RuneScape:Yew Grove

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

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

What this page should not be used for:
 * Discussions about deleting a page. Use RS:VFD
 * Requests for adminship. Use RS:RFA
 * Discussions about the Wiki's theme. Use RuneScape:Theme
 * Promoting or beginning a project. Use RuneScape:WikiGuild
 * Questions about RuneScape and the Wiki. Use RuneScape:Dragon desk
 * Discussion that is not related to the wiki but rather to the game itself. Use the forums.
 * Anything that does not have a wide impact.

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Entire Dialog for familiars
Is this really needed? To add all the dialog just opens up a can of worms. What is next adding all the dialog for all the quests or NPC's? Atlandy 15:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Now you're starting to read my mind, i was going to suggest we do just that... 00:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "What is next adding all the dialog for all the quests or NPC's?" Hahaha. Funny you should say that. People have already started. And I am with this discussion (No dialog) 07:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * While we are "everything Runescape" it can go a bit overboard. I think including all of the banter, and non informative dialog is not needed.  If it is part of a quest where you need to ask a certain question, or give a certain response, then it should be includied [[Image:Scythe.PNG‎]]Atlandy 14:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually i do agree, however, as a work around (for those editors that really want such) why not start a separate article called Humour or somesuch (category of culture or what have you), then migrate such verbosities to there and let that article go and grow. To me the excessive dialogue and animations are something i'm already getting plenty of as a player of the game, however for some new editors adding such things can be a way of testing the editing waters, thus my suggestion.  15:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep; I enjoy reading some of them. They are usually at the bottom of the articles, but a link to a separate dialogue article for each familiar would be an alternative if someone feels they are taking up too much room. It's nice to know what the dialogues are without having to create each familiar plus knowing the ones that are at a higher level than the player's summoning level. It makes our site that much more complete and comprehensive if someone is willing to do it. Chrislee33 17:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * zomg no i was not trying to imply making a zillion little articles just one as in the way trivia was in times past 18:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm actually for adding the dialog, for two reasons. First, I think it fits under our granularity policy, and if somebody finds it interesting, then great.  I think it should be under a standardized subpage though, like PageName/Dialog, and we should have some templated way of showing that there is a dialog page for that article.  The second reason is that with quest guides, etc, a lot of people race through the quest dialog, and are kind of curious afterward as to what was actually said.  An extreme example of this is the Ghostly robes miniquest, one of the most bonehead things Jagex has ever done.  Most of the talking in that miniquest is done in areas with aggressive monsters (mostly in the Wilderness), and the dialog is like 30 pages long for each NPC.  If you get interrupted by combat, you have to start the conversation over, making the whole conversation a pointless and completely ridiculous click-race.  Nobody could actually read those conversations, so it's nice to be able to come here and find out what the quest was all about, afterward. There's actually a third reason, too, and that's that it could improve our Google score significantly if we wikify the dialog with links to respective articles.   20:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I should add that part of my response was for Atlandy's "what's next" bit. I think NPC and quest dialog would be more appropriate than summoning familiars, but if the dialog pages are correctly categorized, linked to, and stylized, I see no reason not to allow all dialog to be added.  20:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a project to put on the map Enda, and if your projections are right the wiki will score with google, sweet. I think you're the person to lead the project, so i'm nominating you. Once the framework/policies are in place it should be a simple matter to expand/roll it out into the quests and miniquests ( lol @ jagex for putting a miniquest in the wilderness, what's next a real quest in the wildy? ) 00:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * lol, Kytti is a prophet.Careful what u say next Kytti, it may also come true.--216.136.67.145 06:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I would have to say that I enjoy reading the dialogue from familiars, as they tend to be humourous (Is that spelled right?), and being a free player I am unable to read them myself.--Hirushi 20:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't go and establish any policies without consensus here first, but I've created some templates to demonstrate what I'm saying. Here's what I've created: And an example of use: We would certainly beautify the templates (an image to catch the users' eye would be nice--I'm thinking an animation of someone's head in the chat box?) but that's the basic standardization I had in mind. Is this an acceptable compromise? I can't really think of anything bad about doing it this way--it doesn't clutter anything, it's consistent, etc. What are your thoughts specifically Atlandy? 23:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Template:hasdialogue
 * Template:dialogue
 * Category:Dialogue
 * User:Endasil/sandbox/Sample article
 * BTW, I stuck with the British spelling of dialogue (which is really just a transliteration of French if I recall correctly) for now. If it drives everyone nuts (I'm Canadian, which makes it easier, but I'm also a programmer, which means I use the word about 100 times as much as everyone else, so the "ue" drives me nuts too) we can move the relevant pages to "dialog."  23:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I should note that I've included a bunch of links in those templates/category to RuneScape:Granularity, which is where I would expect any policy changes to be noted (along with instructions for creating dialogue pages), but haven't created that section itself as of yet. 23:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Point well taken. If thy are moved to some sort of other page, that would def. free up the familiars page.  I guess the entire dialog was taking up so much space on the familiars page...it was annoying to me.  However, I can see the point of keeping it [[Image:Scythe.PNG‎]]Atlandy 14:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

