like behaviour where older entries just float off the first page. We obviously can't give them that, however anything to ease and educate about archiving would be I believe the most helpful way to alleviate this problem en masse.  17:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if this is possible, but if it was, I'd probably support. There should be something like "Welcome to the RuneScape Wiki! Please read here for the rules or risk being blocked." --Oh crap... it's not ban evasion, is it? 05:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The information needs to be added in the welcome message at least, if not required before registering. And speaking of, I just did two of these things recently, I think, which I didn't know were against the rules - AND I GENERALLY PAY ATTENTION AND READ!

Now, having become aware of the issues, since my stuff got reverted or deleted, I went searching for why. I discovered some vague discussion of not blanking User Talk pages, but I can't find the "Rule" against it. And yes, I've looked.

Clearly this rule needs to be put somewhere where it's findable. I hunted through the links on my welcome note in my talk page, nada. At least I didn't find it. Maybe I'm stupid?

Also, not finding the rule about personal images. I've heard references to it here and there, in discussions, but I haven't seen "The Rule" so I can read it and figure out what's allowed and what isn't.

I'm sorry to be such an idiot, but I do want to point out, if I read, and if I try to follow the rules and be a good citizen here, and I can't figure it out, how are the even more clueless supposed to do it?

Also, there are style guides around. I know, cause I've seen mentions of them when something goes wrong - indignant comments about "doesn't that idiot know X violates the style guide". Speaking as an idiot who would be thrilled to comply with a style guide, if I could find it, where the heck are these beasties? Uh, found them. Warned you before I was an idiot.

I'm sure all these items exist in logical places, and once you already know where they are, it's obvious and logical. But please look at it from the new editor perspective. I've been actively editing for a while now, and I this is one maze I haven't navigated yet. Mamabear47 21:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * ALSO (wow, I thought had got it all out of my system), also, I can't tell who admins are! When someone says, "You did that wrong", I don't know if they are speaking with an official voice or just some other editor disagreeing. This is another area where people "in the know" know what's going on, and everyone else bumbles around in the dark, likely pissing off those who already know.


 * I don't know who the admins (or whatever) are. I would like to be able to tell instantly by looking at their signature! In the game - and we model ourselves on Jagex, right? - Jagex mods and player mods have a gold or silver crown next to their nick. You know, absolutely, if someone is just spouting their own opinion or if they're speaking with authority.


 * What does this have to do with registration? Um, well, it's tenuous, BUT it's yet another area where newbies need to be encultrated, taught the rules and customs of our group, or they will either anger the "oldtimers" or get frustrated and not contribute. Mamabear47 21:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Knowing whom the sysops here are really shouldn't matter too much. Because this wiki follows the principle that RuneScape:All_editors_are_equal, therefore no one speaks "with authority". What SHOULD happen when someone thinks you did something wrong, is they should provide a link to the rule or guide that is relevant so you can read it. And if there is disagreement between two people after reading it, use the policys talk page or the Yew Grove for clarification and comment from others.--Varthlokkur 10:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * For your information:
 * A list of admins/sysops can be found at: RuneScape:Administrators.
 * All policies can be found at: Category:Policies
 * Any help regarding editing and such can be found at the sidebar (Monobook version) under the "Help" link. Or here: Help:Contents.
 * Several users, unregistered and registered, have been blanking their talk pages as of late (one of those links is from September, but you get the idea). This needs attention, and SOON. Need I say more?


 * Aside from just being against the rules, why does it matter if someone blanks their talk page? Does it spam recent changes or something? [[Image:Gnomegoggleswithcap.png|25px]]TEbuddy 08:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

F2P Userstats Template
How about this as an example of a f2p users stats. Its a bit cleaner to remove all the p2p skills. At the moment the total level is calculated by adding all the f2p skills together plus 9 for the p2p skills which would be level 1 for free players.

Any ideas on things to add/remove/change etc. or is it a waste of time completely? -- 13:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I like it. It looks way cleaner than having tons of 1's on a complete table. CFLM ( Talk ) 15:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice. By the way, I've added the documentation for it. Rectify it if there's any mistakes.  15:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I just delete all the members-only fields on my userpage, which leaves a lot of s. But this looks better. I don't think we should have a separate number for f2p total level, that might make it look like your total level is lower than it actually is. 02:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Favourite and Wiki worlds
Do you think there should be a ptp and ftp world that is sort of the wiki's official world? Not anything set in stone, but it would be nice to have a world where most wikians hang out on. It could be used to promote community‎Atlandy 22:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a great idea - it would be nice to bump into wikians out and about. ;-)  Shame we can only nominate two favourite servers.  I am usually on 84 (UK P2P) for day-to-day stuff.   03:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, and world 84 happens to be my home world too :-D. Maybe have the home worlds be: World 84 for P2P and World 81 for F2P. - TehKittyCat 04:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not have the f2p world be 19, I think those two together would be quite memorable and since 19 is a 'us' world it will span that puddle of water. 16:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I like it, but let's set some boundries here before we make a final decision. I think these boundaries could easily be agreed on:


 * One F2P and one P2P
 * No QuickChat Worlds
 * No PvP Worlds
 * LootShare Worlds (not really mandatory, but it'd be great for Wiki Events or teaming up in training)
 * Ideally, a "neutral" world, where it has no reccomended activity (less outside intervention for those activities)
 * Ideally, not one of the first 10-20 worlds, as they can be difficult to log into.

Any objections to the above? --Pikaandpi 17:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Btzkillerv has entered the building!   17:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wish things like this didn't get lost in the huge yew grove page....Any world is fine with me.  Perhaps a poll on the front page to let everyone vote on it? ‎[[Image:Cooked_chicken.PNG‎]]Atlandy 18:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pikaandpi's suggestion. Which worlds should we use? 02:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Arrgh! This is getting lost in the Yew Grove for something that is very useful!  I would recommend worlds that are pretty representative, perhaps have lootshare, and an "average" player load (not a world with a whole bunch of players typically like worlds 1 & 2).  A further suggestion would be to make the world something in England, USA, or Canada due to bandwidth needs.  I agree with the quickchat & PvP restrictions mentioned above!  I only suggest America due to a number of Americans who edit on this wiki.  How about World 28 for P2P and World 29 for F2P?  Worlds 84 & 81 are both in England (not really a big deal for me) and world 81 isn't a lootshare world, although 29 is.  Some food for thought. --Robert Horning 05:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If we use Worlds 28 and 29, where would we show it? Could we put a link on the Maintop to RuneScape:Wiki world and put something on the Sitenotice? 12:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * i strongly recommend world 80 for a F2P world
 * Why? 12:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry i just remembered world 80 is PvP now, it should be world 81, because it is a transition world and not much people go on it due to regional preferences, but world 81 is also a trade center and my home world, the cons are that it has a medium-high player population 

The reason I was suggestion worlds 28 & 29 have to do with the fact that they have a high bandwidth network connection, are consecutively numbered, neither one is a themed world other than the fact that they are loot-share worlds, and otherwise fit all of the above requirements. Being consecutively numbered helps to keep track of where the member world is at if you are F2P and vice versa. I am also trying to be genuinely neutral in this selection and not just selecting it because it is my "home world" or that i have any special attraction to it. BTW, world 81 isn't a "lootshare world", if that makes this selection any easier.

Other "pairs" of servers like this include worlds 47&48 (USA), 75&76(USA), 112&113(Aus/Can), and 117&118 (Sweden). While I'm not calling Stockholm a 3rd world country for its internet connectivity, I don't know if it is the best place for a user base that is scattered around the world. I really think the selection of worlds ought to be restricted to just these five pairs of servers unless there is a very strong rationale other than "it is my home world". Worlds 28&29 are the "first" pair, using an otherwise rational approach rather than trying to get emotional here. Everybody has a world they started on or got attached to for some reason or another. My personal "favorites" are worlds 30 & 66, but I'm not trying to push either one here and only mentioning it due to disclosure of my bias. --Robert Horning 14:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I love the idea of "paired" worlds to make it easier to remember ‎[[Image:Cooked_chicken.PNG‎]]Atlandy 15:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, let's make the worlds 28 & 29. 03:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

RS:IMP
What is the process to move a proposed policy into actual policy? My guess, "Consensus", as such I'm asking for a quick vote on the Image and Media Policy.


