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.
 * To make a special request or comment to the administrators of this wiki, add to the discussion on RuneScape:Administrator requests.

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Uploading RuneScape music
As some of you may know, the music that plays while playing RuneScape can usually be found in our computers in a cache folder in the form of MIDI files. These MIDI files can be uploaded into the wiki, and included/embedded in articles (quests, Music, etc.) The files can be set to play automatically, or on-demand.

I have 70-80% 65% of the MIDI files and the files are quite small in size (average 20-50kb per file). Embedding the MIDI files can be tricky, but I have found a way using a combination of templates and JS.

The thing that concerns me is: copyright. Can we upload these files...? We're already using content from the game (images/screen captures) and website under the conditions of "Fair use".. so why not upload the music too?

If anyone is interested in this, I'll work on it. Currently, I've tested the embedding script, and it works. All I need to do is to create a template (similar to the Listen template in Wikipedia) and we can start playing MIDI files in articles. 09:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with this, and providing demos for players in the music list and all, that would be great. I can't find the midi's though in my cache, any reason why? 09:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Prior to November 2007, the MIDI files used to be located at "c:/windows/.files_store32" or something like that. If you've been playing RS before November 2007, you'll notice some MIDI files there, otherwise I'm afraid you wouldn't have the files.  The MIDI files I have are from the game before Jagex updated engine in 2007.  For music released after that, you have to record the music manually using audio-recording softwares.  06:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I have played Runescape prior to Nov. 2007, but not on this laptop, but on a public address, so I guess I don't have them. 06:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If they're short, they can be used under fair use, I believe. Basically, we just can't upload the whole song; a 30 second clip or something should be fine though.--Richardtalk 16:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Support if they're clips less than thirty seconds long. Anything longer than that would be unnecessary and reaching the limits that fair use can stretch to. 02:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The tracks I have are full songs, some up to 4 mins long.. However, the playback time can be limited to 30 secs even if we upload full songs. If we cannot upload full songs, I'll have to cut the songs short, and this could be a time-consuming process. I'll see what I can do...
 * I also have other sound effects like "Quest completion", "Levelling up", "Magic carpet ride", etc. Some of these clips are less than 30 secs, and shouldn't be a "Fair use" problem.  06:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that courts have traditionally been much more harsh about their interpretation of fair use for musical compositions, as opposed to textual quotes and even images. In one really unusual case, a total of about 10 notes were copied and a successful copyright infringement suit resulted.  I kid you not here... it is that bad.  The tide seems to be turning the other way in terms of allowing slightly more latitude in fair-use, but what you are talking about here is really stretching the limits of fair-use.  I don't know where Jagex got this music, but I would have to assume they either got these midi files from some professional composers or from a music library company, and it is licensed by Jagex for use in their game alone.  In other words, I doubt that Jagex even owns this music for them to give permission for us to use it here... but I may be mistaken on this issue.  A sample of a couple of these songs might be acceptable, but a complete library of everything in the game may be (unfortunately) over the top and too much as well, from a strictly legal viewpoint.  For personal use (also covered under fair-use law), that is something different but we are talking publication and distribution when it comes to this wiki.  --Robert Horning 10:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to inform you, Jagex does own all rights to these songs. They are written specifically for the games by, I believe, only two individuals hired by Jagex. 18:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * While I'm not questioning the truth of this statement, it would be nice to get a citation that could be used with this little tidbit. At least to put it into the Runescape article on Wikipedia if nothing more.  I would like to know who composed some of this music in the game. --Robert Horning 20:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I was mistaken, it is three hired staff, as stated here: Music Team. 21:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup, there are three Mods in the Music team: Mod Ian, Mod Dan and Mod Bond. Some of the earlier MIDIs are credited to Ian and Dan, with the copyright belonging to Jagex Ltd.

Anyways, I haven't had the time to create samples out of the MIDI files yet (I've been quite busy with other projects), but I'll try to do it soon. Anyone would like to request particular tracks...? I'm planning to upload maybe three or four 30-sec sample tracks (2 from the Music Player, and 1-2 sound clips from the game). How does that sound? 21:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps some more popular tunes. I'm not sure of the titles for I am not online at the moment, but perhaps the ones heard in the Grand Exchange, Lumbridge, Varrock Square, and maybe some others. 23:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree. Some music tracks are very nice, and I dont think we're breaking any copyright, as we're only playing a sample, like in iTunes store, for example. About getting the MIDI files, a quick google will do, I think 4ndrepd 12:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)--

So I guess that we cannot do full versions, well then, I guess those 5 or so OGG's need to be deleted of the wiki... But I can do 30 second sound bites, but I would like to see it add MP3 support at OGG's take awhile to do without the proper software. 02:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The OGG files do not have to be deleted... just upload the 30-second clipping under the same name ("Upload a new version of this file"). mp3s are currently not supported by Wikia, but I'll try asking the staff.  Mediawiki, however, have a beta-release extension called FlashMP3 which allows mp3s to be played.  See this example of the player in action.   09:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support - Great idea! Maybe articles for each track (or maybe not)? Also, this would enable me to listen to a bunch of members only tracks that I'd love to hear. :D 05:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know about articles for every single track... there wouldn't be much information to put on the page, and posting clips of all the songs might be copyright infringement. 02:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I got all but the Zamorak_Zoo.ogg so far (as I need to figure out why all the songs I record now having Popping noises o_O). I also see how the current version (and I see why it is in Beta) for the FlashMP3 is not used here yet. Also, I do record the entire piece for my sake to find the best 30 Seconds of the piece without ripping it into 10 Second bits. Currently, it takes 30 Minutes to get the Audio Correct (Meaning I have to rerecord due to the odd noises now), saving to MP3, then Converting to OGG (To which I have to find another software as my WavePad Trial for things like OGG extensions expire soon), and cutting it to the best 30 Seconds (Which some people may debate soon - IDK when that may occur). I'll still be adding music periodically, but is it possible to do things like a Level_99_Fireworks.ogg for the Milestone to add some depth, or like a 1494_Total_level_Fireworks.ogg(since they are not actual music)? (I will record them later when I get the chance | Hopefully before my own 99/1494 Woodcutting/Total level day!) =P 04:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * While I am still at work with Zamorak Zoo, I am working on Bandos Battalion and some harder to reach songs (i.e. - Victory is Mine from a Champion scroll). I am uploading certain songs as I go along (Next one after Victory is Mine is Trees aren't your Friends), but I am still looking for a replaceable OGG converter. I'll make a list or just leave it alone and upload the songs as I go along as I've said. May the Audio Project have Godspeed (Klaus Badlet - The Time Machine) in its' pace. :) 08:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why aren't the OGG's playing anymore? I see that the Download icon seems to be gone (But I do not know if it is my computer not letting me play the audio bites or if the code was changed?). 19:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I did a little research into this, and I found Wikipedia's music sample guidelines. I think it would be a good idea for us to try and follow this as close to the letter as possible, because it deals with properly conforming to copyright laws. Some things of note: Sample clips used must be 30 seconds long or 10% of the length of the original song, whichever is shorter. (therefore, music under 5 minutes means the 10% rule must be used. This applies to a lot of RuneScape's music). Samples must also be of a reduced quality from the original. 15:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Support using clips from songs from more popular areas and sound effects such as leveling up. This would be a good thing to add to the wiki; however, only do it when you are completely sure that it isn't illegal, as I'd hate to have a lawsuit on the wiki because we added some music clips. 02:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Archiving the Yew Grove
I've noticed that a lot of the time, discussions on the Yew Grove are archived just because they haven't been edited in two weeks or more. But a lot of the time those discussions weren't over yet. Just because there hasn't been any comments on it in a while, doesn't mean that it should be archived. I think we should make it a Yew Grove policy to archive discussions only when they are over. If a discussion hasn't been edited in a long time, then end the discussion and make it a policy before archiving it. 13:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -- 14:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - I was wondering why some of those discussions were archived. o_O 15:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC) Support - I agree with you 100%. Jediadam4 (Talk)   22:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: You're probably referring to me recently archiving the page. The reason I did that is because it was colossal. It was big enough to cause serious laggage to my whole computer when I loaded the Yew Grove. As I stated in one of my summaries, I targeted the discussions that hadn't been posted in for a couple weeks. The implication with those discussions is that there is no longer anything worth discussing, and as such, they can be archived. If those discussions are still ongoing, and don't need archiving, then fine. But we can't have a 175-KB Yew Grove page. Maybe it needs to be broken up into subforums or something to keep that from happening. -- 06:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm also referring to other archives of the Yew Grove. But I just mean that before you archive something, make sure you put the consensus into effect. For example, the Wiki world is still on the sitenotice, and still marked as proposed. And we didn't put any .OGG files on the wiki. The Adventurers' Tales discussion did not reach consensus. And a lot of more recent discussions ended, but you deleted the old ones instead of the ones that were actaully finished. 15:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment The suggestion seems like a good way to fix the lag. I just want to only archive discussions after the consensus has been put into effect. If a discussion hasn't been edited in a while, it's fine to archive it, as long as consensus has been reached (unless it turned into a large argument where it is clear no consensus can be reached), and that the wiki should start doing whatever it is the consensus was (for example, making the wiki world official). 02:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Trivia? More like "triviugh".
In all sorts of different talk pages, people have been saying that trivia should be banned from being listed in articles. From what I have seen, people have been passing just normal facts for trivia quite often. It gets annoying.

Time for a bit of a pop quiz. Of the following, which one(s) is trivia?


 * Trivia


 * 1) The Dragon chainbody is the strongest chainbody in the game.
 * 2) Mod Peter Pants said that it was his favorite item.
 * 3) In Betrayal at Falador, it was the only item released at the time of the book's release that was not mentioned anywhere in the book.
 * 4) The price has gone from 15M to 10M, then to 8M, down to 4.8M, and is currently at 5M.
 * 5) At the time of release, Dragon chainbodies were the most wanted item in RuneScape at the time.
 * 6) The first player ever to get one was I_Lyk_Pi_3point14159_L0L_I_Pkd_U.

And now, class, the answers:


 * 1) Not trivia. It should be listed in the either first or second sentence of the article.
 * 2) Not trivia. Heck, not even notable.
 * 3) Trivia. It wouldn't make much sense to list that in the main article, but it would probably be worth saying.
 * 4) Not trivia. If there is enough data for its own area, it would be included in a "Price history" subsection of the article.
 * 5) Not trivia. Most items are the most wanted item in RuneScape when they're released. Dragon claws, Dragon platebodies, Dark bows, and so on.
 * 6) Trivia. If this can even be proven, this would be trivia. It doesn't have a reasonable place anywhere else in the article.

In short, trivia is information that would not be reasonable to be put anywhere else in the article, yet is worthy of being mentioned. Now, of course, trivia would be an uncommon thing to find in articles. It's just that in most articles that have a trivia subsection it's clogged with non-trivia.