We should definitely keep the dialogue. I for one find it amusing, and it's not really worth summoning something just to hear its chat--the Giant Chinchompa, for example, has some very cute conversations, but I wouldn't want to have to go out and get a pouch just to find out what it talks about. troacctid 12:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hopefully keep, I enjoy reading them (I too don't want to bother buying a pouch just to see what it says) and I suspect people enjoy finding something they feel safe contributing.  Peacefulsage 03:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I vote we keep the dialogues. At level 71 summoning, I was quite curious what my Guthix Raptor was saying, but I would have needed 9 more levels to understand it. That's alot of charms and a lot of money. I was pleasantly surprised to find it on the wiki!! Kashibak 00:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

From going back over this discussion it seems all but possibly one are in favour of moving dialogues to sub-pages. I for one am completely for moving these dialogues (quest, familiar and otherwise). 04:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed policies
We currently have proposed policies (RuneScape:Images and media policy, RuneScape:Deletion policy, and RuneScape:Scope) that need some work and consensus whether to instate them after some work. Anyone up for some policy working? 19:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. -- 06:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing the "User of the Month" feature
RuneScape:Votes_for_deletion

This is a heads up to people like me who don't check VfD as often as the Yew Grove that there is a discussion about removing the Requested Featured User section. Go to the above link to discuss the issue; don't comment here in the Yew Grove as your comment might not be noticed.-- 12:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The discussion should just be moved here; if we decide to stop using UotM, then we wouldn't delete the page, we'd just archive it. 12:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree that the discussion should be moved here instead of getting obfuscated with the discussion of deleting the UotM page. There are some individuals advocating (not consensus achieved, however) both the discontinuance of the feature *AND* the deletion of anything related to it, but unfortunately the discussion page is muddled with both ideas and it is even hard to decide what position any given individual has on the issue of discontinuance of the feature.  --Robert Horning 15:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Skill-related training
I think the Training section for each skill be transfered to a sub-page (i.e. Fishing/Training and Hunter/Training). This is to unclutter the article from facts about the skill from the guides to training that skill. And since training guides may be long, moving the training section will reduce the article size, making it clear and concise. 12:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is a great idea, as it would greatly decrease load times of some very large articles. Good idea! 12:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of the training section being on a separate article. It doesn't have to be a subsection, what about Free-to-play Ranged training? We could have 39 different skill guides like those. 13:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would prefer if it is still be linked to the main skill article. (Subpages have links to the main page.)  I guess we could move existing articles to the skill article as subpages.  But, that's just my opinion.  14:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a good idea to have some subpages to ease the burden of the main article. But I am thinking that moving the training parts do not sound that effective if we are based on the said aim.
 * And if we are moving out some large content, would there be a lot of subpages produced, like what Teng said?
 * (At least 1 page for each skill, that is ..... 24! )
 * Not only a large amount of subpages are to be produced, how about the original place for the moved content? Shall we briefly write something in point form to replace it or.... some other thing?
 * Taking Fishing as a example, the largest content is the Fishing. Meanwhile, the training part takes only a quarter of the total content. In my opinion, we could list the spots in point form and leave the description far behind those into subpages. This keeps the unity of the article and at the same time saving some space. 02:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I admit several skill pages is getting ridiculously long, and an old browser may take ages to load it. My main concern is load time, and information available in the skill page itself. Some detailed info should not be in the skill page, but rather be in the corresponding article dedicated to the detailed info. My first suggestion does not seem right at the moment, as discussed above. But, somehow, the articles need to be shrunk someway. So, here goes:
 * Information related directly to the skill but do not have an article should be moved to subpages (or appropriately-named articles).
 * Information with existing articles on their own should be moved there, with a summary provided in the skill page, and the used to link to the article.

08:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like it makes a lot of sense, and there is no one saying it's a bad idea.. As long as each subpage gets a 1 or 2 sentence brief next to its link this should prove to really neaten up some articles. --Degenret01 09:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel like if we had the training guides in their own separate pages, they should be more detailed than they are now. For most of the skills they're not very in-depth; if they're getting their own pages then those bits should be expanded. troacctid 01:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * my feeling is that when they migrate to their own subpages more editors will be inclined to work on them (as they won't be buried in an article that is as long as some of them grew to be. I know that for me when an article gets to be way more than i'm looking for i'll oft skip over pieces that i might otherwise be inclined to add to. So my instinct is the Training articles will almost automatically grow with new ideas from contributors. 03:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Special:Wantedpages

 * Is there any way that the list in Special:Wantedpages be sorted alphabetically? 18:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would love to have the Special:Wantedpages alphabetical! What a wonderful idea! Also, if pointy is not running his bot, and the link on the bots' page is dead, is there any way I can take over ownership so I can run the bot to generate the chart images?  18:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The list would have to be updated manually, but it's fairly simple to alphabetize a list in Microsoft word by highlighting the list and using the "sort" button (more info here). I don't know of any way to sort the updated list, though. 02:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A little off topic, but still in regards to the Wanted pages.. Any idea if pointy can be contacted about the bot? I'd love to either get rid of the Image:GEMH or personally run the bot and create them myself.  02:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Previous vfd
Not sure whether other people will really consider this necessary, but I have created the outline of a "Previous vfd" template. This is for insertion on the talk page for articles that have previously had a VfD where the consensus was to keep. Repeated nominations may not be that big a problem, or they may be some better way to keep track of this. I just thought that this may be a good idea, and if so then we should encourage editors to check the talk page for this notification before they nominate. It's easier than trawling through the article history looking for evidence of a VfD. 08:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So your going to put a message on the VFD template page that says "Check the articles talk page to be sure it wasn't VFD previously", and then the template goes on each article that stayed? I dont think you need Yew Grove, it makes a lot of sense and doesn't have a wide impact.--Degenret01 09:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I just didn't want to go ahead and make changes to the VfD procedure without telling people. ;-)  I will integrate this now.   14:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Succession infoboxes and non attackable monsters
Template:Succession was recently added to the Spirit Beast article describing the Spirit Beast to be the strongest monster. I have since removed it because we define monster to be an attackable character. Since the Spirit Beast cannot be attacked in any way, it is not defined as a monster based on that article.

Similar characters include Hazeel and the the dragon from the tutorial: They have levels, but they cannot be attacked and serve more as NPCs.

What we need to decide is whether articles on these characters should be treated as monster articles or NPC articles. If they are to be treated as NPCs, they should follow that format. If they are to be treated as monsters, they should follow the format of a monster article. I personally suggest treating them as NPCs because they cannot be attacked. And if they are to be treated as monsters, they should not carry the succession infoboxes. Dtm142 18:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would agree. Conversely, some people consider "monsters" to be a sub-set of NPCs.  Personally I think they are separate classifications, monsters being any person or creature that can be engaged in combat, and NPCs being any person or creature that players can talk to.  But consider someone like Sigmund, who is an NPC at most times, and a monster during Death to the Dorgeshuun.  I think there will be exceptions as well as rules, but the Spirit Beast should be called an NPC IMO.   19:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should call these non-attackable monsters as NCMs (as in "Non-combat monsters"). NCMs should have a combat level indicating their strength, but unfortunately they cannot be attacked.  I think NPCs should be reserved to talking characters without any indication of their strength (combat level).  So, Spirit Beast is a NCM, while Sigmund is an NPC.  This should clear-up the disputes over NPCs and non-attackable monsters.  (P.S.: What's wrong in having the succession box in the Spirit Beast article?  Spirit Beast should hold the title of having the "Highest combat level in RuneScape"  05:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Annoying registration messages
Here is what the main page looks like to unregistered users:


 * 1) It should be possible to dismiss the first message asking users to register.
 * 2) The second message (the green one) should be deleted entirely.
 * 3) Why isn't the default theme MonoBook?  Most people are more familiar with the way Wikipedia looks, and (though it's just my opinion) MonoBook looks better.

Discuss. --Wowbagger421 07:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I think the green box mentioned at point 2 should be removed. It repeats with the use of the message above it. 13:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I personally use Monobook in "My Preferences" and choose to override what admins use for all wikis that I visit. In my opinion, Monobook has the cleanest look compared to all the skins available.  Unfortunately, there is no way of default-ing Monobook, as only Monaco (and its sub-skins) can be used as the default skin for any particular wiki.     13:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The first message is in MediaWiki:Anonnotice; IPs can never dismiss messages. Those green messages are MediaWiki messages (e.g. (MediaWiki:ue-VisitN9). And Monaco is the default skin now; you can still view the wiki in Monobook by selecting it in your preferences.--Richard 16:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I like Monobook too but I can't find a way to change it. i did hear there was something you could change but I dunno. Anyway, there should not be 2 points. I'll remove one but we want to encourage new editors so I'll leave the other. Cheers, 06:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Which one shall I remove. One is quite detailed and the other is just short and simple. And now that I think about it, we should probably make it dismissable if possible. 06:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I like short and simple better. -- 06:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK I'll get some more opinions. 10:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just changed MediaWiki:Anonnotice to make it much simpler. There's no need for the spoiler message in there; just link to the spoiler policy in Template:Maintop if you really need to.--Richard 16:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

i need a hand
ive een working on new stuff and infoboxes for a project, i need a hand to help finish this new welcome box

if you want to help tell me on my talk or here, thanks Btzkillerv 14:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe editors here would be pleased to help if you tell us more about your project. 03:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's true, "curious cats want to know" what the project is that is. -- 02:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * its on my userpage, the test and evaluation area has the new welcome box im working on, and i think we need a welcoming commiteeBtzkillerv 17:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We already have a commitee. -- 21:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's the page: RuneScape:Welcoming Committee -- 21:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Translucent interfaces
Now that there is fullscreen and the resizable game window, the interfaces are translucent. Shouldn't the interface images not be translucent, but look like they do on an ordinary game window? There is an image for the Music Player, but the backgrounds will always be different for the interfaces. 12:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm a little unclear on what you are asking (double negatives throw me off), but i'm guessing that you're thinking that the interfaces need to be consistently presently on the wiki without random background imagery showing through (correct me if i'm wrong). Here's two examples, the first is a simple capture of the music interface window with an end of the world grey mist background (thus making it consistently shaded) the second is the same but with the transparent parts solidified through a graphical image manipulation program (gimp).


 * Thoughts? Ideas? 09:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the second one, the darker background makes the text stand out and looks more solid. 10:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Now if there is an edge of world somewhere with a black background, that would make capturing these interface panels a breeze. The first example above was done at the edge of my house where it's a light beige colour. The second one has had the stock background filled in over the transparent-ed elements (so long as fixed window is a game option, it will be possible to capture this background without the transparency levels applied).
 * [[Image:New_music_HD_interface_with_proper_transparency_and_no_background.png|thumb|left|100px]]
 * Alternately we could just go with the image processed with the proper transparency levels, which means it could be placed over any image and still look right (is there a way in the wiki to place images on top of other selected images)? Here is the window recreated the way it is rendered with proper transparency levels applied to the transparentcized portions (as seen to the left here).
 * If you look at it on its Image: page you'll see the checkered background as it would appear if one was in game.