 * Support - naturally since I am the one wanting to finalise this. 04:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Looks great, though I'm not sure about one item, that is videos not to be used in articles. We have many, many videos in articles, and I'm sure we don't want to be deleting them all. I support apart from that. Hurston 17:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The term 'video' seems unclear as of your posting, so along with other proposed policies these should be reviewed imo. 01:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - Everything seems to be in order.-- 18:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Do project-related images include images used in the Yew Grove or in the Talk namespace (besides in signatures)? For example, if someone uploaded an image to show an example for a talk page, but the image isn't used anywhere else. 12:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed policies
There are other Proposed policies that need to be revisited, and some of them are really, really old.
 * RS:IMP
 * RS:DSA
 * RS:RFAP
 * RS:SCOPE

On another note, I'd like to "nominate" the Quest style guide written by Endasil to be included in our official Style guide. It needs some modifications, but I think it is well written and should be made "official". 03:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If Endasil's quest style guide is ready, why not go ahead and move it over to RS:QSG? 01:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. I've expanded the RuneScape:Quest style guide to include the layout for a quest page.  Feel free to tinker with it.   17:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

RS:DSA
This particular proposed policy seems to be nothing more than a specific instance of the owndership and bias section of the style guide. As such I believe it would be best to redirect RS:DSA to that section of the style guide, and possibly incorporate it into the style guide as opposed to having it as it's own policy. 01:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * RS:DSA gives much more information than the small bullet point in the Ownership and bias section in the Style Guide. If we decide to delete the page, I think that we should give it its own subsection in the Style Guide. 13:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Template:Navbox
There are many uncategorised templates in Special:UncategorizedTemplates (about 500+ templates; excluding signatures).

As this wiki contains lots of navigation box templates (Navbox templates), I would like to propose the use of Template:Navbox to all existing navbox templates, similar to the way most Userboxes use Template:Userbox.

The purpose of this template is "to standardise certain attributes of all navigation boxes, for example, their colours and other CSS attributes." Certain features, such as Javascript collapsing, will be added in the future. (Javascript collapsing is available in Wikipedia's Navbox templates.) By using this template, these features can be implemented much quicker and easier than editing each template separately. In addition to that, we would be able to add the navbox templates to Category:Navigational templates automatically.

This template project was started by Skill in April 2008, but was never implemented. So, should we proceed with it? I've added some examples of its usage in the documentation page. If this project gets the go-ahead, then users who are familiar with templates may use this template for future navbox templates, and edit the existing templates. 17:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this would be cool; I just changed the "toccolours" class to "navbox" and changed the width option.--Richardtalk 18:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Shall I proceed with this? It is really frustrating when a user always reverts all the changes I make to a template using the Navbox template.   15:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I too have noticed the same and don't really know how to proceed with regards to the recurring uncommented reversions. It's possible that template nesting is just a little more abstract than some might be comfortable with, however I really feel that this is the way to go to get a consistent look and feel across the wiki. 17:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * On a related note, i am biased towards auto widths, however i recognise that that for auto to be the default width there needs to be a way to make multiple navbox templates on a single article size consistently up to the largest ones size (javascript?). 17:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd go for 100% widths as it is in Wikipedia. Auto-widths will make the templates inconsistent (across the wiki) if you ask me. Some templates have 40% and 70%, while others will require close to 100% width. Even if we choose to make the templates follow the largest width for the particular page (i.e. the Prayer article) using JavaScript and whatnot, the template width will be different for other articles. If we're going to standardise the templates, why not standardise the widths as well? Just an opinion. 15:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added the "collapsible" function to the template. This function adds the "show/hide" link to a template.  The default is currently set to "show".  When you try "hiding" an auto-width template, the template "shrinks" too much. =O  Try it (in the documentation page)... Which is why I think Wikipedia uses 100% width.   16:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well if following Wikipedia's style is so important then we have a lot to change. for instance using pipe characters as separator's (which forces us to use the ! template). But more important would be putting group titles on the side rather than top and centred (which is quite a waste of vertical space. Vertical space as you know is the more scare of any screen's dimensions (regardless if its a 4x3 aspect ratio or 16x9). Additionally the ability for subgroups would be very helpful for larger navigations boxes.  here's an example of the sort of navbox that i think could suit us well:



Even better would be the ability to have multi levels of title nesting. Imagine a nav box that was called "armour" the three main groups are of course melee, range, and magic, and under each of those three would be chest armour, leg armour, head armour, specific to the armour type (e.g., coif). that would look like this:



At the very least i feel that putting titles on the left with the list of links immediately to the right of the title is the way to go for 100% width nav templates. As it is now small templates have slews of white space on both sides, if we at least contain the white space on one side it will give a lot more consistent look and feel if 100% is to be defacto. As for inconsistent sizes with auto i think those would matter little if the text were on the left like wikipedia (which you've mentioned numerous times as the justification for 100% width). 19:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think auto-widths is better than 100% width, 100% width makes the template look too long. Naikiw 11:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Improved version
This is how the navigation template will look if it is left-aligned with 100% width. I haven't looked into sub-grouping yet, but I think this will cover most templates... 19:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sign me up for this version, looks great. 05:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the navboxes. But why does   have to be put on all the navbox talk pages? I thought we could make the "d" only show up if the talk page existed.  15:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that has been corrected now. 03:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for forumadminship
Okay, since, with InstantWinston's RfA, we now seem to be having forumadminship requests, I propose a third category of the "Requests for..." pages: forumadminship. Just like with RfBs, they will still fall under the RfA page, but will have the option to instead have forumadminship. A draft of the proposed page is here. Butterman62 (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, i like it the way it is now, Sysop = sysop. Forum or wiki. Why should we split it..? 10:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Because we already have, in InstantWinston's RfA already. We already have those requests; I just propose that we have a seperate category for them. And I mean requests for full forumadminship. If someone is a sysop, it only gives them forum modship. Butterman62 (talk) 11:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree that we need to separate it out, if only to avoid the confusion that we saw with InstantWinston's RfA. We also need some way of getting the attention of the people on the forums, since it affects them most. I know admins are also forum admins, but most of them do not do so. Someone who wants to be purely a forum admin will no doubt be active on the forums, so it would be nice that for such a position, there would have to be a standard forum post to let everyone on the forums know. Hurston 13:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, how I think it works (and is really why we need a Requests for forumadmin page), is that if a person is sysopped, they get forum modship. Forum adminship, however, does not need sysopping. Forumadmins actually have more abilities than forum mods, so I think InstantWinston will be made a forumadmin. But yeah, I just want to avoid the confusion. Also, we need a really good guide on the forums, which explains all the user groups and stuff. Butterman62 (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This makes a lot of sense. Had Instants RFA been for forums only from the first day, it would have passed a couple weeks ago most likely. And setting a policy now could be a great benefit as other forum users may start thinking of doing the same thing also.--Degenret01 10:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Support i support your idea only instead of making a new section why not just do it in the forums? If its something about the forums the decision should be made there. but for this to work the forum would need to be out of beta and have a rank system. Maybe you should be a candidate for one you have a lot of good ideas and strong community support. God Of War 06:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I kinda like how only bureaucrats get forumadmin, because if you're a sysop on the wiki, you're automatically a forum moderator. The only extra stuff you get with forum admin is the ability to arrange and add/remove different forums/sections. -- 23:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed here, FYI. 71.246.119.3 22:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That topic is not the same thing. The topic you linked was about whether there should be additional forum groups in the first place. Since that's already happened, this topic is just to propose a seperate rfa category for them.

