RuneScape:Yew Grove

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

Topics that should be discussed here include policy proposals and changes, discussion of community processes (such as RS:AOTM), and changes to significant wiki features. In general, anything that the community at large would be interested in can go here. This is not a replacement for RS:VFD, RS:RFA, or talk pages, as this page is specifically for discussion that has a wide impact. __NEWSECTIONLINK__

Crackdown on certain policies
I posted this in the forums, but NO ONE'S given me a single suggestion, so I'm placing it here. I want answers. Now. Before I go insane.

"I have been asked no fewer than SEVEN times by (mostly) noobs as to why their "images and pages" were deleted. All of these files, regardless of type, were deleted because:


 * In the case of an image, it was personal, or...
 * In the case of an article, it was worthless trash.

'''Yet people keep asking me as to why their things are being deleted. It's severely annoying, and I want to put an abrupt end to it. ALL OF IT. If I have one more person that asks me a question like that, I will start handing out blocks for ASKING the damn'd question.'''

'''Thus, I am proposing a stricter policy to our article creation, especially image uploading. I suggest that, when a new user registers, they must READ the rules, one-by-one (so they don't feel tempted to skip the whole thing), before being able to complete registration. I also believe we should revise RS:Granularity to include everything that doesn't have an impact on RS. (Currently, I see only non-interactive scenery as part of this policy; Chiafriend made a non-RS related article "Tracy West"; I believe that sort of thing should be included)'''

'''Image uploads are beginning to be a problem. I have just recently deleted a user's PERSONAL images. The problem is that people OBVIOUSLY "haven't heard of ImageShack or PhotoBucket" [/sarcasm]. Well, of COURSE they've heard of it! But isn't it much easier (and lazier) to just make it a wiki image? Thus, I believe we need to crack down on it big-time.'''"

OK, now as for such changes...

First off, the rules-before-registration. Is it possible to change the registration process so that a potential user must read the rules one-by-one (so they don't whizz by them and not care) before entering their account data? If so, I suggest we do that. We'll possibly get a lot less new users uploading their personal images. In fact, it might slice down the vandlism more than I'm currently foreseeing.

Another thing I suggested in that forum post is the RS:Granularity policy be revised so that it SPECIFICALLY states what is article-worthy and what is not. I see many not-worthy articles being written anyway, from "Tracy West" to "Winch". We don't really have to do a crackdown on violaters; such articles are few and far between. That reminds me: the current RS:Granularity policy only has ONE ARTICLE in its list. That's it: ONE. We need to update that crap more...