 * Thoughts? Ideas? 12:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * YUCK. (That was my initial reaction, sorry Kyatt.) Umm... I'd prefer if it "appeared" to be translucent, and but NOT translucent per se.  This means that the images have solid backgrounds without any transparency.  I think that was what C Teng was saying: no translucent backgrounds (with scenery), but solid backgrounds.  The second image (the one on the right) was okay.   13:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree the blue background is overwhelming (i commented it out as a favour to others). My thought is that the first of the two is the better choice for multiple reasons, (1) any user need only go to an "edge of the world" (POH house is the easiest example) and rotate the camera angle so that the interface pane is hanging into the solid area, and (2) no special editing is needed that way, such as is the first image. The down side of that is, (1) the image background comes out a bit washed out, and (2) the edge of world areas are, so far as i know, only available to members.
 * If the later format is preferred then it could actually be considered a mini-project which i could undertake, along with anyone else that would want to help, to document all the HD formats of the interface windows. Thoughts? Ideas? 18:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I just think we should not use fullscreen / resizable window interfaces. 18:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would imagine the best way to ensure that is to only allow captures from the LD version of RuneScape (the one with the minimum specifications of "128MB RAM & 500Mhz CPU"). And i will have to say that since i am currently on dial-up speeds after recently moving and have to say that the huge screen captures, like the 1280 x 800 that i found in ttg, are painfully slow to load with my current limited bandwidth. Thoughts? Ideas? 21:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

New Site
Hi, I was told to move this by two bureaucrats here... Anyway, I currently own the site vindemi.com. I am also a user on runescape. How would your wiki like to move into my server? For example, it will go from runescape.wikia.com to runescape.vindemi.com. The good thing about moving to my server is: All bureaucrats on the site will have access to the server so they can add extensions, add custom skins, get their own email account at vindemi.com and do other things. My site has unlimited disk space and broadband space. Unlike this site, on the new runescape site would have limited advertisement....look at vindemi.com to see how it would look like. Oh yea and there are extensions on MW that would make moving the site easy. For example, there is an extension where the computer will import all the users from this site to the new site. And MW has this tool that will import pages from this site to the new one. Oh yea and if you don't want to move for whatever reason, you can use it as a second site or a runescape test site. Oh yea and I can set up a full forum too. Anyway its your call and its a win-win. Tell me what you think so I can set it up. Regards, --Truetech 22:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is what I posted on his talk page previously:


 * I can't speak for everyone, but I think we're just fine here. There's no outstanding reason for us to move, people know we're at this address, and Wikia is a well-known wiki host. I believe, although I've never asked, we could add extensions to our wiki simply by speaking with the Community Helpers. Case in point, I'm almost positive the Ajax checkmark at the top of Recent Changes is an extension, because the other wiki I work on doesn't have it.


 * There are no advantages that I particularly see either, and I personally am completely happy with Wikia's performance. In fact, I think the World of Warcraft Wiki was on its own at first, and actually decided to merge into Wikia. So that will be a no from me. Oddlyoko talk 03:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting offer, and there has been some dis-satisfaction with Wikia by some of the other wiki groups, so it may be coming at a good time for them. Most of the contention has to do with changes in the skins and some other minor policy changes at Wikia that haven't really impacted the Runescape wiki all that much.


 * One of the things that I like about Wikia is that they are a stable organization with the experience and institutional history demonstrating that they will be around for some time to come. One of the reasons for all of the advertisement is simply to "pay the bills" instead of doing the alternative like Wikimedia does with "putting out the tin cup" and hoping donations will cover the costs.  Both approaches have their advantages/disadvantages, but that is irrelvent in this case.  Wikia certainly has a stable financial model to maintain the current system.


 * Other groups have come and gone like vindemi, and I don't see any reason to believe they will be operating next year, much less in another five or so. vindemi.com doesn't inspire me with confidence when looking at the website, although that doesn't say much of anything in terms of how stable the server operators are fiscally.