People, this is not a request to put additional forum groups in or whether we should have more forumadmins. Those topics have already been done with. This topic is just to create a seperate category for them. Butterman62 (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, it would certainly be more efficient and cleaner to simply create a seperate category for this in order to avoid the confusion of Instant's RfA. I disagree with the forums being the place for this to occur; however, is it not only easier to keep track of a page history on the wiki but more honest. I'll elaborate, on on the forums there is no edit history and although there is a deletion history of who deleted what thread, there is currently no way to tell if a post on a thread has been deleted or who deleted it (not that I'm saying anyone would do this, but for the sake of keeping it as honest a process as possible it should remain on the wiki.)-- 19:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Exchange prices
OK I took some time to put together a solution to updating Exchange prices almost automatically:

Question: In an ideal world how often should they be updated? I'm going for daily at the moment.
 * Daily sounds right IMO.--Richardtalk 18:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Bot flag
If someone wants to mark my account as a bot account, please do. All GE price updates are marked as minor as it is.
 * Done!--Richardtalk 18:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Exceptions;help needed
There are some 3-400 items I can't update at the moment. Help is needed fixging these up.

Most need an item ID adding - this can be found by looking the item up on Jagex's GE database and on the page specific to that item the ID number is in the URL.

There is a list Category:Exchange items with no ID and the talk page has the GE names for all GE items with their ID number Category talk:Exchange items with no ID

Items with other problems will also tend to show up at Category:Grand Exchange by date updated I developed this some time ago to assist with manual updates.

Rich Farmbrough, 15:14 21 November 2008 (GMT).


 * Ok, I will try to add some item ids this weekend. - TehKittyCat 22:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC).


 * All finished, the only remaining ones with no item id are ones for speedy deletion. - TehKittyCat 18:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC).


 * All of the pages in there have been deleted or fixed now. - TehKittyCat 20:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC).

Update to updates
I've modified the process to only write changes in the normal course of events. The current run needs to complete, thenceforward all prices will be updated only if they change or on Wednesday or Saturday (this is partly to pick up new/fixed items). Rich Farmbrough, 18:31 21 November 2008 (GMT).
 * Now my kitty curiosity is tingly, where is the base of operations of "the process"? 18:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Where? On my desktop. I suck the data from Jagex, compare with the previous and make a list of things to change, then cycle through the GE items and change them. Rich Farmbrough, 16:05 22 November 2008 (GMT).

Shared help
Does shared help sound beneficial to this wiki? On the surface it seems ideal for nearly any and every wiki. Let's implement this unless there are reasons not to. 17:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah I've seen it on a few wikis; it's pretty sweet. We just need to delete the local help pages.--Richardtalk 17:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Or move them temporarily to be edited back into the shared help, right? 18:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Shared help uses the help pages at Wikia Help, so there's not much of a need for local help pages. Though we can still keep them it sounds like, according to Help:Shared Help.--Richardtalk 18:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)



Bureaucrats
It seems we are down to a single active 'crat, Dtm142. Now would be a good time to elect another. As being a 'crat is not for everyone, these SHOULD be self nominations. Whilst I can't speak for anyone else, I'm looking for a long-standing admin who is calm, active on the wiki and active in the community. What do other people look for in a 'crat? Anyone fancy putting a good foot forward? 10:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I support of motion of having another 'crat. Several other 'crats have been inactive for a while, and I wouldn't mind seeing another active 'crat for this wiki.   13:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "long-standing admin who is calm, active on the wiki and active in the community"-Unfortunately even that seems to be becoming harder to find (not so much the level-headed part, but the long standing) many of our admins have lapsed into inactivity and the majority of those active, though good at their jobs, are still quite new in retrospect.-- 15:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll do it. Yes, please go for it! Looking at RS:ADMIN, our three oldest active admins are Chiafriend12, Amaurice, and Stinkowing. I might have missed some, but I'd support a self-nom for any of them *nudge* . 16:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * He he, actually I quite like the sound of either Hurston or Amaurice as 'crats.-- 16:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm... I would really want Karlis to be a crat, but, again, he's a bit new. Butterman62 (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoever is nominated for b'crat must have a deep understanding of policy and most show that he or she is unflappable and even-handed and stays cool, calm and collected in tense situations.-- 17:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * While I would normally step forward for something like this, I'm afraid I'm not cut out for the job. I have been learning to stay calm under pressure since Halloween, so maybe this would be a viable chance for me to prove my maturity. But regardless of the circumstances, I personally think that this would make me feel a bit unnerved, since I'm known for my hyperactivity. As for activity on the Wiki, however, I'm actually willing to learn new things that could help the wiki (like some of the terminology I don't currently understand), so that may be a plus.
 * In fact, would it be a good idea for me to try a self-nomination for 'cratship so that I could see what areas of wiki-wisdom I need to hear? (edit: and how do I make a RfB-nomination? The same way as an RfA?)

Go for it, Stinko. Same as RFA, except the box on the main RFA page that links to your RFB has "yes" instead of "no" under "bureaucrat". 22:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Does it have to be a self-nomination? -- 20:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I believe they just would prefer to see a person step up and say their ready, rather than have another do it for them. (Though it really has no bearing on my own judgement).-- 02:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not necessary for it to be a self-nomination, but the reason that I suggested this is because it shouldn't be taken on lightly, and the person has to want to do it. If you want to nominate someone, I would suggest at the very least talking to them first and making sure that they would accept the nomination. 09:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * We will probably need at least 2 or 3 more crats. This wiki really needs more crats. One just isn't cutting it. I think Chia or Amaurice would make great crats. Amaurice especially since I see him as being the most mature and responsible person on this wiki. [[image:Prayer.gif |25px]] Sir Lenehan [[image:smite.PNG|25px]] 05:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree with 2 more. A total of 3 active 'crats would be a good number to have. 09:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Category: Images needing to be cropped
I think we need a category of Images needing to be cropped because theres so many uncropped images. I came up with a template that could be used: 

It would be a whole lot easier to find uncropped images. Anyone agree? -- 16:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks nice. You said "many".. roughly, how many are there? 17:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Im not sure. I bet there's quite a few, though. Click the random article a few times. My guess is 1 in every 15 images is uncropped. With thousands of images, thats actually quite a lot. Theres no wy to know for sure because we don't have this category -- 22:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:Glitchinbank.jpg|Here is an example of an uncropped image. It makes you want to puke, doesn't it? -- 22:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There are an incredible number of detail item images (copied from the GE DB) that have lots of unnecessary white space around them causing the text in the articles to flow awkwardly around them. With that being the style (having a detail image in the upper left corner, while the inventory image is in the infobox) I have to agree this template is a good addition to the roster, especially for those that aren't comfortable editing images. 05:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

New Wiki theme for 2009
I was just thinking..

The year 2009 is approaching quite fast, and there had been talks about changing the Wiki theme a couple of months back.

Shall we organise a "competition" (for lack of a better term) to design a new theme for this wiki? We have about  days to go till the new year.

p.s. We have 2 main skins which may need to be updated: Monobook and the default skin. 09:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I like that idea. The wiki really needs a unique theme, and some people here really have the skills to make a good one. 23:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Some are already at RuneScape:Theme.--Richardtalk 22:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Removal of two item disambiguation pages
It's a simple idea and I just wish to see if there is a general consensus in support of it. Basically, we remove those disambiguation pages with two items, redirect it to the most likely item and insert on that articles page "X redirects here. For Y, see Z". It's faster and saves one extra click for most people and for the others, it's the same amount of clicks.-- 17:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Strong Support - Per Diberville. I've always hated two item disambiguation pages. Most of them have one item that would be searched more than the other, so it's annoying having to wait for both pages to load. 21:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Support Better to have a 50% chance of having to click again to find the article you wanted instead of 100%. 02:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Support - That makes sense, I assume you already have a few in mind. 09:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Don't go nuts on this concept and make it a life mission to kill every single one of these pages in this wiki, but I don't see anything wrong with eliminating disambiguation pages like is being suggested here. Use common sense here as well. I don't see why a "vote" on this really has to take place either.... just do it! This is something easily reversed and doesn't require any administrative assistance... in other words, any regular contributor to this wiki can perform these actions. --Robert Horning 12:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well there is no "vote" since the wiki is not a democracy. However, history has demonstrated such as in the "Tally" fiasco that these types of small changes can lead to considerable trouble by some users so I'm nipping this possible problem in the bud by getting a general consensus before starting.-- 15:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I generally support this idea, however care should be taken to ensure that a disambigulation that has only two items is not lacking a tertiary prior to conversion. 02:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

New Category for "Best Armour"
We need to have a new category for "Best Armour", we have 20(out of the 49 pages at the time of this writing) pages that need a category(Special:UncategorizedPages). I can not think of a good name for this category, but it would be a sub-category of "Armour". These pages are included in Armour. - TehKittyCat 02:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC).