For this reason, a policy about trivia subsections should be put in place. Wikipedia's policy on trivia is that [if I remember correctly] if it can be used elsewhere in the article, place it there instead. 01:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral - Trivia I guess is just based on what is trivial to you. Where some might find something trivial, another may not. I don't think it's possible to limit it so drastically that rules need to be placed on what is trivia and what is not. If you find conflict with trivia, simply remove it or place it in an article where it can be useful and remove it from the list of trivia. 05:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - I believe we should define what's trivia and what isn't and then change the articles. If anyone suggests totally removing trivia from the Wikia, don't. There is no reason to totally abolish it from the Wikia. I personally love reading trivia, even though some of it isn't really... trivia. Jediadam4 (Talk)   08:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral per Bonzii. 02:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Weak Support - I came from Wikipedia, so I'm partially more inclined to the Wikipedia standards; after all, this is also an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. However, we may find it hard to incorporate trivia into the main contents since, well, it's about a MMORPG game, and there may be facts that cannot be put into the main contents without having its own section. So banning the entire trivia section per Wikipedia standards may not be the best idea. I'm not sure if I make any sense there, but that's just what I felt. Red X 226 08:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Weak support - while, yes, the trivia issue can be annoying, it doesn't need to be some almighty policy. We can just slip it into the style guide. Also, since users adding trivia are probably acting in good faith, this shouldn't be something like "oh, you added trivia in the wrong place, BANNED!". Butterman62 (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

New Article Spot on Mainpage
In light of recent discussion about the User of the Month, it has been brought forth to create a new mainpage spot which would advertise articles needing cleaned up, or worked on/enhanced. With this said, I move for the creation of a new mainpage template that would allow this to occur. Please offer all ideas on what this template would be about. A community will decide the overall theme of this new feature. 07:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of pretty or well detailed areas in Runescape. How about Image of the Month? -- 12:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - Perhaps we could create a template that displays three stubs and three articles needing cleanup? 19:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - I would prefer Image of the month or something similar. With the recent graphics update, Runescape has some truly beautiful high resolution scenery. I think it would also help Runescape's long standing image as a "crappy low res browser game". TEbuddy 00:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've brought up the idea of an IotM (Image of the Month) multiple times already. Everyone hates it when I mention it. :S 01:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Support as I wanted this in the first place. -- 02:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Example - Here are a few example images that show off a few nicer looking areas that we could use for IOTM. I think it would be an excellent feature. TEbuddy 07:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Instead of showing off images, linking to stubs and things that need help would be of more benefit to the wiki. --Degenret01 07:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We should keep the front page aesthetically pleasing and useful to a public guest. Take a look at Guild wiki, Wowwiki, and Wikipedia for examples. They all have useful information, features, pictures, and not lists of articles/items needing attention. Stubs have their own category, and thats where they should stay.[[Image:Gnomegoggleswithcap.png|25px]]TEbuddy 08:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Amazing, your examples are all pics you took....what a coincidence...and that's another reason I don't like this idea, there would be arguing over how to select the pic...and a pic is just what one, or very rarely, two people worked on.--Degenret01 08:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, no high resolution pictures of any areas exist on this wiki. What other way could I upload them without manually taking them or requesting a friend to take them for me? Also, the process you describe as being violent and unnecessary could be as simple as a vote or a discussion on where an appropriate area would be. Similar to how UOTM and AOTM are chosen. Not to mention, the images I did indeed take were very easy to capture. I would say I have spent more time replying to your post than I did taking, editing, and uploading them. [[Image:Gnomegoggleswithcap.png|25px]]TEbuddy 09:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Upon further consideration I still think we do need the Article that Needs Work, but the idea of pic of the month has some merit. How about if we have Gallery of the Month? We can decide on say 4 or 6 or 8 images that really do justice to this project. And having a good number would alleviate arguing. For the process of selecting them, just as Tebuddy said, a nice easy vote. And everyone gets up to the same number of votes as we decide there will be pics in the gallery. --Degenret01 10:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I do like the Image of the Month idea, per Tebuddy. There is also the possibility of a Trivia / "Did you Know" section on the Main Page, which was once discussed here. 03:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Splitting up the Yew Grove
I don't know about you guys, but when I go to load the Yew Grove page nowadays, it lags my computer very badly. Even typing this right now is causing massive lag in RS because it has to add to 127 kb of data whenever I type something. I think the Yew Grove should be split up into subpages to combat lag. According to what I've been told recently, most discussions on this page are not usually ready to be archived. (This is ridiculous. Typing that sentence actually lagged me out.) Okay, no more typing for now lest my comp crash. -- 22:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 130kb of data, especially text, should not be a problem even on a standard dialup connection. If your computer is slow in the first place, the last thing you should be trying to do is multitask. Splitting up the yew grove would be a pain in the rear end. [[Image:Gnomegoggleswithcap.png|25px]]TEbuddy 22:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * How so? It'd be easy to create "RuneScape:Yew Grove/Policy discussion" and "RuneScape:Yew Grove/Site discussion" or something like that. (Those are just names I pulled from nowhere.) It would also be easy to put a template at the top of the Yew Grove page informing people about the different categories and where their posts should go. I don't see the change being a huge problem, and I know I'm not the only one with lag issues. (read:Karlis) -- 22:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My computer at work lags REALLY BAD in the Yew Grove. I think subpages for discussions would be a viable option. 22:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. My isn't as bad, but still lags a lot when I try to get on... -- 22:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess it would not be too bad, my only concern is discussions getting lost or being moved around for not being in the right place. If we did split it, we should just cut it into half or thirds, and not worry about putting each one into a category. [[Image:Gnomegoggleswithcap.png|25px]]TEbuddy 00:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I am neutral. I agree with Tebuddy; if you wanted to see every part of the Grove, you would have to load every page. 00:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

So how about like we did with Treasure Trails? Full version or Lag reduced version optional for each user. If this isn't feasible for some techie reason don't slam me, I don't know techie stuff.--Degenret01 04:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - As stated by Degenret01 08:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - I see no side effects, only good effects! =)  Jediadam4  (Talk)   09:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Degenret's idea. 12:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered a wiki forum? A lot of wikis find that a good way of keeping track of conversations once they grow too big for one page. See the Central forums for an example -- sannse (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I edit from work, and am unable to view forums at work. This is actually one of the very few wiki's I can view at work. I'd hate to lose access to our community discussion. =( 19:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wiki forums are just wiki pages, like this one. The only difference is in the way they are organised. So if you can view and edit this page, you would be fine with wiki forums :) -- sannse (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh that's neat! I agree with sannse, wiki forum! =D 19:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Before we get a general consensus, I think we should see an example of a wiki forum so we can know if we really like it or not. [[Image:Gnomegoggleswithcap.png|25px]]TEbuddy 02:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It would require a lot of work. I think if we did this, we would have to move the archives to this forum as well as we would no longer be making them. Would take a lot of work and hours to set up, but I am willing to help if this is the census. I have a neutral opinion on the forum idea. 04:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * TEbuddy: here's some random examples: the Central Forums - quite a basic set up which shows how you might start.  Wookieepedia - which shows more customisation.  the Community Test wiki which has a starter set of forums, which you are welcome to play around with (CT is a test wiki for the whole Wikia community).
 * Bonziiznob: I would recommend not trying to move the archives, those can stay in place and just be linked to from the main forum page. Future topics would not need archiving (unless a thread got very long) you just allow them to fall off the bottom of the listing, and remain in the forum categories - although some wikis do have fancy ways of archiving topics.  The set up doesn't take long, although you would probably want to customise it over time.  I've done the basic set up many times, so could do that for you if you want.  Or there are instructions at Help:Wiki-style forum set up.
 * -- sannse (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see, well, then I support. 17:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support using the wiki-style forums. The wiki-style forums are more compatible, cleaner looking, and simpler to deal this. Although I wonder how we would setup having forum admins for them, I am sure that is easily possible. It is definitely ironic about how we are wanting back to the wiki style. Maybe now Wikia can hide them from Recent Changes. I would say that is the main requirement for us to switch back. :) - 20:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

We actually used to use wiki forums here, until about June 2007. There was a community consensus to move the forums to a phpBB style site. The reason was because they were clogging up the recent changes, among other things. I actually find it a little funny how these wiki-based forums are so new and fantastic to you guys, but they're so old-sk00l to me. I still support if the use of wiki forums is limited to discussion about the wiki. 22:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hah this is kind of funny, yeah I remember when we used to have wiki-style forums and the community decided to get rid of them, now seems like the community wants them back. Kind of funny that the community changed so quickly in such a (fairly) short time. Anyway I personally like wiki-style forums a lot better than PHP forums like the RSW has now.--Richardtalk 21:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support Sannse's idea. We should bring back the Forum: namespace, and make it the new Yew Grove. It would be used only for wiki discussion. We would keep the Beta forums for everything else. Having a wiki discussion forum would be a lot better than the long, complicated lagging Yew Grove we have now. This way, discussions wouldn't get lost on the whole page. 02:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Support The current yew grove lags horribly, and it is hard to navigate. Switching to using wiki-style forums would be a huge improvement. --Template:Signatures/ma44040 03:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Support the idea of splitting up the Yew Grove into sub-pages. I'm opposed to Sannse's idea of bringing back the "forums" like on Wikia Central for a basic reason: It breaks up the communication about what was going on with the wiki. One of the reasons why the Yew Grove is being used at all is due to the fact that major decision making about the wiki was not happening on the forums, and that the forum community is somehow split from the wiki development community. I don't know entirely why this is the case but it is happening. I'd like to suggest that by bringing back the "wiki-style" forums would only create a third community and further fracture the community. That the Yew Grove is filling up too fast may be true, but we need to keep the wiki development community together here and not shove new toys at everybody. --Robert Horning 14:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with anything that gets rid of the lag. I know people who don't go in the Yew Grove to vote in important discussions because it takes too long to load. I see your point about the wiki forums, but wouldn't the forums be a lot like the subpage idea? If we advertised it the same, it seems like it would be just like subpages, just more organised and easier to navigate through. 03:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Support Sannse's idea - Replace the current forums and Yew Grove with the old wiki style forums and reserve them for discussion directly related to the wiki. The current forums have very little use to the wiki as a whole, and most forum users do not edit the wiki (and vice versa). The wiki style forums are also much more convenient for wiki discussions than the Yew Grove. Dtm142 17:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - This page is far too long, I got logged off of RS for adding this comment. I'm leaning towards the forum idea because it seems that the forum would automatically limit page size, while the subpage idea would not. Even if each dicussion was given its own page, some of these dicussions get pretty long (especially political ones). A forum would easily allow an individual discussion to be broken up into appropriate sized pages. 04:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also I was strolling thru wikipedia (I know we're not them) and saw there policy on article length at article length page. They suggest splitting up articles between 30-60K, and more strongly for 60K+.  I think this is some good food for thought, for all articles, especially since many of our users are playing RS while on the wiki.  03:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Support for wiki-style forums, as I found through the links above to examples. I admit that I can scarcely bring myself to read the YG lately (let alone bring up another topic) because there is just SO much. My only concern would be that ideally we would want topics automatically divided up into pages of (for example) 10 posts to combat lag. However, it is a small price to pay if we won't have that. I agree with Dtm142 - I hardly ever use the wiki forums as they are now. 05:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - While my work and main PC do just fine with loading the Yew Grove, my laptop doesn't. I would like to have a full and condensed version of the Yew Grove as stated by Degen. 05:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - My laptop loads the Yew Grove fine, but ugh, whenever I type something my screen freezes for a couple seconds before responding. I would love a wiki-style forum if it gets rid of the lag, which means I will visit it more. 12:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Uploading images/videos
I'm not sure if the current 'personal image' policy covers this, but I think we oughta reword it to include videos. We might even consider putting it in the Site Notice for a while. WWTDD? 19:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed‎[[Image:Cooked_chicken.PNG‎]]Atlandy 19:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I second that. 19:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This needs to get a consensus soon, as people uploading silly videos is going to get out of hand, fast. 00:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Tertiary adjunct that. Update the policy already 00:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Faster the better and sooner the lag monster will be stopped and defeated before it is too late. - 03:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely stop any furter uploading of these things. After all, isn't a video (movie) a series of consecutive images (pictures)? So this is technically covered already.--Degenret01 03:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't even like the idea of uploading videos. If people want to display videos they can upload it to Youtube and link to it... 04:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You can embed Youtube videos right into the middle of an article anyway.... if it is appropriate. While I think the deletion of "personal images" has gone overboard on this wiki, I fail to see what real benefit is gained by uploading most videos onto this wiki that isn't already covered with animated GIF images.... many of which are overdone as well.