Which brings me to the last problem: Image uploads. They. Are. Misunderstood. We NEED to crack down on that more! I'm seeing too many instances where I they upload images that I delete, only for me to get a torrent of crap on my talk page about "OMFG Y U DLETE MAH ST00F!!!1 I WAZ UZING IT 4 MAH UZER PAJE!!1"...Pathetic. I'm NOT going to tolerate people asking me why I've deleted their stuff. If I have to change my way of doing things, like telling them EVERY time for EVERY personal image that EVERY noob uploads, fine. But until we get somewhere with this, I won't be reminding anyone anymore to not do such crappy things.
 * Awesome idea, I hate seeing some personal or crappy page on the namespace. 22:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude you did that like 5 times with your image... Christine TalkFlickr 22:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if he did, after you learn how to do it properly, watching someone else do it wrong can piss you off, and don't tell me that isn't the case., 23:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC) (i did it too now it pisses me off :P)
 * Noobs will never read the rules and so proposing such a change will create almost no difference from what it was initially. 23:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with personal images. The kind of articles you were mentioning, I understand why. Though for images, I see only one reason why not to allow them. What reason? "It uses up server space.". There is no limit to server space. "Using up server space" uses up an unlimited resource. I don't really see a problem with that. I do understand why non-RuneScape images would be deleted. Being off topic, and all. But for personal images, like an image of your character, an image of you getting a certain level, they are on the topic of the wiki: RuneScape.
 * Tracy West has the same connection to RuneScape that Jagex does. Jagex wrote the code to RuneScape. Tracy wrote the official book. If "Tracy West" is a "non-RS related article", the "Jagex" is too. 23:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Moving past how bad of an analogy that was, and how fallacious an argument it was that you just made, there is more than one reason not to allow personal images. This site aims to be a professional, wikified alternative to guide sites such as runehq and tip.it.  It is not a forum, and it is not a fan sandbox.  Everything that gets added to the Image repository belongs to this wiki and we're therefore putting our brand on it.  What does it look like when somebody puts some non-relevant, silly image on the site, and the admins don't delete it?  It reflects on the character of the site itself.  Furthermore, everything has a limit, especially server space.  Just because there may not be a published limit, that doesn't mean Wikia couldn't shut us down for not being responsible with the free space they give us.  We owe it to them to be good stewards of the resources they give us.
 * Also, there are plenty of free alternative image hosting sites available - if someone isn't able take the time and effort to upload the image and refer to that url from here, what's the chance that they'll bother adding the meta-information we want for images here, like categories, copyright usage, transparency and using correct file formats? The "proper" images we have already need a lot of work to clean up, let alone adding to the problem with hundreds of user images. Pointy 15:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue here is to add "color" to a user's personal page, and if some additional image ought to be allowed or not. I've run into edit wars with admins over allowing any image that is not directly copied or somehow extracted from the Jagex webpages... which IMHO is perhaps going a little over the top.  I tried to add an image of the New York Stock Exchange to the GEMW page stictly for some atmosphere, and it was not only deleted, but the deletion reverted and then deleted again.  Most other wikis, noting in particular even Wikipedia, have allowed images a more personal nature on their user pages without getting hyper paranoid about suitability.  This isn't to say that a whole gallery of images ought to be permitted, but I fail to see the harm in allowing some sort of personal image as long as it is tasteful (aka not pornographic) and kept at very low numbers, like at most one or two... and used on user pages.  Allowing this isn't going to kill wikia and overload the servers... nor do I see Wikia complaining here to eliminate this sort of incidental image uploading.  Wikipedia's main issue is copyright status... which is something that should be of concern here as well even as most of the images are copyrighted by Jagex and go way beyond even United States fair use legal concepts.  If we were really paranoid about copyright issues, 99.99% of all of the images currently on this project would have to be deleted.--Robert Horning 15:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone's against allowing people to put (appropriate) personal images on their user pages. The issue is more about where those images are stored - whether it's on the wiki or whether we ask people to host them elsewhere and then link to them. The concern I have is with having to wade through large numbers of personal images to try and work with the 'legitimate' images - things like adding transparency, categorising images, finding unused files and so on will all be made harder by having to work around large numbers of personal images that would clutter up the wiki. Pointy 19:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the problem with storing a "limited number" of personal images like this? To "sort" through the images, all that would really be needed is some sort of tag or category to label the image for "personal use" or something that is used on a user page.  While whole galleries should be prohibited, a modest number certainly could be used and uploaded to the wiki itself... copyright issues notwithstanding.  It does get into copyright issues, which is something this project should be worried about anyway.  Most of the images on this website can claim fair-use authority due to the fact that it is derived from screen shots of the game itself.  My question would then be raised here.... in your opinion what would be some examples of acceptable images that aren't copyrighted by Jagex?  --Robert Horning 00:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that users should read the rules. However, just asking once why their image was deleted doesn't warrant an instant block. If they're being rude, like doing that "OMFG Y U DLETE MAH ST00F!!!1 I WAZ UZING IT 4 MAH UZER PAJE!!1" thing you mentioned above, then yes, that should get a block, and if asked repeatedly, then yes it should, but not just for asking once. That might be considered abuse of admin power. Butterman62 (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning Vandals
Okay, so the point I'm bringing up is warning (a set number of times) vandals before blocking. All editors are equal and should be teated equally; however, there are both pros and cons with this proposal. But rather than bring those points up, I want to make a compromise. We could try first time blocks for the convenience of admins, with warnings simultaneously. If the vandalism occurs even after both have taken effect, another block should take place with an extended amount of time. There needs to be consistency in blocking as well as more effective methods. Or, perhaps a user could think of a rating system for how long a block should last and what type of message they should receive.

e.g. the number represents severity out of a score of 10. If they exceed a specific number (probably 10), a block will take place. Less will result in a warning. Though, these ratings are my own and hypothetical.