The Pages in Question

 * 1) Armour/FTP Magic attack
 * 2) Armour/FTP Magic defence
 * 3) Armour/FTP Melee attack
 * 4) Armour/FTP Melee defence
 * 5) Armour/FTP Prayer
 * 6) Armour/FTP Ranged attack
 * 7) Armour/FTP Ranged defence
 * 8) Armour/FTP Strength
 * 9) Armour/Magic armour
 * 10) Armour/Magic attack
 * 11) Armour/Magic defence
 * 12) Armour/Melee armour
 * 13) Armour/Melee attack
 * 14) Armour/Melee defence
 * 15) Armour/Prayer
 * 16) Armour/Ranged armour
 * 17) Armour/Ranged attack
 * 18) Armour/Ranged defence
 * 19) Armour/Strength
 * 20) Armour/Summoning defence

Possible Names(Suggest them here)

 * 1) Best Armour in the Game - TehKittyCat 02:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC).
 * 2) High bonus stat armour
 * 3) Categorised Armour - TehKittyCat 03:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Commentary
these don't appear to all be "Best", namely of these three:


 * Armour/Ranged armour
 * Armour/Ranged attack
 * Armour/Ranged defence

only 2 are of the higest ratings of stat. 02:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If you are stuck for options, I can't see any reason why they can't all be put in Category:Armour. I don't think they are meant to be full pages in themselves anyway, just transcluded into other pages so that the information is not duplicated. 16:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I will add them all to Category:Armour. - TehKittyCat 21:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC).

MediaWiki:Tips
I keep trying to think of some tips to put into this widget's page but i keep drawing a blank. Anyone have any tips they think might go good here? 03:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Dates n' stuffs
Okay. One thing I noticed while random page toggling was the amount of dates there are. I know that some are important and they chronicle important events, but really. Are things like this really necessary? It should all be condensed into a timeline by year (at least). The current system is too sporadic. Any thoughts/comments/ideas? 03:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm unclear on how you feel it is sporadic. You should've seen the number of Exchange: entries that used to come up before they were moved to there own name space. My instinct is you just got unlucky with your random pages, rarely do i see a date page come up., besides there are less than 366 date pages (which is the max possible) and over 10,000 articles, so your chances of getting even one should be rather low. Maybe the random page feature could be modified to skip certain categories. One thing I tire of seeing is random images of now outdated Price charts for the Grand Exchange Market Watch. Hopefully when those in the know get a break from there various schoolings (uni, etc) we can implement some of these things. I catch on rather quick on these things, but virtually never know where to start so i usually wait for someone to point me in the right direction. 05:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well. I guess I was slightly over reacting, because I had just reached a date page three times in a row, but I stand by my previous statement. The dates should be condensed into a single year page with the updates written up and down. 12:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Disagree - I think the dates are also important. See 9 December for example. It has events from several years, and that type of information that cannot be obtained elsewhere, as the user has to look through several articles (i.e. 2008, 2007, 2004 and 2003) if the "date" pages are gone. By having a "date" article, the events from several years can be condensed/summarised into a single page. I know certain pages only have single entries, but given time it will expand. Ever wondered what updates occured on significant dates such as 1 April? That's why we have "date" articles.

Just for your information, "date" pages have already been summarised into "year" articles. For example, 2008 and 2007 are articles which highlights the events for the particular year. We have "year" articles dating back to 1999 or 1998. So the issue of condensing pages into a year timeline is moot. 05:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

the high court idea revived
i aint gonna just let this idea die, it's too good, if an user gets wrongly banned, then that will beave a record and hell knows that that can do to their nerves, and the court has nothing to do with wheather the wiki is democratic or not.

therefore, my court system includes, for evidence

WHOIS:as evidence

Anti-bias:users who are appointed jury or judge or defendeant/accuser's lawyer must remain neutral and not show any bias towards any side.

the judges will be a group of very trusted users (preferably helpers) or wikia staff

the jury are regular users, but those who are involved directly with the accused do not count, and instead are withnesses, the jury must remain neutral, and proceed by the evidnce.

the "lawyers" must use arguments in a polite manner, and only sent out objections or facts after the opposite lawyer has given evidence.

the verdict is based upon the jury's idea and/or the judge's decision, depending on what kind of trial is held.

the judge must pass a reasonable sentence. depemnding upon the seriousness of the incident

IPs are not allowed to be given a trial, only registered users who has been here a long time.

the defendant will be only allowed (by a special ban) to edit his/hers personal verdict.

please give me an idea, but please don't jump to conclusions  Btzkillerv has entered the building!   13:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't a courthouse, decisions are made on a community concensus, not a vote or jury. An appeal ability is already in place for banned users. Sannse already said no, anyways. Central doesn't have time to get involved in an internet court. 14:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Karlis, we don't need anything so formal, these matters can just be discussed on the talk page of the user in question. 14:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * that's not always the case. Christine blocks people "yawn" & "IRC joke >_>)" and "like I freaking care anymore. do whatever. normal block time now, since he's NEVER DONE ANYTHING WRONG. right.", which are pathetic excuses for outlining a block, i don't want to see seasoned and well meaning editors getting indefs for a blunder they made (considering i experienced that first hand) a while ago. and i won't say that it's justified. and karlis it dosen't have to be a democracy to have a court system, they are NOT the same. if i get this turned back, there will be a lot of d'ohs for me, and likewise, users get their talk fully protected, which means they can't speak and niether can we get to them, thats why i set this up, i'm not doing this for any p0erticular user, i just want to see my idea work 

Btzkillerv has entered the building!  
 * If you feel like going against somebody from central who already told you no, that's your funeral. Banned users' talk pages don't need to be protected until their appeal is over or they deny an appeal, but we don't need a court system. I'm curious, I want to hear from you who you are defending as a ...seasoned and well meaning editor... ? The policy set in place works fine, this isn't the United States Judicial System. 15:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * D'oh, but i'm not american, and i never been to america, you're mistaking that i live in north america, but i dont, alright if you meant for my funeral then ill just give up, but seriously i wanted even one single small idea of mine to work, and ill be happy <font style="background:cyan">

Btzkillerv has entered the building!  </b> 15:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC) It wasn't to say that you live in America, but your explaination sounds much like the failure of our court system. People don't need 5 chances. You screw up, you might get a second chance. Anything after that is abuse of peoples' trust. 15:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

fine, well then feel free to delete this discussion, i guess it it won't pass, it won't. ah well <font style="background:cyan"> Btzkillerv has entered the building!  </b> 16:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Automatically remove street price from every item page; Bot flag requested.
I wish to automatically remove the old street price field from every item page. I have written a bot and have done 60 successful test edits(I only had one problem with it creating an \n on every page, but I have since fixed that). This bot is written in python and uses pywikipedia. The source code can be found here. This bot would run for one time only, although I may ask for permission to do other jobs with the bot later on. This bot would run on TehKittyBot, a user I have created just for running as a bot and I am the only one who will be able to access it. The street price field in Template:Infobox_Item was removed shortly after the Grand Exchange was created and the exchange field replaced its use. Many old articles still have this field(around 1950 pages), and it has been said that this field can be removed from those articles in the template's talk. My bot has 2 operation modes 'assisted', where I check every edit, and 'auto', where the bot automatically says yes to the changes. Currently the bot has been running in 'assisted' and doing about 1 edit per minute. With the bot flag I will run in 'auto' mode and do 1 edit at most every 15 seconds. - TehKittyCat 04:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC).