 * The main point of the "personal images" prohibition is mainly to keep this website from becoming a repository like Flicker and YouTube for other fan websites. In that spirit, I support a general prohibition against videos not used explicitly for content development or that is mostly a duplication of existing content.  This is in spite of my desire to permit a limited number of snapshots related to your character that may appear on the user page for active participants of this website.  --Robert Horning 09:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - I can see that a few people have been trying it out already, mostly with personal content. What makes it worse is that I can't see the videos on this computer, and the 'What links here' function doesn't seem to work for them. 10:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Support including videos in the personal image policy per Degenret. This should be included in the policy already. 03:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

A solution to Clan Chat problems.
Hi. This is coming from my thread in the forums, here.

There has been problems in the R S Wikia clan chats, and kicking has been needed. Often, no one is high enough ranked to kick. So this the proposed solution.


 * Give all trusted Clan Chat members kicking power to all unranked players, as defined by C Teng. if we can trust C Teng with the R S Wikia account, we can here. I'm pretty sure R S Wikia's Friend's list can handle this. This would be no more then 25, currently. This way we can get rid of trouble causing players, not fill up R S Wikia's friends list. If "trusted users" set out of bounds on their judgment, they can easily be kicked out themselves by higher-ups, or acted upon here, on the Wikia.


 * Once we have reached a consensus, I would like to put this into effect ASAP.

Thanks. This is a plausible solution to a serious problem. Jediadam4 (Talk)   05:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment - If all sysops have kicking rights and crats and some users, we are already at 50+ with these kicking rights... 07:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I am talking all sysops, crats, and trusted users. This is well under 100 and manageable. I know we can't have a kicker on the CC all the time, but we can try to have one on most of the time. Why, just earlier I was on with 10+ people, none with kicking rights. Jediadam4 <font color="Green">(Talk)   08:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Hasn't this already been suggested here? 22:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Maybe we can come up with a team of trusted "moderators". They wouldn't have to do much, other than just sit in the channel while they're browsing the wiki, checking in every few minutes or so. Even if they aren't in the channel, we could have a chat CVU page where active channel users can report problems. I am in support of doing something, and I think we're definitely on the right track. However, I'd like to see a bit more detail in the specifications before we come to a consensus. I'll be eagerly watching this idea develop. 02:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - Sounds good, Jedi. :) By the way, you spelled "solution" incorrectly in your title, so I fixed it.   13:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - I support the proposal, there are plenty of times I have seen nobody with kicking powers on. 00:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Support per above. 03:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment - We have agreed to make the new ranking, but how will we decide to give it to people? Should we make "RfLs" (Requests for Lieutenantship), similar to RfAs? Or should players request the ranking online? 03:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This is Jediadam4. I was playing and got this image: [IMG]http://i640.photobucket.com/albums/uu128/Jediadam4/Proof.jpg[/IMG] Please see this page in the forums for more details.

Let's get this issue fixed,  <font color="Blue">Jediadam4  <font color="Green">(Talk)   04:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - I would just like to note that current persons with fest mod ranks, (God of War, and myself) should be allowed to keep these as we are actively planning the wikifest and are moderating the chat. Also, if we will be doing elections, I personally nominate Jediadam4. There are active on the chat often have a neutral point of view. Thanks! 05:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also much appreciate it if I could have these rights back...how do I do this...thanks! 05:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this needs to be complicated. How about any user that has been around for a while and uses the CC just ask C Teng on his talk page for kicking powers. Any one abuses and they get the boot. --Degenret01 05:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it does. This is a major issue and privileged. Plus, it shouldn't just be up to one person entirely. Also, if we grant it to a lot of people, people will start abusing it for certain, to an extent. This would cast havoc upon the Wikia and it's community, we don't want that.


 * [[Image:Prayer.gif]] <font color="Blue">Jediadam4  <font color="Green">(Talk)  [[Image:Bandosgodsword.gif|Bandosgodsword.gif]] 05:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, how about a "Request for Fest Mod(RFM)". Require the user to be active two months, have a history of fairness and good edits. History of reporting vandalism and handling vandalism well. Or something to that degree, since if a fest mod can kick then it is like being an admin on the wiki. It should be similar to how we now have forum admins. - 06:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * After speaking with some users in game, I Support this idea. I hope we can limit the amount of run time to perhaps 5 days, rather then the traditional 2 weeks though ;) 19:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support since I came up with it and having it less than 2 weeks works for me. - 20:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - But i think that 5 days is too short, make it 1 week. 20:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Support with conditions- I support as long as the new rank for trusted members does not interfere with the Fest mod, crat and admin ranks. I would like it as well if Doucher and Jediadam got these kicking powers as well. They have been around for a while and i think extreme kick action needs to be taken as not everyone can be on it at the time of a vandal attack. Also i would like to quickly add that my rank has disappeared maybe it was intentional maybe it wasnt so we should add a clan chat help page when it comes to problems. Also maybe we could give chat bans? Make a page here on the wiki and add any known vandal who fails to comply by our rules multiple times not to be allowed in the chat again or maybe just for a period of time. Im sorta typing quick so let me know if im hard to understand. God Of War 00:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Edit: Bonziiznob and I and the rest of the Fest Mods should still retain our rank. I see no reason why the Fest Mod rank was done away with. Not all rollbackers are prominent well known wiki users. It is much harder to organize and schedule a wikifest in some cases than gain the roll back feature. I think we need to put back all the ranks and add a few more. Take away the Judges and Contestants and lower the ability to kick. God Of War 02:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I Agree - 06:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * God of War, Lieutenants will become the new Fest Mod rank. Instead of just ranks for Wikifest workers, we'll have it for all trusted users. It's the same thing. And we've decided to not use rollbackers, but instead trusted users. We are definitely getting rid of the judge and contestant ranks (see my comments above). Kicking powers will be given to Sysops, and the Lieutenants. We just have to figure out how we will give these ranks (perhaps by using RfA-like voting). And also, you never were a Fest Mod, actually. 22:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think im trusted enough. I have had my fair share of arguments just like any user but in game there have been no arguments or complaints. I used to have the Lieutenant Ranking and the Orange Star which at the time was the Fest Mod Ranking. I did apply to it when the original rankings were made. So far in the last fest i included the Clan Wars section and dramatically increased the time spend on f2p servers during the wikifest. While i was unable to attend the fest i did contribute to it. This fest Bonzi and I have been working on it a lot as well. I was the user who proposed specific rules be set for the new clan chat and even without my rank i warn users whenever they are on the breaking point of flaming or talking about topics that arent for the clan chat... drugs sex adult content etc. If i have to get elected im ok with that. God Of War 03:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As desperately needed, and as this was moved to the archive with no changes, I have implemented discussed rules at with a consensus has been made. In light of recent events at which is has become heated, hard to handle and discuss, I took liberty to implement these immediately. Thanks. They can be found here 04:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The new rules look good. Now we just have to figure out how to rank people. 03:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Protection of spam pages – Add Extension:Title Blacklist
I was noticing that we have been protecting the spam pages that have been created by the recent vandal bot. I would like to point out that these pages are very unlikely to be recreated under the same name, so protecting the pages is not serving its purpose, only wasting valuable administrator time. Instead, I suggest that we have Extension:Title Blacklist installed on the RuneScape Wiki. This extension, which is used on Wikipedia, prevents the creation of pages that match up with regular expressions. This extension could really cut down on the number of spam pages that are created by this bot and other vandals. 06:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikia does have this extension, but currently, its not setup for each wiki to have its own list. We maintain a global list here (http://www.wikia.com/wiki/MediaWiki:Blacklist_title_list). We are working on modifying it to allow each wiki keep their own list in addition and RuneScape will be one of the first wikis we notify when this is available. --Uberfuzzy 06:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If the extension can be made possible, I support this. Per Dragon, it would prevent more vandal articles and mean less work for sysops adding titles to the blacklist. 04:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Wanteds
Looking over the wanted pages, there seems to be only two categories:Images and articles about conflicts (Runescape lore). Didn't we have a bot that gathered images? It would be nice to have the wanteds back down to a reasonable size‎Atlandy 15:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a bot run by Pointy, but the images are not being updated, and new one not being created. We either need to get it running regularly, or change the template so it doesn't link to the GEMH chart images any more. 15:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A dummy image can be uploaded for GEMH images that appear in the Wanted list. [[Image:GEMH not available.png|right|The dummy GEMH image.]] This would be a temporary solution until we have a bot to update the prices.  12:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As all of the current images are way out of date, and therefore misleading, how about we just change the template to point to this image for the time being? 12:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Done. 06:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

More Wanteds?
The wanteds have recently filled with exchange pages for non-tradeable items? Was something added to a template? ‎Atlandy 12:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, for some reason these are appearing and worse they don't even specify what is allegedly linking to them, i did a quick scan for #ifexist's since those are known to cause issues and none were found. This is near ridiculous, the wanted articles feature needs help obviously. On wikipedia it has been ignored for years and smaller wiki's like us use this feature that is seemingly becoming more dysfunctional. 21:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Can anything be done to fix this? 04:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Mailing list
Hi. I just discovered that the email address used to administrator the RuneScape Wiki mailing list was bouncing. Is there someone else who would like to look after the list? It isn't used very often, but it's there as a tool if you need it. If the settings are correct, the list admin shouldn't need to deal with spam, but only with held posts from registered users (held because they are too large, for example). There's a help page about this at Help:Mailing lists. Alternatively, the list could be closed if there are no current plans to use it. It can easily be reopened later by contacting staff. Angela (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not think we need the list, but if we decide to keep it, I will look after it. But, we have talk pages, IRC, the forums, and the Yew Grove so I think we are covered. Besides, I think most people do not know about the list(although I did). - 01:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I heard that the RS Wiki mailing lists have been disabled; is this true? 04:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it hasn't been disabled yet, but I can disable it if that's what the community here would prefer. Angela (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent template additions

 * Template:Vchart - vertical bar chart
 * Template:Listen - embedding audio files (Ogg, midi, mp3, etc.)
 * Template:Achieve* - displaying a player's achievements in RuneScape

Adminship guidelines
While I am completely understand that the RS wiki is not wikipedia, it is clear that they have evolved many good policies and guidelines over time, for the benefit their wiki. I think it be be very beneficial if we included some of those ideals in to what we expect of our admins so no one gets the wrong idea of what it is. If I missed any good ones, feel free to add to this list.


 * [] Advice for new admins
 * [] What adminship is not
 * I especially love the part about it not being a trophy


 * [] A how to guide

When one of us passes an RFA we get that nice message telling us what we can now do. It would be even better if we included these links to help guide us, and prevent anyone from thinking they are now special or above the law or whatever. Please note, I am not accusing anyone here of actually doing that. I want to focus on the future, not the past. And implementing this would be very helpful in that respect.--Degenret01 07:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. I also would really like the whole adminship thing looked at. In opinion, I feel that the meaning of adminship is slowly getting lost. Users are offering support for the purpose of rewarding users, or popular users....It's not about the amount of contribs, etc. but it's about the reason behind the user and the purpose adminship would serve to them. Are they presently active in community discussions, do they revert, are they mature and active and will they use these rights responsibly. I know many users will say that they already consider this, but in general, I feel that the whole thing still needs to be thought about. I'm having trouble actually stating what I want to say, as I am having trouble actually knowing what I want, but I hope that sums it up... and please don't scruntanize me for my RfA's....my first was really mature, my second was a nomination to early, and my third I closed after a day...I personally know what my intentions are, and seeing what is becoming of this wikia and how important it is to me, I am glad I did not get these at those times. 08:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - The adminship process in this wiki needs to be updated, and these pages will be an excellent addition. 09:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Protocol changes, rewards, and authourity
Beiefly being back, I have observed many things on wikipedia and other wikis (including the sub-wikis) of which I think will help the wiki greatly.