 * Another thing that is positive about remaining with Wikia is that we don't have to suffer (too much) with the server operator getting too involved with the politics of the website. One of the worst things that can happen in these situations is for the server operator to think of himself/herself as a "GOD", telling the community to "do it my way or the highway".  Wikia has so many different web projects going on that the operators aren't really interested in setting policies on individual projects.  This ensures an independent "community" that can chart its own course and not have to constantly appeal to "authority" on issues that really need consensus anyway.


 * There is nothing in the terms of the GFDL that would prohibit anybody from taking the content of this wiki and setting up a "mirror site". The only problem I've seen from other similar ventures is that the content eventually gets very stale.  Moving a whole community is another issue, and I've even seen that backfire before when it was tried without strong consensus among almost all of the participants.  It can happen (I've even initiated some moves of that nature), but it isn't easy.  I just don't see the need or the resolve here to make this happen... or the issue that is forcing the community to move in this situation.  --Robert Horning 13:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You might want to read Ownership at Central, Truetech.--Richard 16:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But here is the thing: When I set up the wiki, its all yours. You guys decide who will be the bureaucrats, sysops, user, ect. You guys even the do the server stuff because I will give all the bureaucrats of the website access into the main server. And don't worry, the server will never go down. If you mean ther server operator as being me, I am not even going to use the site. I stick with my own site. I am just giving you runescape.vindemi.com along with 19 other subdomains as in forum.runescape.vindemi.com . And also I believe that my site has way more advantages over wikia. For example this site is overun with advertisement, this site doese not look like an actual wiki site. Any my site comes with many more advantages than this that you will find out when you join. If you dont want to officially move, you can use it as a mirror site and see how well it goes. And don't worry server will never go down and the site will always be upgraded to the latest version of MW. Oh yea and I will also help you make your custom skin and then I am not going to express any authority on the site unless you ask me too. Regards, --Truetech 19:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Try offering this to the star wars wiki. They had expressed interest in moving offsite when the new adds took place.--21:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Star Wars already has thier own site at wookiepedia.com or something like that, --Truetech 22:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wookieepedia.com redirects to star wars wiki but as I said they wanted to move off site when the adds go changed but I don't think they could find a suitable server.--00:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we are fine with being hosted by Wikia. 23:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * One thing that sticks out to me is this line: "Any my site comes with many more advantages than this that you will find out when you join." Why do we want to move when we don't know what all of the advantages are? It would seem more in your favour to explicitely state what they are.
 * "You guys decide who will be the bureaucrats, sysops, user, ect." -- We already do this.
 * "For example this site is overun with advertisement, this site doese not look like an actual wiki site." -- I'm sorry, but I rarely see ads here, and those I do see hardly stick out like a sore thumb. There's just the frequent three at the bottom (on Monaco skins), and maybe one on the side sometimes. Moreover, what is a wiki supposed to look like? Oddlyoko talk 01:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Er, I see what you mean on the main page, but really, that's just the front page out of all of the other articles. And how else is Wikia going to foot the bills? Oddlyoko talk 01:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you can always use it as a mirror. theres no harm in doing that. --Truetech 05:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by a mirror? If you mean having the address point to runescape.wikia.com, there's no harm, no, but I'm not sure how useful it would be... if you mean having a carbon copy of the wiki over there, well, that's just two times the work to keep everything the same. =\ Oddlyoko talk 05:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Oddlyoko. What exactly are those advantages, that you said we would find out if we join? Also his other concerns. Besides, wikia seems pretty nice anyway. Butterman62 (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Didn't this wiki move domain a few months back, from Wiki Gaming or something? Or am I thinking of something else?  For me, the first issue is the domain name - runescape.vindemi.com says nothing to suggest that this is a wiki instead of just another RS fan site that hosts one person's opinion.  Secondly, there is the issue of moving the site with no clear benefit - we're established here, and we know it works.  Why change?   02:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not suggesting changing/moving anymore. I am suggesting using it as a mirror (or second) site. We don't have to move anything. --Truetech 01:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What would the mirror site be used for then? Butterman62 (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Additions for Template:Updates
I would like to propose some additions for the current Template:Updates. For the "Latest Game Content" section, wouldn't it be nice if an image is added next to it, similar to the AoTM? I've also added colour to the section headings.