 * Blanking pages. (8)
 * Posting offensive material, whether it be images or words. (5)
 * Contributing nonsense. (6)
 * A language other than English is added. (6)
 * False or deceptive information is being added to an article. (4)
 * Personal attacks on a user. (8-9)
 * Content which encourages breaking the 15 game rules. (8)
 * Advertising in any form (aside from websites listed under "External Links" which relate to the article that it is being put in) (7)
 * Articles about players. (6)
 * Impersonating another user. (7)
 * Creating pages and adding random nonsense to them. (5)

As you can see, pretty much anything more than 2 offences will result in a ban. I need commentary and am leaning toward admins and bureaucrats as this apllies to them. Maybe the amount of points over 10 represents the number of days the block will stay. That could work, but more suggestions and fine-tuning is necessary. 20:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think any obvious vandalism deserves an instant block. Inserting swears, offensive words or images, putting crap and spam into pages, etc. Blanking a page only if it's more than one, it's possible that just one was an accident. Articles about players I don't think deserve a block unless it's repeatedly created or it's insulting or breaks anything I listed prior. That's all I really feel like typing out now, maybe I'll respond to other points later once more people chime in. Christine TalkFlickr 21:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with Christine. I also instant block removing a lot of content and replacing it with 'OWNED' or whatever. Also obvious false info such as 1 gp for rune gear or 1,000,000,000 gp for a bucket in an Exchange page get instant blocking.  These vandals know what they are doing is not right and deserve instant blocking. Most anons and users do a good job editing and help improve the wikia.  Chrislee33 05:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Admins must still be able to exercise personal discretion first and foremost - anything else should be for guidance only. I'd support a policy giving general advice for ban lengths, but I think a formal 'scoring card' will add a lot of complications to the process. In some cases it could even prevent admins from banning someone who is deliberately vandalising but is keeping it just below whatever threshold is set for a permanent ban. Pointy 11:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Seeing as how this policy would only apply to admins and bureaucrats, it's up to you guys to decide what you feel will be the most effective way to deal with vandalism. If instant blocking is the most effective way to deal with it, then shouldn't the banned template lead them to our code of conduct? It's simple and not too hard. At this point there are quite a few admins who block first-time offenders but I think as long as some standard policy - just about anything that works and is official would satisfy me. Come to think of it, does anyone here have the programming skills to create a vandal fighting bot? If anybody has seen Cluebot's work in action, it's pretty useful. 20:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * take a hydrogen bomb, multiply its effectiveness by 27, and you have cluebot.
 * I remember reading something about Cluebot working on a point system that looks for certain words and expressions in the page text. I'm almost sure the algorithm is published somewhere, so it would be relatively easy to duplicate. However, a few modifications could be made, as vulgar language will never be in a legitimate article here, while on WP that isn't the case. Skill 22:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Here it is. Source code is posted on that page too. Skill 22:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * vandalism to item prices can be difficult to detect. any chance our "ClueBot" will be able to detect that vandalism (assuming it's created)?
 * Perhaps if too many digits are listed, the bot would put a botted message on the CVU? That would locate something like someone putting "10000000000000" or so as an item's price on an "Exchange:" page. 23:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think there could be a notification somewhere (CVU is great) if the price is outside the 5% a day range normally allowed by the GE, and maybe an automatic revert if the price is over, say, 10 million, with exceptions for items that are truly worth this much. Other edits that look suspicious but are not definitely vandalism could be reported there too, for that matter. Skill 23:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh Earthere, from that statement, is a hydrogen bomb an effective solution? I feel that I missed the implication. :| 00:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A Hydrogen Bomb is an effective solution. The question is, to what problem?  I think Earthere was praising the bot, either way.  As for my feelings on this subject, I don't disagree on any particular point, I'm more just not big on institutionalizing our ability to give out blocks.  My gut says that if we create a point-based system, nobody will pay attention to it anyway.  I don't really see the need for such a point system...is there some pandemic of unfair blocking going on?  I've always thought that our judgement has been pretty good at discerning when we should assume good faith or when someone was obviously out to hurt the wiki.  Remember, breaking the rules is always either accidental or intentional, and in my experience, about 90% of the time, it's obvious whether or not the vandal was intentional in whatever they did.

Update to the user treatment policy
I'm pretty sure none of us like to be cussed at. I just remembered a run-in with another admin, where the other admin called me several bad things, but because it wasn't on the wiki, it wasn't punishable. Now, if this was done in a message to me on my talk page, the person would have lost their admin powers and would have been blocked for a month or two at the least.

So, what I'm proposing is that the user treatment policy is extended to the game itself between wikians, but loosened. On the wiki, if, let's say, me and a random user got in an argument and started yelling at each other "NOOB!" and such, we'd be in trouble. But in-game, that happens all the time, and like half of the community would be banned for personal attacks if that was not permitted. More unacceptable things, like calling others "whore"s, "douche"s, "retard"s, "gay", would be unallowed if this were to be passed.