1. The Barnstar reward system, Users will be greatly motivated by rewards like this, I have seen it work very well on WikiPedia, so why can't we try it here?

2. Request for rollback, I believe that if one of out sub-wikis have this, why not the main wiki?

3. We should have a more flexible Promotion/Demotion RFA system, I believe that we need people with roles greater than those of breaucrats, like Janitors, Helpers... etc.

4. A User rights role either between admin-rollbacks, this has more active roles and is a good basis to make way towards adminship.

5. A more media-active wiki, this wiki should extend it's reach towards many other websites, like bebo, myspace, etc, we have a youtube channel but it's more like colo's own channel due to a lack of media input/links and the lack of euthiasm, it's also hard to locate many wiki members. I have set up a youtube group for the wiki before, but no one has joined, which shows a lack of communication between those of us who has accounts.

6. articles should me put into wikiprojects, like on wikipedia, which helps to organise and find things very rapidly, since many articles are not in the category they belong.

Please discuss politely, in the few days I'm on the wiki before retreating back to the wikibreak I would like to see if these ideas can work out or not 16:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, great suff.
 * 1. We sort of have our own Barnstar system in the works, which is called the stardust awards. Currently 4 users have the userbox on their userpage. Though, I have yet to see an actual reward yet.
 * 2. What, like an RfA? If a user wants rollback, the way to get it now is to just ask a bureaucrat to give it to them. An RfR could work, but might be a bit over-the-top for something insignificant like that.
 * 3. It can't really change much, its up to wikia central to sort out those kinds of things. Plus, the janitor group has been discontinued temporarily.
 * 4. Again, its not up to us - wikia central controls the various user rights roles. Take it up there if you want it changed.
 * 5. That's a great idea. It needs to be organised properly, so to do it a page could be created called RuneScape:External sites or RuneScape:Other sites etc. It could work very well. An 'official' YouTube channel would work very well, with videos of wikifests and other wiki-organised events. I'd be willing to help out if this goes forward anywhere.  16:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I will only comment on #5. We are not a social network in the sense that facebook/myspace are.  We are a runescape encyclopedia designed to give information about runescape.  Users have the option for a user page and countless other personal pages.  I know this has been discussed before that we are not a social networking site.‎[[Image:Cooked_chicken.PNG‎]]Atlandy 18:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Stardusts
Stardusts (or Barnstars) can be used to eventually replace the controversial "User of the Month" feature that we have. The Stardusts will be awarded based on specific contribution to the wiki, such as:
 * Editor's Stardust - general editing
 * Working Man's Stardust - labourious and repetitive tasks
 * Tireless Contributor Stardust - large contribution of work
 * Photographer's Stardust - images
 * Defender of the Wiki Stardust - vandalism
 * ..and so on.
 * See Barnstars for a full list of Barnstars on Wikipedia. If necessary, we can change the names of the Barnstars to more RuneScape-y names.

Instead of picking an "User of the Month" just for the sake of it, anyone can award a stardust award to anyone, so long as they deserve it. No more voting, just give them a Stardust.

Consider this: We could really replace UoTM with this system. Users can be acknowledged for the work they've done, and we can avoid popularity contests. Nobody loses to another user just because they didn't get enough votes. We would be encouraging development of the wiki, without resorting to unnecessary conflicts.

Wikipedia knew the UoTM system was flawed, we should too. 10:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid people will go crazy just giving them out to friends. Then it won't really mean anything at all, tbh. =P Christine 20:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So they'd be like ninjastars or cookies on Uncyclopedia. Interesting. Why not use both these little awards and UotM, reserving UotM for big things? -- 20:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

@Christine: We can set certain rules/conditions for each award. However, anyone (other than themselves) can give out these award, without going through the nomination/voting/consensus process.

@Andorin: We could. But we still need to pick a UOTM every month, and that's not really good. The "month" part doesn't mean anything; it's not like "Employee of the Month" where the award is given based on contributions for that month. Here, we're just giving it randomly to anyone who has contributed to the wiki. Clearly, the nomination and voting is not decided based on the particular month. The UoTM has lost its meaning, literally.

If we want to reserve UoTM for big things, we should call it something else, and not have it every month. Currently, we're just cycling through the active users who haven't been an UoTM, and awarding them. Sooner or later, we'll run out of users... 10:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not keen to see the UOTM going away, i prefer having barnstardusts and uoTms seperate. 11:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see UotM replaced with something similar to an RfA (can be given out at any time, requires a nomination and votes, as well as the user having done something very significant to back it up). 16:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

to ADK and C309:

i think that we should dig in more into wikipedia's barnstar system before falling into conclusions, we should learn more about how wikipedia's barnstar system is kept from systematic and adminstrative corruption. and also, i was thinking of a minor award called "wikitokens" as a smaller reward which can be accumulated for prizes...(hopefully it's not regarded as a case of RWT)  11:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the RuneScape Wiki should have a barnstar style system. On Wikipedia, it is largely a popularity contest. RFAs have even been decided based on how many barnstars a user has received/given out. I also don't want to see the RuneScape Wiki turning into a social networking site, and this is very similar to Halopedia's point system which has largely ruined the site. Dtm142 17:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Inactive admins.
I will make this short as my computer here at work begins to smoke when I think about entering the Yew Grove. As many know, we currently have quite a few inactive 'crats and sysops. I think that, as they are inactive, and our expectations and policies have changed since they've been nominated, that they should have their status revoked to a normal user. This is for many reasons. Should somebody get ahold of one of their accounts, we have several inactive crats who have the power to desysop, protectsite, etc. While something like this has never happened, we are continually seing more vandalism, and I feel it is a good preventative measure to take. We also do not need to have users who are no longer regularly contributing to have these responsibilites, as they would be better suited for those who are on and would present a purpose to have them. I don't feel like crashing my computer, but out of memory, I want to say we have somewhere around 6-8 inactive crats and up to 15 or so inactive sysops. As they have left the community on a positive note, I see no reason why they should not be returned should they choose to return. You are more than welcome to read my inital discussion here and here. Sorry it's lacking a lot of detail, but like I said, I lag bad here. 19:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't say I disagree with you here. While the chance of a sysop's account being h4xed are decidedly slim, if we know that they're gone from the wiki, there's not much point to keeping them as sysop. Freeing up names from the rosters may also make people think "Hrm, we need more sysops/crats" and then we can look to those who are actively contributing to replace the retired sysops and crats, thereby increasing admin presence and everyone wins. -- 19:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well said. =D 19:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Damn, you beat me to it. This proposal juts makes sense in every way. I would like to add that in an inactive came back, there should be no problem in them getting their status back. After a couple weeks of activity to ensure they aren't a hacked account.--Degenret01 21:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong support- I really like this idea. How about sysops and crats who have not made any edits in eight months automatically get de-sysopped but may automatically regain their status after being active for two weeks?--Diberville 21:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable, and perhaps the ones that are barely active should be questioned on their talk page as to whether they are going to return, or if they mind their rights being revoked? There are a few who have made edits this year, but it's usually just a talk page or user page edit. 21:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Genious however we'll need new b'crats. 21:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We have more than enough active 'crats at the moment. 11:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - Although this would clear up a number of sysops, I also do not see the need to flood the nomination system with RfA's. They have been in-active, therefore little change at the present time will be noticed so immediately requesting a RfA after the desysoping is clearly pointless based on this alone. But I do, strongly support. It would clear up room for future more active sysop, just don't use this clearing as an accuse to get easy sysopping. 03:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So what if we created a "Quick Requests for Adminship" (QRfA) section that could only be used by previous sysops who had left the wiki (in good standing), returned, and wanted their status back? Basically all it would be is a quick review of that user's contributions as an admin, as well as a chance to catch them up on new policies and such. -- 04:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That could work for them, but specifically, I was talking about our active users now. Just because we might be clearing up the sysop list, means we need to see all our users in a RfA. 11:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - great idea. As long as they are allowed to be resysopped/b'cratted if they left on a positiv e note then I support. 03:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment - How do we define inactivity? We do have WikiOgres and WikiOgresses in our wiki.

Support (see below) - For sysops/crats who have mentioned clearly that they have left. For others, it would be polite to at least email them first. Leaving a message in their talk page may not work, if they don't check it. 10:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - As long we give them plenty of notice that it is going to happen. 11:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing to Oppose after reading some of the comments here. Azliq put it very well. 09:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I fully expect that they each are given fair warning, and the right to have them back should they return. Also, a comment to your comment from above..


 * We currently have 11 bureaucrats, 8 of which are inactive. (I am including Whiplash in this, as his activity is minimal.)
 * We currently have 39 sysops, 17 of which are inactive. (Gangsterls and Ilyas are minimally active, so I will exclude them from this.)
 * This gives us a total of 50 administrators, 28 of which are inactive.
 * This means we have 22 administrators.


 * Just to put things in perspective.
 * 12:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Between azaz, dragon and Dtm, I make that 3 active 'crats, or am I missing something? 12:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahem, I was wondering where my math went wrong. =( 12:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I have been in active opposition to this idea on other wikis when this concept comes up, and I fail to see the real damage that could come from this. I will admit that English Wikipedia (note the number of contributors, active admins, and level of activity for that wiki) has had a couple of admin accounts go rogue and do some real damage, although I should note that their level of activity had little to do with the potential for this to happen. The point of making somebody an administrator is to acknowledge that a particular user has a bit of maturity and isn't likely to be a vandal messing things up. That hasn't changed if an administrator has become inactive.

Knowing that proposals like this seem to have momentum of their own and inactive admins (by definition) won't be involved in these sort of discussions, in almost every situation where a proposal like this is made it become policy. Perhaps I'm the lone voice of opposition here, but I really don't see the need for this policy, and it can be counter productive to encouraging potential contributors who can only work in occasional spurts of activity and take longer "wiki-breaks" between contributions. Not all users are the same in their editing habits, and policies should not be designed to work with only one type of contributor. If formerly active accounts were to be a source of vandalism and problems, I might be more convinced to support a policy of this nature.