 * I have upgraded my bot's code to use command line args instead of manually editing the code to change the pages. For example categories use -cat:Items and pages use -pages:Bow,Animal_skull.Auto(-mode:auto) mode is now the default and it has a command line arg to switch to assisted(-mode:assisted). - TehKittyCat 18:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC).


 * The amount of pages left with the field is about 950 pages, according to my more accurate search query(I removed duplicates and anything not in the mainspace). - TehKittyCat 22:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC).


 * Is there a reason you are removing the street prices here? The field has been removed from active use on the individual item pages, but I fail to see the urgency of removing it from all of the pages where it has been used.  --Robert Horning 02:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That is a good question to ask someone requesting a bot flag, like me, so I will try and answer both sides of this and in detail.
 * According to Template:Infobox_Item/doc this field should be removed from old articles, but no where in that article is it said to be official policy.
 * Only 1/4 of the item articles still have it and only about 1/3-1/2 did before it was removed from some articles.
 * If street price was brought back, we would need to insert it in most of the item pages again any way.
 * I do not see the value in keeping it for historical prices, and if someone wanted to see them they could just click on a revision before I removed street price, since I use "Removing the no longer used field, street." as my edit summary.
 * I agree there is no urgency, but we might as well do it sometime, and better at once than finally finishing it at a much later time.
 * To do this fast it would be too fast for recent changes, so I would need a bot flag, even editing once every 2 minutes takes up a lot of recent changes on slower times and on fast times when it is harder to catch vandalism it would be even harder.
 * I have other reasons, but they are based on scenarios too hypothetical. I will admit had not really thought about my reasons until you asked this question, and may still not be good enough reasons. - TehKittyCat 19:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC).

Respecting classified information
I don't think we have a policy on this sort of thing, but if we do, I am thus calling it into question. If we don't, we should get such a policy made at the end of this discussion.

Jagex has a lot of classified information, and a selected few from the player base (like me lulz) are granted access to a lot of the information. You should know that I'm primarily talking about: If we get information and/or pictures of/from these classified areas of the RuneScape website (which he have in the past and ended up rejecting), would we embrace the normally classified information, or would we reject to publicly tell of the information?
 * The Player moderator centre and private moderator forums
 * The private high level forums
 * The private clan leader forums

Of the bit I can say about the Mod centre, there is a rule that anyone who leaks information (i.e. like someone who tells us classified info) would get their modship revoked, and possibly even receive a ban. Relatively the same goes for the private clan forums.

Will we respect Jagex's request to keep classified information just that, or will we spread the word of what should be secretive? 22:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that much information (especially if it's classified) is really necessary. WWTDD? 22:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This stuff is classified for a reason. Jagex DOES NOT want the general RS community to see it. If it's only meant for a certain group of players, than so be it. We shouldn't post info Jagex doesn't want certain people to see. Besides, we could get some nasty repercussions from them if we do. Kevin-020 23:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I say we should disclose all information possible. We are not Jagex and we don't need to follow Jagex's rules. Take the Player dictionary for example. We do not censor instances of what the words mean, therefore we should not "censor" what appears in the player mod centre or anything else for that matter. What "nasty repercussions" do you mean, Kevin? [[Image:Rollbackcrown.PNG‎]] Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 23:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The "nasty repercussions" could come in the form of Jagex aggressively enforcing their copyright on much of the content we are presuming to be "fair use" on this website. We, as fans, could try to fight that on a legal basis, but it could be ugly and costly both in terms of time spent and some substantial monetary losses.  We also depend on some good faith from Jagex in terms of general cooperation with fan sites.
 * Still, I'd have to agree that Jagex doesn't do much here other than provide the game website, and they would be fighting an uphill battle legally speaking if they did try to hit us hard... where I think we would have a great many allies to join us if it broke out into a RS-Wiki users vs. Jagex legal fight. I don't think they even advertise with Wikia.  --Robert Horning 01:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Spread the word. As long as the information follows verifability guidelines and does not break other Jagex rules (privacy, encouraging players to break rules, etc) and it benefits the article, it should be fine.  Because we are not a Jagex run site, their policies on secrecy should not prevent us from adding encyclopedic information.  The RuneScape Wiki should not encourage censorship based on an an offsite organization's policies.  Although some potentially harmful information should be removed, we don't need a policy about it.  It's better to discuss each individual case when it arrives and decide as a community whether the information is necessary. Dtm142 23:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Dtm. Reveal the info if it's useful in an article, etc. If we don't need it however, leave it unknown.


 * When it comes to classified information such as the PMod centre, that classified info should not be allowed in my opinion. We are not controlled by Jagex, but RuneScape is, and RuneScape is run by Jagex. We should respect their views, and if certain information is only intended for a certain group of people, it should stay that way unless Jagex says otherwise. 23:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Information should be removed based on whether it is dangerous. I think that the judgement of the editors should override Jagex's decisions not to release it. Dtm142 00:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Dangerous? How?  I was somewhat recently involved with an individual who was plotting and seeking assistance in-game (at the Grand Exchange BTW) to help assassinate a certain candidate for U.S. President that I'm sure you are quite familiar with at the moment.  I also contacted the U.S. Secret Service when I saw what the idiot was saying.  Far be it to hide this stuff, you need to let others know it is happening and shine a light into idiotic behavior.  A kid in New Jersey just got arrested because he was plotting a school shooting rampage and posted that info on the RSOF.  Perhaps the actual drivel that is advocating this sort of garbage should be removed, but it should be made available to folks who need this information.  I think it would be useful for players and parents of players to know that some of this stuff is happening and not sweep information like this under the rug.  --Robert Horning 02:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was referring to information that could violate users' privacy or aid rulebreaking. For example, publishing the list of player moderators should not be allowed because it would make the users on the list vulnerable to harrassment and account theft.  However, I think that we should be allowed to mention that a list of player moderators exists in the player moderator centre. Dtm142 02:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we should publish confidential info. We are not JaGeX. However, disclosing Pmod stuff could get you demodded or banned, but I don't think that should be against the rules either. Any pmods here should be allowed to leak the info at the expense of their own account. The pmod centre info is the only thing I wouldn't fully support leaked info of - the private forums I'd give a full support. 00:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have access to the Clan Leaders Forum, and I can tell you for a fact that they have specifically told us not to share the information or screenshots with anyone outside of our clan. They don't mind clan members of a leader with access knowing some of the info, but they specifically stated that posting information/screenshots on a public website is crossing the line. 00:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't have to contribute the information if you don't want to. If someone does decide to risk their account to add to the wiki however, we shouldn't stop them.  I suggest adding to RuneScape:General disclaimer that while we encourage our editors to contribute in order to help us become the best RuneScape resource on the internet, we are not responsible for any action taken against their account or any physical or mental harm that can occur from using our site. Dtm142 00:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't want to be openly encouraging users to deliberately break any sort of agreements that they have made with Jagex, and certainly I would strongly discourage such disclosure unless you are willing to risk legal action against you (account banning, removing account status of various types, and even formal lawsuits). I can imagine a few very limit cases where somebody might just be willing to "break silence", but it would be incredibly rare.


 * As for details that may be found in these "classified" forums but have otherwise been reported on fan websites and are "in the public domain".... I consider that information to be fair game. I don't care one little bit what Jagex thinks about trying to "stuff the genie back into the bottle" once the information is disclosed.  I would encourage any articles that use such information to clearly cite the source of the information (aka what fan website, blog, or news article talks about the detail).


 * I've seen some "screw-ups" even on the "official" Runescape website from time to time that sometimes reveal a little more than should have been disclosed (from the viewpoint of Jagex). Screen captures of what ought to be publicly accessible pages IMHO are fair-game here as well, even if Jagex later changes the content.  You can have a jaundiced view at some of the information "revealed" like this (such as the controversy about the Sailing skill), but it certainly can be shared... again especially if it is something noteworthy and being discussed in several other places.