 * What I just said in a nutshell:


 * "Noob!"
 * On the wiki: Not really allowed.
 * In-game: Allowed.
 * "Whore!", "Douche!", "Retard!", "Gay!"
 * On the wiki: Not allowed.
 * In-game: Not allowed.

Users can get away with verbally attacking another wikian in-game and not be punished (if they get a blackmark(s), they can always appeal and say "good bye" to it), but still do the same damage. Discuss, comment, recommend and all. 17:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Can't enforce this. "He said this, she said that" but no proof. Don't even say screenshots, as I showed those before and got crap for them. What a person does in-game isn't wiki-related. Anyone in RS can be ignored, and that's the only thing to do. I have even mentioned this before to sannse, and she said that all we can do is ignore. Unless it extends to the wiki, we can't do anything to punish users. Christine 18:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What about if it happens at an official wiki event? [[Image:Bloodbarrage.png]] Butterman62 (talk) [[Image:Icebarrage.png]] 19:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, wikia does not sponsor or plan the event, so it really isn't wiki-related in my opinion. To be clear, I'm not saying I don't like the idea, but I am saying that we really have no right to dictate how people act in-game. Christine 19:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Aren't all of those words blocked by the RuneScape censor anyway? 19:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Normally, yes, but it's quite easy to bypass the censor. 20:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Administrative action should be limited to the admin's sphere of authority. Making wiki admins responsible for users' actions elsewhere, which they have no power to independently confirm, is not a viable situation. If ignoring is not sufficient for you, and blackmarks are being revoked on appeal, your best options are to complain to a higher in-game body, to leave the game, or both.
 * If in-game sanctions such as exclusion from wiki-related events are being considered, I think it would be reasonable to require the complaining user to first prove that they are not a whore, douche, retard or gay, given the seemingly large population of these groups within online gaming communities. Documented consultation with their mothers might form acceptable evidence. ;-) --GreenReaper(talk) 20:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

not too long ago I was harrassed by two RSW vandals via private chat. I've also been flamed for my edits on a couple occasions, and a bunch of other wiki-related stuff happened. no offense or anything, but I shouldn't have to put up with this bull****.
 * just to clarify that was just a comment, not a support or oppose

As was established by RS:NOT, what happens in the game stays in the game. True, it's possible that they can appeal and have the marks lifted, but there's nothing more that can really be done. I fail to see what effect this will have, even if implemented, on conversations in private chat, as there is no way to prove who said what unless there are external trusted witnesses. (Evidence can easily be faked.) The occasional incident that might take place on public chat is an exception, but seeing how more people probably saw it, and more abuse reports are probably sent, this negates the concern over no punishment being given for the most part. Skill 22:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

We're not going to go there. What happens in-game isn't simply out of admins' realm of authority, it's none of our damn business. It would be like an American cop coming up to Canada and arresting me for downloading music. It's not his jurisdiction, I'm not under his country's rules and, as I've said, it's none of his damn business.
 * Exactly I agree with everything. But I never see anyone in game anyway. This doesn't really apply to me but I wanted to show my support. Cheers, [[Image:Kandarincrest.gif|25px]] Chicken7  >talk>sign 00:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Chicken how do you agree with everything? You can't be for AND against the proposal. --Degenret01 09:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't quite agree. If I went in game and Tesfan called me a noob, then I called him a noob back, and he called me gay and I got screen shots of it all happening, then Tesfan would be blocked? First of all, screenshots aren't exactly accurate. Unless you work for the government and test videos in court to make sure they are real, then I'm pretty sure you couldn't tell the difference between a screenie and a fake. Second, why is it the wiki's buisiness what happens between me and Tesfan in game? I got into an incident in school where I called my friend a name outside of school and the next day we both got detention. Now why did I get in detention? Because the school is nosy and sticks their noses into other peoples' buisness. If this rule was passed, the wiki would be like my school. I really don't think the wiki should be punishing people for what they say ingame, even if it is something like "whore" or "mother fucker". The wiki should only punish people for what they say either on the Wiki forums or on the wiki. If it's on IRC the user should be kicked. Btw sorry if I brought up an old topic, I haven't read the entire thing =). 19:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said taking a screenshot. If anyone was around in the Wiki's faking days and remembers how often I made fakes, I could easily frame somebody and make it look real. I meant something like mass witnesses (e.g.: a WikiFest), or being caught on film (e.g.: someone recording an event, like a WikiFest). The WikiFest (see where I'm going?) is like a school field trip. You're not at school, but you're at something hosted by the school. And Ilyas, assuming that you're example of school detention really happened and wasn't just an example, were you on your school's campus, near it, far away, or wherever?
 * Anyway, if you, the reader, haven't got what I'm trying to say, this would only apply at wiki-hosted events, like the WikiFest. 20:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But the Wiki isn't like a school. It's not a club, and it's not an organization.  It's a database with editors.  The role of sysop isn't to play babysitter or to be the leaders of some club.  We're simply here to protect the Wiki.  So as long as a user isn't harming the wiki, what business is it of ours?  None.  If a user is bothering you in game, block them...it's a pretty simple strategy that works for all non-wiki users...why should it be any different here?
 * Replying to Degenret, I'm supporting this. OPPOSE I mean, oppose. Cheers, [[Image:Kandarincrest.gif|25px]] Chicken7  >talk>sign 22:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was 1 mile from the school at my house. Endasil, the Wiki would be the same as the school in this situation, they wouldn't be able to punish people for things they do outside of school (or Wiki) but yet they are. 13:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Custom Monaco Skin for Runescape
Hi all,