Assuming that this does become policy, I would encourage a very light touch even on the enforcement of the provisions of this policy. I see no clear definition of an inactive user in this proposal, and from personal experience I've had some hard experiences "getting back into the loop" when I've been inactive from collaborative projects in the past with similar kinds of restrictions.... to get through the bureaucratic hassles of getting my account reactivated after periods of inactivity. I certainly hope that the period of inactivity here is measured on the scale of years, not weeks, where the sysops that are under review to have their sysop status revoked were the early founders of this wiki and haven't been involved since. --Robert Horning 14:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If you take the time to look at our list of administrators, you will see several with their last edits in 2006, 2007, and the first half of 2008. It is currently 2009. I don't think you can pass that off as their editing habits. We have proposed a time in which we could call someone "inactive" as well. (8 months was suggested, to save you the time of re-reading.) There is no point in having these old accounts sitting around, unused with these powers. We have also discussed contacting the users and discussing their return and potential removal of powers. Many of our policies have changed, dozens of new policies have come in effect, and some policies have been rewritten or removed since many of these admins have either last edited, or last done an administrative task. I am not saying that these former admins will come back and decide to pull a Shadow Dancer, but I would prefer if something like that didn't happen. Had these users had any intention of returning, they could have put the Wikibreak template on their page. Also, a few inactive crats clearly stated they have retired. I see in no way how this will be counter-productive, as if you are gone for more than half a year, you obviously have other things going on in life, and losing a few rights (temporarily) on the internet isn't going to be a big deal for you. I don't see why someone would RFA knowing they can only contribute once every few weeks, or why the community would vote such a person administrator knowing their editing habits. 14:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Had these users had any intention of returning, they could have put the Wikibreak template on their page". Okay, let's back up a bit there. Who said they had any intention of leaving in the first place? They can't think "I better put a template on my userpage saying that I will return" if their computer exploded, their house burnt down, or whatever could have happened. On Halo Fanon, I got something like 1,000 edits there. I eventually ended up getting bored of the idea, and went inactive. Months later, I came back and made, like, twenty more edits, and then went inactive again. I had no plan about going inactive in the first place. It just happened. And because of such, I could not have put a notice that I might have returned. 06:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to mention here that I am not concerned with the account creator going rogue, but with it getting hacked. Active people here are more aware of how determined some of these vandals are. With Crats now able to desysop, a hacked crat account could do incredible damage very quickly. And desysop those who could revert thier vandalism. As far as time goes, this community is ever evolving and changing and those with more tools should be aware of whats going on. I was thinking more along the lines of
 * 60 days no (zip, zero, zilch) activity, account is given message on talk page and emailed if possible.
 * On day 91, if still no activity from user, account reverts to user account.
 * If/when user comes back, they need to edit for 2 weeks (contibuting at least a bit here and there to show they are following whats going on). At that point, those who actually passed an RFA can be resyopped. Those who (in the early days) were pretty much just given adminship, will have to pass an abbreviated (1 week) RFA.--Degenret01 15:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If some hacker came across a bureaucrat's account and gained control, they would have to:
 * Find out what site/wiki the account is registered for in the first place.
 * Find out what the Heck a bureaucrat is, if they even notice the account a bureaucrat.
 * Find out how to use the powers.
 * Then watch the sparks fly.
 * This is all very unlikely. Besides reading this hypothetical scenario and learning from me (How dare I! XD), they would have to know about either Special:Specialpages, Special:BlockIP or Special:UserRights. Unless they were an [ex-]Wikian, they would have no idea that any of that exists or how to get there.
 * Now, if an inactive bureaucrat came back from the metaphorical dead and did the unlikely and went on a destruction spree, that would be a whole nother unlikely story. 06:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose (see everything below) - I think that it is just assinine to desysop someone because they're inactive to "clean the roster". Having inactive names on "the roster" does no harm. Only a few times (Shadowdancer being one of the few) has a Wikia sysop gone on a destruction spree. Only a few times has anyone been hacked for a Wikia account. With a RuneScape account, you could sell it for real-world money. But, a Wikia account? They're just not worth hacking. Dread was the only time I've heard of anyone's account security being an issue. Lastly, they were made sysops because they were mature, trusted by the community, and their account was secure. So, if we are desysoping them because we don't trust them not to come back and hurt the site, are we not being hypocritical?

These are my stances with all the situations I can think of:
 * Someone who has declared that they are retired: Understandable that they get their powers removed. Though, in the rare case that they were to come back, they better get their powers back, whether it be immediately or by being active for a set ammount of time.
 * Someone who was given administrator powers before the RfAs were set in place (this only applies to a few sysops, such as X1011 and Merovingian): Again, understandable if they get their powers removed. They never had a community approval system to go through, and they were just sysopped if they looked like they could use it. No one knows hardly any of the people this would apply to (Oddly being the only exception I can think of), so no one can vouch for how worthy and trustworthy they are.
 * Someone who has simply gone inactive - If someone has shown that they either can't be trusted or aren't ready/worthy for adminship, that's one thing. But going inactive is another. In the words of Otter-Man, "They can come back at ANY TIME" (Well, the quote was something like that!) . There are multiple inactive sysops who currently play RuneScape, and can still be contacted, and as such, could return at any time.
 * Someone who has not so simply gone inactive, and has been inactive for a long time - This is different from just plain being inactive. If they can't be contacted in-game, haven't edited in over one year, can't be contacted on Wikia or possibly via their respective Wikipedia account, can't be contacted by email and are essentially the internet form of being MIA, then I would then see no problem with sysop removal, as long as they are reinstated with their powers as soon as they comeback, or prove that they are still trustworthy by being active for a relatively short period of time.

With all that said, think about some of this:
 * Would the sysop in question even be messaged in the first place? It's possible that they are active on another Wikia wiki, and would then receive the message.
 * Would the sysop in question be desysoped because we fear that the powers may be used by the forces of evil (<-- lol, such a cliche right there)? Were not we the ones who trusted them with the powers in the first place?
 * Why are they being desysoped? Because we want to "clean the roster"? Because we don't trust them anymore? Because we believe their account is insecure? Or because by the way things look they have no possibility of returning, and thus have no possibility of using the powers ever again?
 * Is this not taking one step forward to becoming a hierarchy?
 * What would happen if they return, and they find out their powers have been removed? Would that not seem like a case of backstabbing? Who's to say that that would not set them off and become an enemy of the site [(I don't mean like we suddenly hate them, but there's a big misunderstanding, a big fight, and then they get blocked for violation of RS:UTP or whatever may happen.)]?

What is the point of this in the first place? I mean, what are the odds that someone will hack the account [(or whatever may hapen)] and use it to go vandalling? Immensely low. 'If someone is desysopped but becomes active again, we'll resysop them'? Wouldn't it just be easier and much less of a hassle to not do it in the first place? And how many times has an inactive sysop come back without them having turned into a vandal? Every single time except once. And with that once, it wasn't that major.

One of the many redeeming qualities of this site over other fansites is that you won't be stripped of your rank for being inactive. We don't have a limit on our sysops, and we shouldn't limit them if they were chosen by the community to be the sysop in the first place. 06:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Imagine if you took an eight month hiatus from your job without telling your boss or anyone in the office, would you come back expecting to still have a job? Would your co-workers expect you to have a job? We elect administrators and crats because they serve a purpose. The way I see it, getting bored one day and disappearing without saying anything is outright disrespectful after putting the everyone through your vote and oath. It has nothing to do with security risks or creating a bigger list. If you are imbued with power and responsibility by the community, you are not allowed to just leave. If they do come back and decide they liked their power, an RFA is simple enough to make. Believe it or not, keeping your administrative staff tightly regulated and pruned is the reason many web forums and businesses succeed. 19:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A wonderful analogy. I had been searching for one, but I guess I'm not that creative. (Ugh, computer is freezing, I'll have to add more when I get home.) 19:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The analogy given above is not appropriate for wiki-editing. The reason is simple: Admins don't get paid. This is purely voluntary. Wiki-editing is similar to a person working for a charity organisation during their free time. Once you get busy with life/whatever, you stop doing charity work. You would't know when you'll be free to do your next charity work.

Having a Job is entirely different. There are working hours, and people get paid for working. Obviously, if one goes missing for 8 months, he/she'll be sacked. But, in our case (voluntary work), we're doing this because we love to do it, not because we are given the power. Remember that becoming an admin is nothing about gaining power. It's just extra tools given to users who have the knowledge and wisdom to use it appropriately. To quote the co-founder of Wikia, and founder of Wikipedia:

I would have to disagree that admins need to really active (i.e. 7 days a week) to keep their adminship. That's totally unfair. On Wikipedia, "adminship may be removed only in cases of clear abuse." See Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship. After doing some research and giving some thought about this, I don't see the true purpose of de-sysopping, and I change my vote to Oppose. 08:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is totally appropriate. You are put into a position where you have certain responsibilities and are asked to do certain tasks. Should you quit this position by not doing these tasks, you obviously have given up your responsibility. Not all payment is material. We get paid with the knowledge that we are providing a safe, factual encyclopedia to the public, just like you get paid with dollars at work. It's no different. 15:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, Az, since we're tossing around quotes from wikipedia and policies... we are not wikipedia. As we don't have an official request for de-sysop (Rfds), we can't very well follow their policy on that. =D 16:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ugh, gotta love how laggy it gets here, so I have to edit in spurts. You said: I would have to disagree that admins need to really active (i.e. 7 days a week) to keep their adminship. I would agree with you there, as I've stated above. 7 days a week is impossible for some people, but at least once every 6 months is reasonable. If your edits are that spaced out, I'd say you're pretty inactive. 16:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, even six months is not reasonable. Some people have things that happen in their life that fall on seasonal cycle and simply can't edit for awhile.  We are talking about volunteers, and there is no technical reason that you can legitimately quote here that suggests what damage a long-time user who has been participating on this wiki would do in terms of damage.  This is a horrible way to treat volunteers.


 * To give a personal example, I used to be an active participant on the Open Directories Project (dmoz.org). I engaged in the forum discussions, did some massive restructuring of several parts of the project, and was "promoted" to have some fairly wide ranging authority for changing a fair bit of the content there.  Circumstances in my life caused me to have to quit my active participation (job, kids, wife, and more) for awhile.  That project has a 3-month clause for participation, where you have to "re-apply" if you don't engage in an edit for more than 3 months.


 * I reapplied once, and got active again and made some worthy contribution. Again I had to take a break from the activity.... and my account relapsed.  Rather than going through the bureaucratic hassle, I have simply chosen to not participate any more, as trying to go through the bureaucratic mess of re-applying is simply not worth the time for me to become involved again... so simply put, I'm not doing anything with that volunteer project at all.


 * The same applies here with this proposal. By de-sysopping these users, you are aggressively telling these individuals that they are no longer a part of our community, that you don't value their contributions, and that you consider them to be a danger to those who are currently editing and making changes.  Yes, I know this isn't a full user block (as is the case with the Open Directory Project for me), but it can be discouraging.


 * If you have to put a time limit, make it something quite long.... I'd say two years, but I'd push for an even longer time frame. Most wiki projects where this has been instituted have used a one-year time no-editing standard.  60 days of no editing and putting up a warning message?  I'd simply stop editing here altogether and consider my time spent working on this wiki as an unfortunate waste of my time.  This is a way to really piss off people when it isn't necessary.  --Robert Horning 16:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per above -- 16:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral - I will have to decide later. I am hearing good details from both sides and I just can't decide right this minute. -- 16:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

By de-sysopping these users, you are aggressively telling these individuals that they are no longer a part of our community, that you don't value their contributions... Whoa!!!!! Calm down!!!! By de-sysopping them, we are simply stating that they have been away for a period long enough for our policies and expectations to dramatically change, to the point that they would more than likely be lost when coming back. If anything, I would say that by leaving without any notice, users are saying "screw the community. I only made them dig up my history on the wiki, debate whether or not my contributions warrant me getting extra powers, and finally find that I am responsible enough to use them." Volunteer or not, it's disrespectful, in every sense of the word.

