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: __NEWSECTIONLINK__
 * Discussions about deleting a page. Use RS:VFD
 * Requests for adminship. Use RS:RFA
 * Discussions about the Wiki's theme. Use RuneScape:Theme
 * Discussions that belong on an article's talk page.
 * 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.

Image Policy
I think we need a nice big clickable link on the main page that leads our current users to the image policy, because while going through the new image gallery, I'm seeing alot of personal images, most of which are those ugly stat sigs. The members of the RS Wiki need to be reminded that uploading personal images for their userpages isn't allowed, and that they need to upload them to imageshack. Hell, even a tutorial would suffice. All you gotta do is explain how to upload an image to imageshack, then to use that image here, just put the image's URL. It's not hard to do. No tags are needed to put ImageShack'd photos on the wiki. Just copy the URL of the image into your page and you're done. Anyone with me on this? Maybe we could add it to the sitenotice, like Due to frequent uploading of personal images, we'd like to remind you of our Image Policy and link "Image Policy" to the image policy page. 70.49.204.107 22:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Abit offtopic, but thank you Skill for deleting the items I had tagged :) 70.49.204.107 23:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What kind of "personal images" are you referring to here? In going through the recently deleted images, I'm not exactly sure that such a policy needs to be so strictly enforced as it is here.  I certainly am allowed considerably more latitude on Wikipedia where nearly everything I've casually looked at with the deletion log would have been accepted (in the context of that wiki).


 * What is wrong with stat sigs anyway? We could set up something that would allow a "preference" to be able to turn off loading those sigs if you don't want to see them through templates or something similar, and I personally find the current enforcement of this to be a bit too aggressive.  That plus screen captures of your own character that would (presumably) be put on your user page.


 * I would agree that perhaps there ought to be some sort of general limit to this kind of activity, and certainly it should all be Runescape-related (aka no image repository for other websites), but please.... what is wrong with allowing somebody to show off their favorite costume or a picture of their P.O.H. on their user page?


 * From my experience, I would rather that they be managed locally by admins here and not have to rely upon admins at ImageShack.... unless they are completely unrelated to Runescape in any way shape or form. I certainly haven't heard any complaints from Wikia about running out of image server storage space, or that somehow this project is abusing that option with the current load of images.


 * If the stat sigs have a copyright issue that needs to be addrerssed... OK, that is something worth discussing. But I don't see that as an issue here or why it such a big deal to you.  If this is genuinely a bandwidth issue on the part of Wikia (aka users are loading up stat sigs here and using them on BBSs that are non-Wikia) that is another issue as well.  But show that is a problem first before throwing them out.  --Robert Horning 01:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't even know why uploading personal images to the wiki is against the rules if Wikia has unlimited media space. But if it is against the rules, I believe we have a problem. Users are always uploading personal images all the time and then they are clueless when they are deleted. Once they realise they're not supposed to upload personal images, they look for the article about their image and add it to the article as well as their userpage (even if it is a duplicate). I think there is not much we can do about it though and a link on the main page could maybe do a little difference but users tend to just create an account, make a userpage and then upload all their personal images here without looking at policies, main page, rules, etc. [[Image:Kandarincrest.gif|25px]] Chicken7 >talk>sign 01:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a policy that has been established by the "community" here on this wiki, not necessarily something that is being forced upon us by Wikia. What I'm taking issue with is the interpretation of what is intended by Wikia.... that this not become an image dumping ground like imageshack or Flicker.  I'm not even advocating for such a thing either.


 * I'm just trying to raise the issue here that perhaps we don't have to be so hard-nosed about a certain class of "personal images" that certainly can be considered related to the topic of this wiki: Runescape.  Keep in mind, it isn't Wikia that is deleting these images, it is admins that are working on this project.  This is a community decision, and I'm raising the issue here to see if there may be support to "changing" the current policy, or at least clarifying what a "personal image" might be in terms of this policy.


