RuneScape talk:WikiGuilds/Citers' Guild/Archive 1

CiteDevBlog
Do we need this? Since we are "archiving" dev blogs in our wiki, why we would we want to use external links to link to Jagex's version of the blogs? Our diaries are better in a sense, since we can add wikilinks and such. 13:10, November 8, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it can't hurt. We can always put the dev blogs down as a reference as well as linking to our own. Linking to an actual page on Jagex's site lends some extra credibility, I see that the dev blog pages here on the wiki don't link there. I don't demand that it stays, but I don't see any reason it should go. 17:58, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

WebCite doesn't work
For RuneScape:Style guide/References and Citations, when I put the URL for, WebCite doesn't work. 13:30, November 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, fixed it. Had to put in my e-mail. 13:32, November 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * I've used Webcite for a long time and never gotten any spam from them, however if you don't want to give your email out for any reason, you can use a Mailinator email address. The main server hs been blocked, but there are lots of alternate domains that you can use (a new one appears every time you visit the home page). I just tried something@safetymail.com, for instance, and it worked. 20:18, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

Quotes
What if I want to quote something an NPC has said, like, in a quest? Also, I've noticed that Template:Cite web has a quote field; should we use that for our other templates? 01:04, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm... that's an interesting idea. The reason why I didn't (or rather why I didn't ask Gaz to...) provide a quote field in the new templates was because in the web cite template a lot of people put entire paragraphs in there which didn't look very attractive. Its also usually redundant. However I hadn't considered using the quote feature like that... Its an interesting concept. 01:07, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * For quest refs, how about something like:
 * Non-player character name. "Quest name." "Optional quote"
 * Cook's brother. "2009 Thanksgiving event." "Vegetarian? That's a dirty word around here."
 * Anything to make it better? 01:19, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * Following MLA format, it'd be something like:
 * Cook's brother. "2009 Thanksgiving event." RuneScape. "Vegetarian? That's a dirty word around here."
 * 01:31, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. Should Template:CiteQuest be created now? 01:37, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it should be CiteNPC, so it can be used to cite any npc, not just quest NPCs. Also I read some more into the whole citation thing and you were right initially, there should be quotes around the title, since quest is sorta like a "chapter" of the game. If its not part of the quest, then the field is simply omitted.  01:41, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. We still keep the RuneScape in it though, right? 01:43, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, we do. Do we create it now? 01:44, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! 01:45, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I tried, but I can't figure out how to make CiteNPC properly. Can you? 13:21, December 10, 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha noooooo its time to do what I always do when I need a template made... bug Gaz! 17:31, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

Five tildes
Should I put instead of 27 August, 2024 under the "date" field? 22:27, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah. If you don't put the tildes, it doesn't show up under the References that need verification category after 30 days. -- 22:31, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, because for Template:Cite web, the five tildes don't work. Look at 2009 Christmas event. 22:38, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * Ask Gaz! :O -- 22:40, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Also, I've changed the heading of this discussion from because of linking issues.  22:46, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd forgotten about CiteWeb - it probably should be brought in line with the other templates >_> 02:33, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's because of the  tags. Stuff that you put in them generally doesn't get expanded correctly, e.g. parser functions, tildes, etc. a way around this is to instead of using use That should work. This is a known 'bug' (see ), which was encountered making the CiteX templates.

Cite web could (and maybe should) have the #tag:ref moved inside it, to be used like the other CiteX templates. However this would more than double the code, and all current uses would have to be updated. Up to you. 17:06, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * What if we made a brand new one, CiteGeneral or something like that? We could replace all the old uses or we could just leave em. 21:06, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * I could help replace the links if a new template is made/#tag:ref is moved inside CiteWeb. -- 21:12, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

YouTube
Does anyone know how to link to a certain page of a channel's comments on YouTube? 22:42, December 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done some research and I haven't found anything (though I did find this this cool site). I am quite curious however - why do you want to link to a youtube comment? They're not often very meaningful... 02:32, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Jagex's YouTube has said some things about the 2009 Christmas event. 02:40, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok I see now. Also I read through the references in the christmas event and I saw that you cited some threads from the forums by some players who have made some deductions about the event. That's citing a secondary source, which should be avoided when we could cite a primary source, i.e. a the sources that they use. I can understand that you may wish to give them credit for noticing this, but it they're probably not the first person to notice it, and by posting it on the forums they're essentially releasing it into public domain (it may shock you to hear this, but putting "©2009 by Psycho Robot" at the end of a thread does not a legally binding copyright create). What do you think of that? 02:50, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it okay if I moved the references I created to the sentence that says people have speculated about those things? Instead of the things they speculated? Or should I not cite those references at all? 03:37, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, moving them as you describe would be better, but I think RS:PLAYERS comes into effect here - does the thread contribute significantly to the article apart from showing what some people think? RS:NOT might also be something to consider. I personally wouldn't cite them, but I'm also not going to be all that worried about it if you choose to do so. 03:41, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that too, but there's been a lot of speculation about A Christmas Carol on the forums. 03:44, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * One possibility to document this without having to choose a specific thread is to archive the Future Updates board full of threads about the christmas update, though this would only work if people chose titles like "Christmas Carol event". Hm. I definably agree that it should be documented, but it might not need to be cited, especially if its this difficult or awkward to do. We could instead cite all the sources that lead to people believing it was going to be A Christmas Carol, and then applying the blanket term "which led many players to speculate that the event would be base on Charles Dicken's story A Christmas Carol" or something like that. I hope I spelled his name right. 03:56, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * I've cited everything I could. (Should I also cite the definition of "warble"? I already linked to Wiktionary.) Should I just get rid of the forum speculation references, but keep the information? 04:04, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think something as basic as a word definition needs to be cited, but again I won't be upset if you do. I support the removal of the thread references but keeping the information. 04:07, December 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, what about in the beginning, where I cite a certain page of the forums of a bunch of users wondering why it's taking so long? I'll assume that I should delete that cite too, and leave the reference that the players got it from. 11:43, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

postdate
For things like,  , and  , should I put 27 August 2024, or 27 August, 2024 (with a comma)? 19:07, December 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked on wikipedia's style guide and they said that if you chose to do Month DD, YYYY, then a comma is required, but if you choose to do DD Month YYYY, no comma is required. Since our own style guide requires the DD Month YYYY format, I think that's the one we should use in there. 21:05, December 24, 2009 (UTC)