 * Jagex may complain about disclosure of "trade secrets", but their paranoia can go just a little too far. Don't get worried about getting destroyed (literally or figuratively) by Jagex, but I would still maintain some sense of ethics about this if you have access to this sort of information.  Once it is published on this wiki, however, it is fair game as this is posting the information in a public forum.  I really don't think any actions should be taken *here* on the wiki against a user that somehow gets this information, nor should such information disclosure be aggressively taken down.  Those with access to this sort of information simply ought to be careful, just as anybody with access to confidential or private information ought to be.  --Robert Horning 00:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Due to the fact that we aren't Jagex I see no reason why we should censor any information that could be on an encylopedic nature. I say we any mods or players with access to private forums should feel free to post any information they want, while taking any precautions to prevent their accounts from being banned. Such as not revealing your rs usernames. Sir Lenehan  00:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

What kind of information are we talking about here? This is the first I have heard of selectivly available inside information and without some examples it is hard to create an opinion. Severedsyn
 * *The Player moderator centre and private moderator forums
 * *The private high level forums
 * *The private clan leader forums Dtm142 01:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I read that part, I mean what specific information: future updates, glitch issues, etc. Severedsyn
 * "I say we any mods or players with access to private forums should feel free to post any information they want, while taking any precautions to prevent their accounts from being banned." - wow.


 * There is some information of a more personal nature that doesn't really need to be widely discussed, such as a problem user or clan really doesn't need to be discussed outside of the moderator forums, or issues related directly to their moderator tools. There is some gossip and some "preview hints" that might apply as well... which is what players "on the outside" would realistically be more interested in anyway.  The "high level forums" are meant for just what they sound: high level players who have some experience in the game.  I can't imagine much that would be disclosed there by Jagex that shouldn't be public anyway, but avoids dealing with new player garbage and has a higher S/N ratio.  Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong here!  --Robert Horning 01:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Confidentiality was one of the things I did and still uphold vigilantly, even after all the crap I've taken from Jagex. I tossed my crown, but I'm keeping the promise I made when I accepted it concerning this. Things like where Jagex put a picture of a right-click report option in an update, I don't necessarily care about. Things like the mod center, and Especially the forums (10x important imo) shouldn't be discussed beyond what Jagex has stated. We don't need to know any of this stuff to function for better or for worse; I see it the same as I see gossip. And, like I've said in various talk pages, almost all of the stuff I've found via google in my own little searches has either been outdated or complete bs. This isn't a fight I want to resume. Why can't we just respect their wishes? 01:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Am I asking you to disclose anything you may know? I hope you don't feel that pressure, as I'm not trying to make you do anything you aren't comfortable doing... nor is anybody else suggesting otherwise.  The question here is if something from one of these sources is "revealed" and posted on the wiki... should it be deleted and aggressively fought against?  I think not.  If Jagex has a problem with some content on this website, they can have their legal counsel contact Wikia officially and have it removed... if there is a legal basis under the DMCA for its removal (the valid reason for legally requiring removal of information from a server located in the USA).  As users, we can fight back and demand this information be restored if it is removed as well, so there is a formal legal process if Jagex really wants to fight this.  Mostly, I don't think they would bother.  --Robert Horning 01:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The only thing I'm feeling is disregard for Jagex and their request. I know they don't really deserve much respect after all they've put us through, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't give it to them. I wouldn't divulge any of this information and I've deleted it as it's been posted, along with a few other active/ex pmods on these forums. And I don't think they would bother to remove it through legal process, but is that a reason to do it anyway? 01:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Jagex doesn't nor shouldn't have editorial control over the content of this wiki. Are you suggesting here that you have explicitly removed content from this wiki due to a violation of Jagex's editorial policies and not something agreed upon by community consensus?  Again, I agree neither you nor anybody who has agreed to restrictions from Jagex should disclose stuff you aren't comfortable at revealing to anybody, but why should you be the "police" to stop anybody else from discussing these matters?  That is what I don't get, nor do I understand why Jagex's policies should apply here to this wiki if the content is added... for whatever reason that content is placed here.  --Robert Horning 02:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Acknowledge, but don't go into detail: Things that would potentially get a player banned, ie, showing exactly what goes on in the high level forums or moderator centre, should not be allowed. However, we are not Jagex nor are we bound by their rules on this site, so the existence of such things should be freely discussed -- It is information pertaining to runescape, after all. It's a similar situation with bots or game-breaking glitches, we talk about them and even go into detail about how some things work, but we don't give links to bots or tell people how to abuse glitches. Should be a same policy with sensitive information. Also, Jagex frowns on non-official quest spoilers and step-by-step walkthroughs, but we have those anyway, so we can't be expected to kiss up to them in every possible way. Same thing with some potentially offensive language, it's against Jagex's rules but a few of our articles have some solely for informational purposes. 03:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Leave it out! – There is a reason why information in the moderator centre and forums are confidential. If the information was leaked, then it would make the jobs of all moderators much harder. I have already seen information ranging from the forum mod interface to our guidelines posted here on multiple occasions. None of this information helps anyone anyway, and in the end we only get players with knowledge on how to evade mutes and bans. 04:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm with Dr5ag2on1, and the other's on this one. If Jagex wanted something to be confidential then we should respect their wishes. I mean we aren't a tabloid now are we? Because like Drag said, if some of this got out, players could avoid punishment and Mods would be hard pressed to do thier jobs more effectively. 04:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Having been a moderator on this and other wikis, as well as on other non-wiki websites, I couldn't disagree more. The problem here is that it is very difficult to draw the line in terms of what is acceptable and isn't if we have to be using Jagex's standards here.  I also really don't understand why revealing knowledge of the mechanics of the process is necessarily going to make somebody evade easier, and indeed keeping quite on this stuff is likely to make it all that much more of a game for those that are interested.
 * I strongly disagree with Jagex's standards as being hyper paranoid and overly legalistic. There are some very legitimate issues that sometimes need to be brought up that can include discussions of what tools are available to moderators to fight abuse.  Knowledge is power, and the folks who are a real pain in the behind to moderators already know all of the tricks and things to do to make the life of a moderator hard.  Often they are former moderators or are working with rouge moderators who don't care.  Yes, I'm familiar with the dark underground of RS fans, and there are some hard-core folks who are pure idiots... and quite well organized as well.
 * This is a question of censorship, and removing content from websites (like this wiki) which are not operated under Jagex standards nor paid for with any money from Jagex. I really don't see why content needs to be removed just because it might have been removed on the official website.
 * Information of a personal nature... aka discussions about specific individuals and groups... that I do understand for reasons of privacy and even purely legal reasons why you would want to keep that information from being discussed. Potential slander and libel lawsuits are just the tip of the iceberg here.  But I do believe far too much is being censored by Jagex than needs to be, and this wiki doesn't need to participate in such draconian restrictions on information either.  --Robert Horning 05:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Being a moderator on the wiki and being a moderator on RuneScape is significantly different. Unlike the wiki, Moderators on RuneScape have strict guidelines, and if such information was revealed, it would cause severe problems.  The mechanics of the tools we have is not as much of a problem, but I still do not support revealing confidential information.  05:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've deleted information according to consensus reached on the talk pages of the articles. "Knowledge is power, and the folks who are a real pain in the behind to moderators already know all of the tricks and things to do to make the life of a moderator hard." - Again speaking as the moderator I was, this isn't true. The only legitimate information I've seen out in public has been released by hackers; rogue moderators are usually weeded out very quickly, and most ex moderators are like me, still respecting the excellent job the jmods in charge of us pmods have done and still honoring our promises to them. Again I just don't understand why the wiki as a whole can't respect their simple request. We get nothing out of it other than "Lindsey Lohan did WHAT?" (simply, pleasure of knowing something that's none of our business) and a bunch of extremely agitated mods like myself. 05:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, I understand disclosing of personal information, but most of what you are talking about is not personal information disclosure here. I really don't get it.  I also strongly disagree that disclosing such information would cause severe problem.  The problem here is Jagex clamping down on information to such a degree that it is absurd, and a damn lousy Quality Assurance program within the Jagex development team (please, don't get me started.... Jagex has embarrassed themselves time and time again here) that they are hiding bugs under the guise of "confidentiality" rather than shining the light of truth on it.  I feel sorry, sometimes, for moderators on Runescape because they often can't really do much about real problems anyway, but that is an issue Jagex needs to deal with.