I've just finished designing a custom RuneScape theme for the Monaco skin and I'd love to get your feedback. The screenshot below is from my photoshop template that I use to design themes and is missing some bits (like text in the widgets, no footer, etc). This is just meant to convey the feeling of the design. Let me know what you think. I'd like to get this, or a revision of this on the site sometime this week. BladeBronson (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No offense, but I like the color scheme in mine better because it matches the RS site and so our wiki could look like RuneScape.. =\ Christine 21:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Could use a few changes, but it's pretty good. 22:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I really like it compared to the other options I have. I'm using monobook. Christine, what color scheme are you using because I looked at smoke, sapphire, brick, etc. and I'm not sure which one looks like RuneScape. 22:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess you haven't looked at this in a month then -.- It was archived, it was a custom monobook that I made =\ It looks like this. Christine 00:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No offense taken. The biggest difference is that this design keeps the article content on a white background, as it has been. Going from light to dark is a technical challenge and makes the biggest impact on readers. When doing custom skins, I try to stay with whatever the current article background colour is. I'm not a RuneScape player, but after spending an hour or so studying screenshots of the game interface and world, I left with a sense of the gray and green which I used in the theme. I didn't include a lot of detail in the big header area because it would be obscured by the banner ad. C Teng (and everyone), if you have specific feedback for areas that could use improvement, please leave a note here. BladeBronson (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the cracked tortoise-shell banner image, but I'm not sure about the "dark background and white article area" combination. It makes the article text look like it's floating, and that kind of distracted me a little bit. From what I remember of Christine's I think I preferred hers (although the tab text was a little large for my tastes), but then again to be fair I use the blue gaming skin, so I'm not sure I'm really qualified to express a preference. Pointy 22:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I can't change tab text sizes afaik. Christine 22:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I just proved my own point above about not being qualified to speak :-). I use Quartz, so I didn't realise the tab text is that big on the default Monaco skin as well. I'll just shut my pie-hole for now... Pointy 22:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * After looking at BladeBronson's theme, I stole his stone mosaic-idea and photoshopped around a bit. This is obviously preliminary, the positions aren't quite right (the advertisement would in reality be in a different spot, our logo would need to be smaller) but I liked how it integrated with Christine's monaco skin (or at least with how it was a month ago, don't know if it's changed since). I'm just going to link to it as it's fairly large: Image:Endasil_monaco_screencap.jpg
 * Now I kinda like Endasils. Endasils and Christines are fairly similar but the RS logo stuck behind the advertisement on Chistines I don't like. And our current white logo would not fit in or match both of them. Cheers, [[Image:Kandarincrest.gif|25px]] Chicken7 </tt> >talk>sign 03:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't change the logo personally. Besides, if we chose a darker theme, it would be necessary to change our bright white logo. Christine 18:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Am I underprivileged to speak? I really love Blade's design, esp. the logo. But I think the bg should be a bit deeper and less green. If u're not quite sure what I'm talkin' abt, I mean the #142117 spaces, it doesn't quite match the stone background. Maybe it can be changed to #090808 in the same colour scheme? It is nice to have the main background white. But I wanna ask what text colour would you like to have?
 * It is also good if Christine's monaco is shared in the skin section.
 * I wanna make one more thing, that the tables being looked with Gaming skin crashes with the colour of its text. And I CANNOT find out the script deciding the white text colour, could someone help? []  07:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)