Discussion
Any comments? 04:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The design is already good. But i prefer the style of the header to be inscribed by a css class so that users using different skins can manipulate that into their very own favourite. 12:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, I couldn't do that. That requires modifying the Mediawiki:Monaco.css and Mediawiki:Monobook.css, something which I am not entitled to do (only admins can modify files in the Mediawiki namespace).  Anyways, if this design is accepted, I hope that any admin could incorporate the style for the sub-header into the css files.   13:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks much better than plain old text. Pics are almost always FTW, and certainly are in this case.--Degenret01 15:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm with Degenret on this one, pics are always (1,000 words) FTW even for people with lysdexia, 03:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Changing Article of the Month to Article of the Week
I know there has been discussion regarding altogether eliminating the Article of the Month.

However, I would propose that we change it to Article of the Week. In doing this we can:
 * Encourage visitors to return more often as there is updated information on our front page.
 * Bring exposure to many more excellent articles.
 * Lessen the prestige (a concern mentioned as a reason to eliminate the AotM) of the article.
 * Increase traffic and hits on our site as more people visit more pages.

The only downside I see is more work for someone (sorry) to do weekly edits rather than a monthly one. Comments? Thoughts? --Kashibak 20:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thats an awesome idea!!! I like that you mentioned the downside, but it doesnt seem a big one. This seems a good moderate solution to the problem of keeping/killing AotM. 1diehard1 20:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I like this idea. I do see another possible downside, which is that we'd go through our best articles four times as fast, and eventually end up with some lower-quality picks as we run out of really great ones that haven't been used already. But would that really be an issue? troacctid 20:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we should keep it as AotM for now. I agree with Troacctid; we would run out of good articles. 22:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so what if we recycled Articles of the Week once we run out of the higher quality topics? Surely there are 52 good articles existing on the Wiki right now-that's a year's cycle of high quality articles. And, worst case scenario-no additional "good ones" are added within a year, we repost the cycle again. With new players to Runescape, and new visitors to the site, for many people it would be like seeing the article for the first time. Again, just my two cents. --Kashibak 02:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute why not keep the Article of the Month as is but add an Article of the Week which is like the best of Articles, we could literally just cycle through previous Articles of the Month for Article of the Week. The upside here is minimal extra work, plus previously featured articles would get fresh exposure to keep them from getting out of date or less than AotM worthy (so to speak). Thoughts? Ideas? I'm ready to put it together if it meets consensus. Curiously, 03:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to add AOTW instead of replacing AOTM, and it will help make up for the fact were prob going to lose UOTM. I think were not going to get a lot of input or votes on this feature, especially after a couple months go by.. But by cycling past AOTMs that will eliminate most problems. Perhaps we could even include articles that almost made AOTM and only lost by a couple of votes (but not if they lost for being poorly written or something like that).--Degenret01 06:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Updated Logos and Favourite Icon
Again I am going to put this to the Yew Grove. I am recommending that we update the logos and favourite icon. The version that most people seemed to agree upon before the discussion was archived what seemed a bit prematurely were as follows:

Discussion

 * Update - As I'm posting this again I'm going to vote for updating these images. 04:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Update - except the "favicon.ico" image. It's too small for my eyes.  I had to zoom it 400% before being able to figure out that it is a combination of fire + law runes.  I think "Astral rune" is nice, or even "Chaos rune" is much better.  I suggest that you stick to existing runes, rather than combining different runes.  My two cents...  08:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Needhelp page needs help
I'm not sure if any of you admins here have noticed, but there is a widget that can be added into the Monaco skins sidebar that refers to MediaWiki:Needhelp which is currently still a generic page. Not a biggie, I'm just bringing attention to it. 05:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Where and how is it being used? I don't see how this page is being used at all.  I've visited a couple of Wiki sites, and some had the same generic page, or an empty page.   08:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Sitestatstext
Could someone edit the "Job queue" link found in the Special:Statistics to this link. The link is currently broken, and this link can be edited in MediaWiki:Sitestatstext. 12:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)