 * BTW, the number of "real" hackers that can access information like you are talking about here? Maybe a dozen folks in the whole stinking world are even capable.  I'm not talking "script kiddies" that run "hacks" on Jagex servers, but the folks with real capabilities here.  Or again, does Jagex have such incredibly lax network security standards and gaping holes to openly encourage hackers into their systems?  That is just sloppy software engineering (or a lack thereof).  My biggest source of annoyance (for me) in the game is players asserting their accounts have been "hacked" when I know for a fact it is players who have been stupid with their password security and nothing more.


 * The difference that I see between being a moderator here and with Jagex (either a forum moderator or a player moderator) is that the software isn't propritary and bugs about the system are openly discussed with candor... and legitimate attempts are made to resolve those issues. I guess it is a difference in attitude here, and this attitude of secrecy is one that I strongly disagree with in general.  Noting that Zezima has 4 black marks (to make up something here that isn't true...but merely an example) is inappropriate.  Disclosing that player mods can find out about how many blackmarks a player has (or can't find out) should be appropriate here on this wiki.  Perhaps my attitude stems from working with quite a bit of open source software and trusting that disclosure is better than hiding it under the rug.  It certainly disturbs me significantly that information is being removed from this wiki even now under the rubric that "Jagex doesn't want this stuff disclosed".  --Robert Horning 11:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wow. Did this get long! :D

There are some things that won't hurt, like mentioning- and only mentioning -that the Player moderator centre contains guidelines for mods, and even a list of mods. Anything more specific than that should be long removed. Heck, even deleting the article and restoring all the non-leak edits would even be a legitimate action (which I have even done before).

To all non-mods; you will probably never understand how important this is to Jagex and moderators. If what moderators can and can't mute for was leaked, word would spread like wildfire. Though I shall not say anything specifically, mods can't mute someone for calling someone else a "noob". There is a thin line between something mutable, and something not mutable. If that line was posted, people could break rules freely without punishment. Absolute chaos.

By the love of Guthix, we shouldn't support such leaks. It's like RWIT. I'm not even joking. It's that bad. You get caught RWITing once, you're banned. Get caught leaking something, you're banned. We remove RWIT ads on sight. What makes this different?

This site has one thing high above the rest: We're civil, we're mature, and we abide by the company that makes our beloved game. We do NOT want to turn into a Zybez. Heck, two-thirds of their ads are either RWIT, a scam, or something like "make billions on a level 3 acc!".

People get banned for this. Endorsing it would go against what we stand for--what makes us who we are. 07:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In fairness, I think Jagex doesn't give player moderators enough authority to actually act on problems within the game. While the authority to act here shouldn't be given away like candy, the power to boot players from the game, institute temporary bans (subject to review), and monitoring "private" conversations are things IMHO player-mods ought to have available as tools.


 * The biggest problem that Jagex faces is that they don't trust their moderators, and they are taking a centralized top-down approach to resolving issues that need a more distributed approach... and that those folks with real authority are simply overwhelmed in dealing with the problem individuals. That is a systemic issue that needs to be dealt with by Jagex management.


 * As for a list of things that can and can't be muted for... I don't get why disclosure is such a big deal. Much of what you can be muted for is already spelled out quite clearly with the "terms of service" agreements (aka the public "rules"), and the rest is merely quibbling over minor details.  Again, it is because the moderators aren't trusted by Jagex that there is a problem here, not to mention the utter contempt against players that seems to come from at least some Jagex staff members.  --Robert Horning 11:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thinking this through even more, I think it is utterly absurd that players can't know what will get them muted or not. This is like going onto a highway and driving your vehicle without knowing any of the laws that govern how you drive there, and hoping that the police officers sitting on the side of the highway simply let you pass, but occasionally pulling over people for reasons you simply don't understand.  Even worse, if the laws change and there is no way for you to know that suddenly what you are being stopped for (or in this case muted for) was "against the rules".


 * Ditto for "RWIT" enforcement. We should know what is legitimate and what isn't in terms of trading limits and giving items to other players.  I do know for a fact that there are some work arounds to player trade limits... and these I believe to be simply sloppy programming on the part of the Jagex dev team.  Again, these need to be shown the light of day and not buried some place in a back corner of a moderator forum.  At the very least, I think it would help with enforcement if informed players could legitimate report (and know their reports mean something) about strongly suspicious actions and get somebody else to check out what was going on.--Robert Horning 23:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't Publish It - This information is classified for a reason and should not be published. It is for the good of JaGex. Why would a site dedicated to RuneScape publish something it doesn't want us knowing. How is that for the good of the game. It gives information to players on how to avoid specifications of the game and it's not fair to the player mods who follow JaGex's protocol. JaGex releases information based on a what to know and when bases. It's okay to predict and theorize on information, but to release real info that is normally classified is a violation. We protect other information, ex: Crystal Ball, yet we are discussing the publication on this? It makes no sense. Don't publish, as per this and Dr5ag2on1.


 * I am for this, but under strict guideline. Because this site is not owned or operated by Jagex, it has freedom in what it can publish, and its publications are protected under the GFDL. However, this is not license for player moderators to post any kind of confidential information on this wikia unless Jagex themselves leaked it in a public place. By US law, if Jagex had leaked it, even if it was just for a nanosecond, that information becomes public if it was observed by an outside party.


 * Allowing player moderators to post confidential and undisclosed information here encourages breaking the rules. Both this wikia and Jagex have a rule that states this is a punishable offense. By proxy, those who encourage breaking Jagex's rules therefore break this wikia's rules, hence the need for strict guideline. Of course, it would be far easier on everyone to just not allow the information to be posted here in the first place. In any case, I'm certain that with or without this information, this site will still become (if it isn't already) the best RuneScape information site available due to the efforts of its community. --Taeadon--


 * I think it all depends on what's being posted. If it IS what's mutable and what isn't, I agree that it shouldn't be posted, but if it's something more minor, I don't see why not. If someone wants to upload it, they can cop the flak from Jagex. We are not them and do not have to abide by their rules. Period.


 * There shouldn't be a policy, but people who have classified information should know better than to break their contract with Jagex in order to reveal it. It was given to them in confidence and they should keep it that way.  It's only a game, there's no larger moral imperative to override the person's agreement with Jagex that allowed them access to the secret information.  On the other hand, if you want to break your confidence and you're not worried about it, go ahead and post away.--Gunslnger42 13:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think its pretty pathetic that people are actually scared of Jagex. A company that hides behind their website for nearly all issues pertaining to marketing and customer support, and that have zero legal battles under their belt is not exactly very intimidating. I also think that the people telling us that information Jagex does not offer publicly should not be shown on the wiki need to take a look at combat calculators, quest guides, skill guides, the GE market watch, our page about Jagex Ingame Mods, and other features/information on this wiki that provide distinct advantages using information Jagex does not publicly offer. I dont believe I am the only one who wishes to know the details of the player moderator center/clan forums, and I would bet a sum that it wont change a dang thing if we had an official page on the subject with actual information. Its not like information regarding Jagex super secret activites have never been posted on the internet before. I personally wish Jagex would stop keeping every little detail under wraps. All in all, its not our place to restrict what an editor may choose to upload when it comes to relevant and useful information. [[Image:Gnomegoggleswithcap.png|25px]]<font color="black" face="Tahoma" size="2">TEbuddy 13:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Zero legal battles? They recently sued the creator of FrugooScape (a private server). 14:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC) EDIT: I think they actually lost the lawsuit, as well, with the creator getting away saying that he is using the private servers to teach people to code. Just if anyone was interested how their first lawsuit turned out...


 * Taken from Rule 11: Advertising Websites (http://www.runescape.com/c=196fdf14/kbase/viewarticle.ws?article_id=2081):

"5. Do you have any conditions that you would like Fan Sites to abide by?