And again with 60 days of no editing and putting up a warning message? I already agreed that was far too short... 6 months is my proposal. Hell I'll even say a year without a contribution. I have been a part of dozens of online communities, whether it be forums, games, IRC, etc. In every one where I obtained admin, officer, op, etc. take your pick, after a period of inactivity, the status was revoked. All but 1 I told the community I was leaving, and may or may not come back. When I rejoined, my (fill in responsibility role here) was revoked, and offered back. I simply declined as I no longer wanted to be a part of the community. It's not disrespectful in any way Robert Horning, it's simply pruning and removing those who appear inactive. I don't see how it is going to piss anybody off at all... 17:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - If people have truly left the community then there is no need to have them as an admin on here. I agree with Karlis that they should be inactive at least 6 months before their powers are removed. And if they decide to come back they could always put up another RFA which should have a good chance of succeeding with their past on the wiki. 20:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Robert, maybe you need to spend some time working within real volunteer groups before you go on about how de-sysopping a user is a bad way to treat volunteers. Volunteer status is not a free pass to ignore any regulation or organization because you are donating your free time. If anything, it would require a little more cooperation in order to best use a limited number of resources. If you have gone inactive and been de-sysopped, you can make a live rfa within three minutes, and you can still actively contribute without sysop status should you decide to resume activity. The only way someone is coming back after three months is if they had some disaster that required their time, or they jump on a computer and remember their time at the good ol' Runescape wiki. Anything past that is not even worth saving a spot for. How difficult is it to get on a computer and leave a message on your userpage or send another admin a message? Not difficult at all, maybe a maximum of 2 minutes. So, I say three months and then a warning on their userpage/e-mail, and maybe another admin or two tries to re-establish contact. If nothing happens, hold a vote, and then finally de-sysop. Keeps our list of admins simple, clean, and confusion free. 21:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Real volunteer organizations?" --- I wonder what possible criteria you might use for this. Does my involvement with the Boy Scouts of America count?  I'm also chair of the Policy Council for a local Head Start agency.  I've also been involved with the American Red Cross.  Are these the sort of "real" volunteer groups you are talking about?  These are just an example of a great many volunteer organizations I've been involved with, and I've been involved with more.  Yes, there are standards to abide by here, but there is no legitimate reason to force people away when they have real things that come up and they have to take a break in service, but can come back and serve at a later time.  There is no technical reason why a person needs to be de-sysopped here, and I fail to see what real damage can happen.  I don't mind "officially" listing somebody on an inactive admin list or perhaps keeping a separate list of admins who have been active over the past couple of months or so that might be able to give you more attention if a problem comes up, but formal de-sysopping and changing their account status is not necessary for that sort of action.  How difficult is it to leave a message on your userpage?  Depends on circumstances, but I could see it taking more than two minutes in a great many situations as well.  Adminship on a wiki isn't that big of a deal, and it isn't nearly the high and mighty leadership position that it is being made out to be.  It is merely giving some tools that should be entrusted to users who have shown that they will not be vandals and do want to help fight problem users.  Volunteer organizations simply collapse when you put too many restrictions on those volunteers and can't find a place for them to participate.  This is an unnecessary restriction.--Robert Horning 17:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Well, I don't have a long response like Chia or Robert, but I don't see the point. Removing them because they're inactive? They can come back. Seriously, does removing adminship help the wiki at all? It would just waste time for people to redo an RFA. Adminship should only be removed if they break the rules and go on a blocking spree or delete every page on the wiki or something. Keeping them under the "inactive list" is fine so people don't bother to ask them questions they can't answer (because they aren't on the wiki). On every site I've ever been to if a user achieved a higher status (unless it was a forum moderator) that helped the site they, they were not removed even if inactive in case a time came when that user came back and contributed more than they ever had before. As for a user being "lost" when they come back due to a change in policies, they can resign if they dislike the new policies and if they want to catch up all it takes is a skill called "reading". These users aren't saying "screw the community" unless they say it. Don't put words in their mouth. An example: say an admin was involved in a bad car accident and suffered from a large amount of broken bones. It takes them a year to recover before they can come back and edit again. They didn't have time to put up a notice. Seriously, making them put up another RFA just wastes a week of their time, and even more if they lose. As I've already said, in my opinion adminship should only be revoked if a severe breach of policy happens or the user requests for their rights to be relinquished. 05:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Major disasters are not the cause people go inactive. Maybe one or two percent of the disappearances have to do with disaster in which case stating so on an RFA would guarantee immediate re-sysop. With this in mind kudos, how could you possible recommend we make a site wide policy in order to cater to a minority that small? Robert, in very few circumstances or unless you are an easily sidetracked person logging into your userpage on leaving a message that says "on a wikibreak" or "been busy with work/wife/kids/whatever, haven't had time to browse the wiki" can take no longer than 5 minutes. On a dialup connection using an old version of internet explorer you can reach your userpage in under 3 minutes. As for your suggestion of labelling inactive admins or creating a new list, whats the point? Why add more text when you can take it away and make it cleaner? You are literally fighting for a side that does not exist. These users are long gone and are likely never coming back. Take a look at Karlis's earlier post, we have a list of 50 users with administrator rights and only 23 of them are active. Most of those 27 inactive have been gone longer than eight months. 03:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Circumstantial Support: The way I see it, their power should be removed if they're inactive for too long (say, three months). However, someone would leave them a message on their talkpage, informing them of the change. That way, they could request an active admin/'crat to give them back their power. Maybe there'd be some type of password system where an email containing a keyword would be sent to the user?

Weak Oppose per Robert Horning and Chiafriend. I really don't see the need for a policy like this. 04:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

GEMW Update Bot
I'd just like to bring this page to the attention of anyone who has experience with the MediaWiki API. It currently is working, except for the fact that the actual editing of pages doesn't work and returns an error stating the action "edit" doesn't exist. 00:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Redirects
i think we should create redirect for popular pages, the redirect being the article in capitals. who is with me?
 * See RuneScape:Redirecting. There is no need to get community consensus for this. Go ahead. I'll archive this if there's nothing else. 12:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If im not mistaken, I think we already do redirects to popular articles. 12:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Enforcing some policies
After seeing Cruser's talk page and Christine's subpage (lots of evidence of Cruser violating RS:GTS), I just found out that RS:GTS exists. I read through it and found it to be a rather good policy, I don't see why this shouldn't be enforced as a policy (it's a guideline atm). If you went to see Cruser's talk page, you would have noticed that Azaz blocked him for 2 weeks for violating RS:GTS a lot (he edited "Cheats and scams" more than 50 times and another page for not so many times). GTS is not a policy yet, and thus I would like to get community consensus to enforce it.

Also, after looking through some proposed policies, I would also like to bring up RS:DSA. I'm sure that many editors are already familiar with this proposed policy, in spite of the fact that it has not been enforced yet. It's even mentioned on the RuneScape:Style guide which many new users refer to. Basically, I find that this policy makes sense and there is no reason not to enforce it, thus I would like to get community consensus to enforce this too. Thanks. 10:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it should be enforced as a policy. There is no reason anyone would do anything like what Cruser234 did unless they were up to no good. But so few people have done it or we haven't caught the people doing it it hasn't been an issue up until now. Now, I do believe it should be put into play as a policy that if broken, can lead to blocking. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to say Support or what not, but I do support Celabchiam's proposal. 11:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

We have always enforced DSA so there is no reason not to implement that immediately. As for GTS, I agree that fits the style and needs of this wiki (hell, any wiki) and we should make that official also. --Degenret01 11:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this is a great idea. GTS needs to be made a policy in light of Cruser's actions to the Cheats and scams page. As for DSA, it seems common sense (to me) to not sign articles and should be made a policy in my opinion. -- 17:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, before we go all "let's start enforcing all these policies rigidly and block anyone who violates them in the slighest", we must remember to consider cases where a given person, while maybe violating a bit of policy, that they are actually trying to help. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, we must assume good faith. Butterman62 (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Support on both counts, I remember this is not the first time we've enforced GTS and I unfortunately doubt it will be the last. In summation, this policy is meant to catch those editors who are not directly violating policy, but are manipulating the hell out of the system (in this case RfA). The first time I saw this used as a block rationale would probably be when Earthere was repeatedly trying to down grade all editors are equal without community discussion and trying to manipulate RfA's rules repeatedly- (bottom of the page).


 * As for DSA, we've always enforced that as policy any. Also, Butterman please note the user hasn't even attempted to deny any of this.-- 17:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that. I'm just giving a little caution that, while this user may not be acting in good faith, other users in the future who "violate" some policies might. Butterman62 (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I would like to bring up RuneScape:Don't feed the trolls which is also a guideline atm, but should be enforced. Vandals may be vandals but they're still human, it is related to RS:UTP. Also, I wonder if this could be placed on sitenotice or something? It's not much of a consensus if only 5/6 people support. We need more people to discuss this. 13:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - I support the immediate induction to policy for these two mentioned guidelines. 15:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Support - With all of these recent events we need to get something done and they are policies which should enforced. - 21:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - Doesn't seem anything controversial to me Armcie 00:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - For RS:GTS and RS:DSA. 09:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - What Cruser did was definitely not done in good faith, but I do agree that if another user starts something similar to it, we will have to watch him closely. 12:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Support both items on the table. Aside from new users who are still getting used to the Wiki, or mistaking an article from a talk page (which could easily happen with the saltiest of Editors), there is no excuse for it. And GTS can rarely be mistaken for good faith, especially in the forms that Cruser took. I'm a little iffy for going crazy over a couple of the other forms of GTS on the essay, such as using one policy to loophole another; some people may do that in misinterperation, and I don't think we need to maul people for mistakes. But other than that, I think it's good to go. --  Pikaandpi  Berserker Fury!‎ 14:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Oh yeah, in case you did not see, there's a second comment proposing RS:TROLL, wonder whether you guys would support making it into a policy too =D. 14:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support making RS:TROLL policy as well - I do know editors who have lashed out at trolls and vandals before. Now, I don't know how many of the trolls and vandals have returned, but I can see why they might after be mocked at; it's not uncommon for people for people wanting to resume a scrap, even online; heck, even I have jumped back into the fray in a heated discussion, both here and on other sites after having a few licks taken at me. Perhaps if people feel that they CAN'T do this, we might be able to rein in some of the problems that we have had with tempers, vendettas, and all-around flaming in general. -- [[Image:Dragon two-handed sword.png|Beware the underrated.]] Pikaandpi  Berserker Fury![[Image:Bandoschestplate.gif|Hit hard or go home.]]‎ 15:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - For RS:DSA, RS:UTP, and RuneScape:Don't feed the trolls hands down, no questions asked. I also support RS:GTS with the caveat that this rule should be applied at the same time as assuming good faith. What I mean is, you can't enforce this just based on suspicions. Good judgement needs to be used and only deliberate (not unintended) GTS should be punished. Of course unintended GTS should be addressed by working with the user. I would hope that most users (good faith) would work with you to resolve the issue. 03:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

GEMW updates: All at once?
I was looking at Category:Grand_Exchange_by_date_updated, trying to figure out why GEBot wasn't updating anything, when I noticed that everything was updated over the weekend. With GEBot's current method of selecting which items to update, it will update everything over the next weekend. My question is whether GEBot should update 1/28th of the GEMW articles as a minimum or stick with weekly updates to individual items. 16:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say that you should create a list of the most visited item articles, and if all the GE prices have ben updated, have it update the prices for those very popular items. Because people visit these articles so frequently, it would be helpful to always have the latest price. -- 16:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know of any way to do that other than hard-coding the items in. :( 17:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Store prices in the GEMW
I've noticed that the store prices in the GEMW have no standardized way to say that the item isn't sold.

For example:
 * Exchange:Barrel says Not sold
 * Exchange:Bear_fur says None
 * Exchange:Crystal_seed says N/A
 * Exchange:Flattened_hide doesn't say anything at all.

I could program GEBot to change items with "Not sold", "None", "N/A", "No", (etc.) to one format, but I'd need to know which one is the right format to use.

20:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * When looking at Special:Contributions/TehKittyBot, it seems that store prices should be set to "No" to make everything uniform. I'll edit the ExchangeItem template and get GEBot set up to do this while on his normal rounds. 23:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

SpellCheck Bot: Good or bad idea?
RuneScape_talk:Bots - please comment. 20:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Clan Chat Ranks
As per the policy RS:AEAE, I will reserve my right to state this in regards to policy RS:IAR.

I would like to reconsider the ranking system on the Clan Chat. As the wiki gets more forum admins, I feel there rank should not be equal to that of a sysops. Sysops dedicate more of their time to the articles and the genereal wiki, where forum admins dedicate more of their time to the forum. When a user might have a question to ask a sysops in the chat or a forum admin, I think they should better be able to identify which users those may be. As a sysops is more dedicated to the wiki itself and the process to attain sysops rights are more rigorous then for forum admins, I feel they should attain a higher rank then a forum admin.