Yes we do. Please see the below: The site should abide by our Terms and Conditions.

The site should not promote any activity that is against our Rules of Conduct.

The site should not publish an article, text or images taken from any of our websites without permission. If we do give you permission, you must acknowledge the relevant site as the source, and link back to the site.

The site should not link to or promote any adult sites, or sites that conflict with Jagex interests.

The site should not promote any sites or information that provide or support hacking, software piracy or other illegal activities."

We have to have their permission to publish images/information regarding the subjects mentioned. 16:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I say we respect Jagex's rules and not post them here. They've given people the game to enjoy, but classified information is too far. It's similar to, say (albiet this example being a weaker version of the situation), going to a birthday party with the celebratee's present in hand, having them unwrap it and be overjoyed about getting it, only to tell them that they can't use it in certain situations, or else you'll take it back and never talk to them again. By giving the present (the game) to the celebratee (the player populace), telling them that there's rules for using it (the information that you can't access), and, if they abuse the gift (making the info public) you'll ignore them for eternity (banning)...well, you get the picture.


 * Actually, we don't have to have their permission to "copy" stuff... as long as it is used under fair-use principles. This applies not just to "classified" stuff, but nearly anything including screen shots and duplication of graphical images even on the "public" side.  If your argument here is that we should only post those images and content that Jagex has explicitly granted permission to use, at least be consistent here and demand that 95% of all of the images on this site be removed and not just the "classified" stuff you are suggesting... or study up on what fair-use actually means.  We don't "have" permission from Jagex to do anything... unless you can find something somewhere that Jagex has explicitly granted the "Runescape Wiki" permission to copy some of these images.  BTW, stuff from the "classified" pages can also be used under fair-use... indeed fair-use rationale is likely to fly much better for stuff that is "classified" than for the stuff on the "public" pages.


 * The rest of these terms are pretty much lawyer boilerplate stuff that should be common sense. BTW, there are some of the "terms and conditions" that Jagex spells out that are blatantly illegal for them to even enforce, and are just lawyerese for "don't piss us off".  Jagex can't ascribe "rights" to themselves that aren't already spelled out in copyright law.  I am not saying that Jagex is out of line to boot people off of its equipment when you don't follow their rules, but that isn't the same thing.


 * The real problem here is what was stated at the beginning of this discussion: What should the "Runescape Wiki" policy (not Jagex's policy) be for displaying or otherwise discussing information that may be typically found only on the "restricted" parts of Jagex websites.  To give a concrete example, Talk:Assist_System is one of those "grey areas" that I'm thinking about... where IMHO it should be fair game to talk about "classified" information.  I can point to other examples, but I find it unreasonable that such material is being censored from this wiki on what is a very weak rationale.  --Robert Horning 17:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Right click reporting is not considered confidential by Jagex, especially since they leaked it in the kbase. 19:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If it was not confidential, it wouldn't be called a "leak". 19:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This still doesn't explain away the fact that the article was "cleansed" of "confidential information" due to the attitude being expressed here to remove anything that Jagex doesn't want revealed. I haven't reverted this edit precisely because I don't want to get into an edit war with a p-mod over this issue in one article, but it is a systemic issue that does need to be addressed in terms of the wiki as a whole.  And yes, this "issue" of right click reporting was removed from the main article space.  I don't think it was correct to happen there, nor should it happen on other pages of similar types of content either.  --Robert Horning 22:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't have much of a problem with the right clicking thing because Jagex put up a picture of it in the kbase at one point. So they themselves published it on their site. I prefer to remain neutral, though. 22:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's the truth of the matter: The information is already out there on other fan sites. If people want it, it's not that hard to find on other sites, but it would really benefit the wiki to have information here. I'm a player mod in-game, and like I said before, I agree with posting the information here. There's no way Jagex is going to find out that someone on this wiki posted some information about the pmod centre and ban them. For one, most users on here don't use their actual RS names, or at least if they were a pmod they wouldn't use their pmod name (however, I know some users here are pmods and DO use their name, but they're not required to publish the information). However, like others have said we should not post the actual list of player mods (which is odd to think anyone actually would do that as it gets changed all the time and it has thousands of people). But we should say that there IS a list of player moderators and include some of the "extra powers" pmods have (besides the reporting thing and the mutes, obviously). I think player mods will know what I mean (Jagex denies player mods have any extra powers besides giving mutes and priority reports, which is flat out lying). We should also include at least something about the in-game get togethers of Jagex mods and Pmods. Now, Jagex says fan sites should comply with all of the rules of conduct. However, "should" is not a rule, just a guideline. Jagex really has no power over this wiki. They can't shut us down for not complying with their rules, or sue the wiki, or really do anything. Take sythe.org or fagex.net. They're still there (as far as I know...) and they both heavily break the rules of conduct. I made a wall of text...whoops :P [[Image:Rollbackcrown.PNG‎]] Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 06:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a waste of time. '''If Jagex does not want confidential information disclosed, than so be it. Would you want this sites reputation to be ruined? Would you want this site to have a reputation of being some sort of database that contains classified information that SHOULD NOT be posted? If that is your wish, then this site will be shut in a mattter of days. Before you post information that you know you shouldn't be posting, just stop for a sec think about the consequences.''' Thank you. €MØŠwô®L[) 07:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said earlier, there is a lot of information on this wiki that Jagex does not want the public to know about. As said by kudos, the information is available anywhere else. I googled player moderator center download and one of the first links was a rar containing the html files so you could navigate the center like a pmod and read the guides/howtos etc. Why should we not host what the public already knows about pmods because of some fake loyalty to Jagex? I also think you are mistaken to think Jagex has any power over this wikis operation. We are not special, Jagex does not even recognize the fact that we exist, and as such we should take it upon ourselves to post anything we please. [[Image:Gnomegoggleswithcap.png|25px]]<font color="black" face="Tahoma" size="2">TEbuddy 08:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Again and again, people keep posting "beware of the consequences", "think of the consequences", "what about the bad consequences?", ect. There are no bad consequences for this. How would it "ruin the reputation" of the site? The site is an encyclopedia FOR ALL THINGS RUNESCAPE. That means that even confidential information should be posted. It's not going to hurt anyone, but it will help people become informed, which is the purpose of these wikis. I can understand some player mods not wanting their accounts banned or demodded. That's fine. But as it's been said again and again, they don't have to add information to the articles if they don't want to. This simply releases information that's harmless to the public that's already available, however it's not available here. We are not run by Jagex, and as Tebuddy said, Jagex doesn't recognize that we even exist. They can't shut us down, we're not posting anything illegal. We're posting informative information. How would informing people ruin the reputation of the website? [[Image:Rollbackcrown.PNG‎]] Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 08:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

NPC Store Survey
I'm making a call to all participants on this wiki to help out in a large but focused effort to help improve the overall quality of a certain class of articles: articles about NPC stores.

What I'm hoping can be done here is to improve the consistency of information at all of the stores about the items offer for sale there, and to "raise the bar" in terms of the overall quality of the information which is presented in these articles. Some stores are simply missing articles, others are horribly written with missing or out of date information, and others are simply of outstanding quality that needs to be at least reviewed and linked to other content on the wiki. Perhaps some even deserve to be nominated for an article of the month feature.

I'm also looking to create navigation boxes based on location (aka linking all of the stores in Varrock together with a common navigation template) as well as by type (such as all of the stores that sell weapons).

Every single article about NPC stores can be improved in some manner, and it might be useful to put together a team to really look at these hard and put some depth into them.

This project is open to both F2P players and members, as there is work to be done just about everywhere. If you are new to the Runescape Wiki, this would be a fantastic opportunity for you to join into developing content where you can work with some "seasoned veterans" of the wiki process and work toward a common goal. It can even be fun trying to explore the various little corners of the game to find undocumented content and help bring it forward where it can help everybody.

If you are interested, please sign the page at The WikiGuild Proposal Page and join in the discussion and effort. Even identifying what stores there are in the game can be incredibly helpful here, much less actually documenting what is in those stores. --Robert Horning 01:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)