As of current ranks:

Note: Only Corporals and higher have the ability to kick.


 * Generals
 * Captains
 * Lieutenants
 * Corporals

And my proposal:

Note: Only Corporals and higher have the ability to kick.


 * Generals
 * Captains
 * Lieutenants
 * Sergeants
 * Corporals

As I am presently ranked as a Lieutenant, this would mean my demotion to Sergeant and the demotions of Forum Admin's to Lieutenants.

04:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - As Nom 04:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm not just saying this because I am a forum admin, but forum admins have earned admin status just like synops. But forum admins have worked sometimes just as hard, if not harder them regular admins. The only change is their area of expertise. There is a reason regular admins cannot do ... locking a thread on the forums. all tasks that forum admins can. I would like the ranks to remain as they presently are. 05:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Uhh... You are not as special as you think. Normal admins CAN lock/move/delete threads. Also, iirc, you only got Forum Admin today or yesterday, so don't go touting around the fact that you are one. Christine 05:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not "touting around the fact" that I am one. It is just that fact applies to this situation for me, does it not? 05:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral - I hate to sound against forum adminship as the forums need to be kept clean and civil and all that too, but the forums aren't the biggest part of the wiki: the wiki is. I don't see how posting on the forums is harder than writing a money making guide or a quest walkthrough. But I don't really see how this rank would help anyone, including you, Bonz, as all it does is demote people, which will only lead to complaining. 05:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * These people are still able to kick, which is pretty much all they care about anyways. So they really have no reason to complain. Christine 05:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is both positions have a lot of responsibility and a user can't just ask for it and get it. They have to earn it and put time and effort into it. If all we care about is the ability to kick, why do we even have ranks and this proposal? The whole issue on ranks is the ability to kick, like Christine said. 05:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - With all due repect to forum admins, the clan chat is the official clan chat for the RuneScape Wiki, not the RuneScape Wiki Forums. Also, the only difference between sysops and forum admins is the forum admin ability to sticky/global threads, make announcements, and create polls. 16:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Changing the ranks makes no difference to their ability to use clan control functions, the only thing that would be changed by this proposal is the mentality that certain people that are able to kick are somehow better than others. Devaluing the work the forum administrators put in is rather unfair, considering they make contributions to the wiki community as anyone else would, the only difference is that their contributions are displayed in a different manner. Simply put, elitism has no place in a community of equals. 16:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't devaluing anyone's work, it's making it easier to recognize forum admins and sysops in the clan chat. I find it rather odd that you accuse anyone of elitism when Bonzii has clearly explained the reasoning for this proposal. Forum Admins would still be able to kick, but as I said before, this is the official chat for the wiki, not the forums. 16:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's the official chat for the wiki community, which means forums included. Their positions on the wiki aren't a necessity in clan chat, as they don't exercise those powers there, and if one was trying to find a wiki or forum administrator, they'd likely look on the wiki and the forums, not cross-reference the clan chat list ranks to the ranks list on the site.  16:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support But please explain how the CC Mods will get chosen. The sysops, forum admins, and bureaucrats automatically get ranked but what about the 2 other ranks? There are some ips and regular users who do more than some admins so i dont see the whole elitism thing working... if anything the system Bonzi is proposing will make it clear to see who you can ask for help regrading things on the wiki. I take advantage of seeing ranked people on the cc to report vandalism on the forums. Distinguishing between a Regular sysop and a forum admin would really help.... God Of War 17:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment Byte Master is correct. The forums are obviously part of the Wiki... I don't know where that idea came from. If someone has achieved enough trust to become a forum admin, they are trusted, for sure, and they can be trusted in the CC just as much as regular admins. 17:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - This was going to be my next point on my subpage, but you beat me to it here. These ranks will help identify users, and help keep the CC safe and hopefully stop people "abusing power" or people accusing others of it. It's not a ranking system to show how superior you are compared to others, it simply follows the responsibilities of the community on the Wiki. Sysops are currently capable of doing more administrative tasks than Forum Admins. 17:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - But one thing, how are we going to establish who is a Sergeant and a Corporal? Does this mean we are to limit how many CC Mods there are as it looks like a Seniority system after all 100 Friend slots are used up, and Admin's would have Priority over CC Mods. This is my conern that I want to bring up, also, should we limit how many CC Mods possible? 22:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Taken from the site notice: R_S_Wikia is the official RuneScape Wiki Clan Chat channel. Byte Master, I fail to see how making forum admins a bronze star is somehow elitist. I think we have bigger problems if that is the only worry. 23:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we want to keep all things equal, and anyone who has attained some rank is trusted, why not make us all the trusteds the same rank? "Oh no, we can't do that"....but we can. And should. --Degenret01 00:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I personally oppose this. I think that we should do something along the lines of what Degen said. If you're an admin/crat/forumadmin, you're not automatically ranked. If you're trusted by the community, you are. There should be a community process similar to RFAs where you get kicking rights. There are regular admins and forumadmins, why not CC admins? In this RFR (Request for Rank) process I am proposing, my idea is first you nominate yourself (or are nominated) for a lieutenant rank (stars ftw), and you can nominate yourself to get to the upper two ranks later. This would give the most trusted users a general rank, which would make them un-kickable, and therefore immune to any potential power abuse. Sorry if this came out kind of weird sounding, ideas were forming very rapidly in my head. 00:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose-I support this "RfR" idea of Winston's. 00:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * See below 20:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - that's a whole lot of trouble to go to just for a clan chat rank. It would be different if you were being nominated to receive sysop tools or forum admin tools, but just to kick? :s 01:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, dang. That's probably shortest argument to change my mind, ever. Support 20:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - This is kinda like what Soldier said, but being trusted on a clan chat is much more different than being trusted on the wiki. Sysops can delete articles, which can prove to be a major problem if a sysop decided to abuse that power. On a clan chat, the most dangerous thing you can do is a temporary kick. 20:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, then how about we don't have such a hierarchical system, and just have all kickers be one rank? My main worry is that something like this might happen:


 * A user trolls the CC, is a friend of an admin.
 * Lower ranked kicker is targeted by the troll, is about to kick the troll, and is kicked by the admin instead. The admin kicked for personal gain.

It might not happen, but I really don't see why we need to have more than one kicking rank. Who cares if we can't tell the admins apart from the others? It doesn't matter. My proposal before still stands, too. I mean, we have forumadmins and regular admins, why not CC admins? Isn't there an idea in the works for IRC admins, or has the whole IRC drama died long ago? 00:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you are referring to. IRC ops are Wiki sysops, and wiki sysops only, and that is the way it has always been. Christine 02:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral - I think the ranks should just be kept simple. Bureaucrat = General, Administrator / Forum Admin = Captain, and Lieutenant (AKA CC Mods) = Lieutenant. I'm not sure how we would rank the Lieutenants, though. Maybe like Rollbackers are given rights. 02:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I dunno about this. I know someone mentioned somewhere recently (may've even been on the YG) that rollback is insanely easy to get. I'm not saying some rollbackers shouldn't get it, but I don't think all should either. Christine 02:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant we should rank them how rollbacks are ranked, by on a talk page, instead of having a long RfLiuetenantship. I agree that not all rollbacks should be made Lieutenants on the Clan Chat. 03:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * With all respect, this chat is not the place to determine how ranks should be given, it is about the position the ranks hold. I am merely suggesting that forum admins not have the same rank as sysops on the chat.

GEMW missing 765 items
I have compiled a list of items that are in the RuneScape.com GE database, but not in our GEMW here. 17:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Why not have your bot create them? - 23:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea for most of the items - I'll get it programmed right away. However, some of the items have exactly the same name as others, so for those, GEBot is useless, and a real person would need to set up the item pages. 15:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, we're down to 130 items. (GEBot hasn't run yet, but it will put the pages up as soon as it runs.) 16:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: This page has a list of the items that require images and categorization. I need everyone who has any knowledge of how to do this at all to pitch in.  19:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI, there was a lot of poisoned weapon exchange pages created by the bot, so I have created a template, PoisonedWeaponExchange to make use of them in the weapons pages. Now I just need to do a similar template for all the items with numbers after them, like the fruit baskets and necklaces with charges. After all that is done, it might be handy to check through and see which exchange pages are not currently used. 15:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Shortcuts
For every popular and commonly visited page!
 * We have them, they're called Redirects. Although I'm not a hundred percent thats what your asking/saying. Can you tell me exactly what your trying to say? 20:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you were looking for this? Its on the main page. 20:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean like this? All popular articles have shortcuts (for example, Sw redirects to Soul Wars), but few have Template:Shortcut on them. Perhaps we should add more? 13:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC) definetly.

Money Method Metric
Based on some assumptions from some discussions - i made a system to measure a money making method. It is based on some variables: On that basis we can calculate the minimum and maximum profit for a method in a practical and compareable way. So you can do a method a timespan long including the banking time and just count how much you produced - tata you got the profit per hour. The other values could be retrieved from the Grand Exchange Market Watch. Therefore we could include the range of the money making method in a new colum of the guide listing or integrate it in the start-rating of the methods. We only need a page specifing the variables of this method. For example:
 * 1) the minimum and maximum cost of a unit made.
 * 2) the minimum and maximum value of the unit sold.
 * 3) the minimum and maximum count of units produced in a specific time interval.

The profit range for my spinning flax example is:

See User:Rrgogoman/FlaxSpinning for the data and Template:MoneyMethod for the template.

What do you think about it? -- 06:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"Preview mode" bug?
When when this message (see image) updated? I'm guessing it was updated during the parser update... I like the colour change, but it is currently blocking the tabs ("discussion", "history", etc.) in the Monobook skin. Anyone know how to fix this? 13:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed this as well. But I have no idea how to fix it. 13:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)



Mine appears fine. 13:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Must be a Monaco problem. =\ 13:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

As it is a new update to the parser possibly, the only think I can possibly think of is it's not totally compatible with all the skins, or the cache for the new update to the preview has not been purged to allow the change....I don't know much about things like this though. 13:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It only appears in the Monobook skin. Fixed it myself in MediaWiki:Monobook.css. Thanks for the input. 13:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Newarticletext

 * On a related note, when creating a new page, you no longer get the buttons up the top for defaulting items/exchange/etc pages. Is it just me? Does anyone know how to sort this? 16:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not just you. I have the same problem.. MediaWiki:Newarticletext does not appear when it's suppose too.. It's in the HTML but its invisible?

17:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've fixed it with some code at MediaWiki:Common.css. Wikia knows the new edit page gets rid of MediaWiki:Newarticletext and are looking at it.--Richardtalk 20:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

GEMH Images
You'll need Firefox and Greasemonkey, then you can just go to http://llamaslayers.net/gemh-images.user.js and the GEMH images will appear! 20:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've begun using it, and trust me, its quite excellent! Heres a few example images: (I'm not sure you will be able so see them)
 * |Jan%2024|Feb%201|Feb%209|Feb%2017|Feb%2025|Mar%205|1:|0|10M|19M|29M|38M&chtt=Dragon%20claws&chd=t:3,5,8,13,15,18,21,23,26,28,31,33,36,41,44,46,49,51,54,56,59,62,64,72,74,79,85,87,92,95,97,100|36,43,45,57,57,63,64,59,56,53,51,49,46,41,37,37,41,43,41,39,38,41,41,41,42,43,43,42,41,42,42,41 Dragon Claws
 * |Jan%2024|Feb%201|Feb%209|Feb%2017|Feb%2025|Mar%205|1:|0|97|193|290|386&chtt=Raw%20monkfish&chd=t:3,5,10,13,15,23,26,31,36,38,41,46,51,54,56,64,67,72,74,79,85,87,92,97,100|64,62,61,60,60,59,60,61,59,58,56,56,55,54,52,51,50,53,55,56,56,55,52,53,54 Raw Monkfish
 * -- 20:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Works great, nice job. - 21:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Shortened RfAs?
Everyday, I look at the RfA page, they all stay the same for 2 weeks. And after about a week, I don't see any activity. I'm here to propose a shortened RfA, I want it to be only one week. Most of the voting is done within three days, but I will let an extra 4 days for comments. That is my proposal. If anyone would like to tweak with my proposal, feel free to comment about it. 22:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I see why you want to shorten it, but why not leave it at two weeks? It doesn't hurt, and it allows users more time to get in their votes. For example, C Teng said he forgot to vote in Jediadam's RFF, which lasted for two weeks. 22:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * C teng was a bit inactive for a while


 * Support, but with one condition - all RfA's and such have to be announced globally. That way, People don't miss out. 23:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, but with D4k's addition, 2 weeks is too long, if its announced via sitenotice 1 week is more than enough. -- 23:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 *  Strong Support  - Many RfAs are left untouched for days and putting up notices for them will increase their chances of being voted on. Per Aburnett, 1 week should be long enough as long if the RfA is advertised via Sitenotice. 23:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * After seeing what others input is, I now see that 2 weeks should be plenty. But could we vote on possibly putting current RfAs, RfBs, RfFs on the Sitenotice? I think that will help speed up the process.

Oppose 2 weeks is good, it gives a better chance to watch a candidates actions. For example, I have not commented on D4k RFa, but now I see above that he has no clue about admiship or what its about. The two week lenght is useful. Don't be in such a rush.--Degenret01 00:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Two weeks is not some arbitrary number we thought sounded good, it evolved over time to give a balance between being long enough to give people a chance to voice their opinions while not being too long and complicated by bureaucratic red tape.-- 00:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Oppose - People need time to think about what they voted for, opinions and as such votes can change easily in two weeks for worse and for better. - 00:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I am a heavy RfA checker, I know not all of you check the RfA page everday, but I do. I can see why some of you oppose, and I respect that. However I think that 2 weeks is more than enough. 02:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per all. I think that 2 weeks is fine. It gives enough time for the community to think about it and decide to support/oppose. 13:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is Stinkowing still an administrator?
Discussion has been moved here. -- 03:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible Yew Grove length solution
For the longest time people have been waiting for the longest time for this page to completely load. And when there is a particularly active discussion, it takes even longer. Taking somewhat of a page from Wikipedia but with our own twist, why don't we make the opening topic of every discussion a link to a page where the discussion shall take place? That way, this page will load much faster as only the title and opening post will be posted on the main Yew Grove page, allowing people to know exactly what the discussion is about (as opposed to only providing a title link) and they won't have to wade through a wall of text to find their discussion. Thoughts?--Diberville 03:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keeping track of multiple pages can be a hassle, currently it's a one-stop-shop deal where one can simply add the Yew Grove to their watchlist to be notified of anything added to discussions. Moving to a system like this would mean editors would not only have to watch the Yew Grove, but any subsequent discussion pages that appear.  If you could come up with a system that would make it less painful in such a regard, I would gladly support it.   04:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, see above discussion. 05:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Diber has a point, I check the yew grove daily. But with a topic system, changes to this page would be made as new discussions happen, so people who have it on their watchlist will still be updated. Besides, adding and removing pages from your watchlist is not a big deal when it comes to over half the community not being able to access the main discussion page. I like it. 08:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

A similar idea has been suggested by Sannse, that we use the wiki-style Forum: namespace for discussions, which I support. 13:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The use of wiki-style forums would provide exactly the same thing except no maintenance and would automatically update. I am trying to get an example going on my website, but I have a few other things I have to do before I can do that. - 03:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

'Nother vandal bot spree
Yup, it came back. Site protection and all that good stuff, but just for an hour max. Discuss. -- 05:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You're no fun. We're in game setting up roles to lol this guy, and you protected again. =( We got him. 05:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * ROUND THREE PL0X 05:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Lets kick ***! Under one wiki we stand and we shall never lose the stronghold and our freedoms to them vandals! - 05:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I kicked 2 unknown users from the CC as this wannabe big-time haxxor was obviously in there. If he was really good with computers, he would do something more impressive, like hack my account, not download a bot somebody else made off a warez site. =D 05:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just in case someone comes screaming power abuse. 05:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, for a second I thought you were talking about GEBot. *sigh of relief* 18:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I wake up to get a drink of water and see that "Team Can't Score" is back again. This guy needs to get laid, seriously. I lol at his efforts though, to think that everything he is working so hard for can be undone with 1 simple click truly makes me laugh. Night again, all. =) 02:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting how you just so happened to "get up" when the vandal bot strikes. Hmmmmmmmmmmm.


 * J/k. -- 02:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You caught me. I secretly download bots from warez hack sites and run them when my mom goes to sleep. Then I run them on the wiki and block them effortlessly in order to make us all look better. I proxy out of fear that mom might find out, and I'm immature enough to spam "Your mom is g*y!" You guys are good. =) 02:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There, that should work for now. Block a few accounts if he gets bored. Do a full protect if necessary. Really going back to bed now. 02:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * uberfuzzy has granted a few administrators with checkuser status. This means we can find the proxy IPs the vandal bot controller uses and stop him VERY quickly. I think this problem is all but solved. -- 05:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wiki slowdowns
Several people have been talking in the clan chat about the slowness of the wiki. I've noticed that this happens around noon (CST) and might be caused by GEBot.

I've added a .1 second wait between wiki updates, which should help at least a little bit.

A suggestion I got was to change GEBot so he runs at a less peak time. What time should he run at?

18:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I just had major lagg for like 10 mins. Now it is faster. -- 18:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, GEBot is still running, and the script didn't get the new delay timer yet (updates won't apply while the bot is running), so that leaves the reason open to almost anything :-/ 18:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I just added a poll to the main site for some times for the fest. The highest votes would usually be directly related to the highest peak, so some times less voted might be a good choice. 18:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Only one of the times could be considered "high", and it's not a time GEBot runs. We'll have to see what happens when GEBot runs next (about five hours from now.) 18:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Curious: would it be possible to distribute updates throughout the day? By my calculations, the entire GEMW can be updated across 24 hours at a rate of approximately 1 edit per 40 seconds. Editing at this rate would likely never bog the wiki down. 10:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

sometimes for me i click on a link then it just goes to a blank page after ages of loading, and the favicon is the wikia logo.

we need to get the shortcuts right. i'll stop about this soon.
for some reason CB redirects to Slang dictonary, but shouldn't it redirect to corporeal beast, as that is what is is commonly called, and on the corpeoreal beast page is says "also known as CB" there is other flaws similar as well.16:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Remember, this is a wiki so feel free to sort out stuff like that youself. Be bold! It doesn't need community consensus to change a redirect. If its reverted, just leave a note on its talk page and sort it out with whoever reverted it. 16:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I know but i might get told off. 16:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You won't get "told off". If there is an issue, somebody might bring it up on your talk page, but they aren't going to "tell you off." If it redirects and you think it needs a disambig, create the disambig. =) 16:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Isn't "cb" also used as shorthand for "combat", as in "cb level" for "combat level"?  16:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is, but didn't we agree against 2-item redirects? We can just put the template on the Corp beast page to link to Combat. 17:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles about dates.
Do we really need them? I mean why are they important, or interesting?
 * I think we do need them. Say some player overhears another talking about December 10th but doesn't know what happened then. All they need to do is go to our article instead of ask them. Even if he/she does ask them, they will receive far less information then what they can get by reading up on it here. No harm really in having them, only good. 21:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Also, I find them quite interesting - its surprising how many things happened on the same day on different years. A couple of good examples: 11 December, 18 December, 10 January; or of course Category:Dates in RuneScape, which is the lot. 22:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

RS:NOT needs to go
I just had a chat with some people over in #wikia. (Log here.) One of the recommendations I was given is to reevaluate RS:NOT#DEMOCRACY. They say we need to get rid of it and, frankly, I agree.

According to RS:NOT, we make decisions as a community based on consensus, rather than polling. "Consensus" in this case is supposed to mean a general agreement among the community. However, the recent Stinkowing issue has shown me that consensus is not always possible. The discussion page has grown huge; with several people on both sides of the debate, consensus is no longer a reasonable goal. In these cases it may be necessary to resort to a vote to solve the issue. RS:NOT#DEMOCRACY prevents us from doing that if needed, and as such, it should be heavily revised or thrown out altogether. Otherwise we are left with few, if any, reasonable alternatives to solving conflicts.

Also, I ought to point out that a community where all editors are equal and that is not a dictatorship, but is also not a democracy, is confusing. Discuss! -- 00:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed- I've always thought of it that way, but never said anything about it. Thank you for bringing it up. 00:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - I don't even see why democracy is a bad thing here. (by the way, I got a majority support in my last RFA as Cashman286, it's a long shot that I don't even mind if it is turned down, but would I be a sysop if this went through?) 00:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Never mind the last comment - I just noticed you meant to resort to a poll only if consensus is not agreed upon (although the result of that RFA was "no consensus"). 00:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagree - I think this policy reminds us that we should not just just make all decisions in the wiki by a simple vote. Coming to a consensus allows all interested users to express thier opinions, state their reasons, and impart any wisdom to the entire community. Doing things by consensus means that there is a discussion before each decision is made, that helps to make sure decisions aren't made rashly. If we moved to making decisions as a democracy as opposed to a consensus I could forsee a situation as follows. An RFA is proposed, five users oppose because they don't like the candidate's user page (or some other trivial reason), yet four users support because they've worked with the candidate, reviewed their work, and find the candidate to be dedicated and mature. In this democratic case the RFA would fail. A concensus requires people to put forth thoughtful reasons why a decision should be made. Having a concensus does not mean people's opinions don't count. Having a concensus means that people's opinions matter MORE that just having a simple vote. 04:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with heated debates is that sometimes the debaters can't look at it with an objective eye, like the Stinko issue. By the way, I'm not saying that we shouldn't operate by consensus. But we should allow voting in extreme cases where consensus is not a reasonable goal. -- 04:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I find this policy a problem when only a couple of editors are in a dispute, and no solution can be reached because one believes they have community consensus or they want to wait until more of the community decides to post their opinions. Votes are an easy way to tell among active users who wants what. I agree, not a democracy should go. 08:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - As RS:NOT states: '' When contributing to a discussion, an argument should be given for your point of view, instead of simply voting. Others will then respond to your argument, and eventually a consensus should be reached one way or another.'' What we are talking about here is about changing the first statement, right? I spoke with Andorin and I understood that he meant that this should only happen in some very exceptional cases (he gave the Stinkowing discussion as an example). However, in the Stinkowing discussion, arguments with evidence were given, however, the opposers did not respond to the supporters' arguments, thus a consensus could not be reached. Thus, this example is not really valid (imo).

Just something to note Andorin, maybe you should change the title because you said that it should be amended, while the title says "needs to go" and that means removed. 08:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Image licensing
My chat in #wikia also brought to my attention the fact that we really need to start licensing our images. Poke at this for a minute and see how many you find that have actual licenses on them. Discuss. -- 00:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, we need to actually show our licensing, how can we even use it if we have no license or explanation for why we can use those images. - 03:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of you may be interested to see the licensing template used for most images on the FunOrb Wiki. Quartic 04:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As I told AndorinKato, if you guys find it too tedious or don't have/have problems with your bots, you can ring me up and I could bot them in necessary. Good luck! -- <font color="Green">~Joey~ <font color="Green">^Talk^  04:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)