 * No, I don't think it is appropriate to upload gigabytes of images from your last vacation, pictures from your birthday party, or having dozens of other random images that have nothing to do with the game. But that isn't what I'm talking about with a good many of the recently deleted images.  This is a policy that can be changed, and it certainly isn't engraven in blood with Jimbo Wales' finger.  I'm talking something reasonable here, and suggesting that perhaps we are being too hardnosed about the whole concept of personal images.  --Robert Horning 01:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. That's what I've been trying to say for a while. The only "problem" with personal game screenshots is that "it will clog the servers", when we have unlimited space. Besides, deleting an image will just take up even more data (even though something is "deleted", all revisions are still stored on the Wikia servers, so all it does is conceal it from all non-sysops. On top of that, there's the aspect of the deletion being logged.).
 * With taking out the whole data subject, why delete them? Some people (like me) get "omfg this site is super-unsafe leave and never come back!!!111one" notices whenever going to an image holding site, so this is not only a good option, but a final option.
 * I mean, come on. They are only 100KB at the most, when most are less than 10KB. My talk page is 21.2MB, and you don't see any restrictions or anything on that. It would take 212 large personal images to equal the data in a talk page. But what about a few reasonably sized images? Maybe 30KB. It's no big deal. 02:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, so the discussion has changed to whether personal "RuneScape" related images are welcome on the Wiki. I would have to put a Neutral/Pending on such a policy/rule because I think we'll be bombarded with images and if we have thousands of users their all going to want to upload like "The first time i killed a Tz-Tok-Jad" or "My POH Kitchen", "My POH Bedroom", etc.... With all the users doing this we will have thousands of personal images. And if we ever change our minds there will be heaps of deletions. And Wikia might get annoyed with the amount of space we are using. They must have a limit to storage space. Robert and Chia have brought up good points though. But people won't come here to make a talk page. They'll come and uload their armour outfit and their POH, make their userpage and then disappear. Maybe I'll support if there is a limit to the number of personal images you can have but it would be hard to keep track of. [[Image:Kandarincrest.gif|25px]] Chicken7 >talk>sign 02:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well yes, then it would be a problem. I think a limit would have to be put in place, maybe 10 images, or something? 03:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)~
 * I would support a general limit like that in terms of images per person, and those images must be on an actual page, not just uploaded somewhere and forgotten. In other words, those images must be used on the wiki somewhere, even if they are of a personal nature.  A limit of 10 such personal images is quite reasonable, with strong encouragement to keep it well below that.  --Robert Horning 04:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I like that limit as a policy. [[Image:Kandarincrest.gif|25px]] Chicken7 >talk>sign 04:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds pretty good. And thinking long term, would there be a way to track if someone logs on every 6 months or so? Because if they leave for 6 months, we might as well delete those pics (if they are only being used on that persons user page). And maybe find a way to ensure users name the pics about the costume, so the same pic is not uploaded 600 times. How many do we need of someone in full dragon with a Santa? Could we list all the "personal pics" so people will be able to check if the one they are uploading is already there?--Degenret01 07:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

< --- resetting tabs for ease of discussion

Certainly there is a way to scan user contribution logs to check if they have been active for the past six months, and I suppose we could develop a tool that could scan through user contributions to find out when the last time that the user logged in.

Mainly, I see this as a way to be doing a recent changes patrol and notice somebody who is uploading a whole bunch of images all at once. By setting a limit, you can either tell the (presumably new) user that they need to slow down and not go overboard, and point to the "official policy" as a reason why they can't have a couple dozen "personal images" about their character. This would be particularly if the person uploading the content has just created the account, uploads the images, and never contributes to the wiki again.

As for long-time users that contribute to many other parts of the wiki and only upload a couple images every other month or so.... I wouldn't be so paranoid about the issue. If you happen to come across somebody like this who has gone past the limit, a more gentle reminder may be in order to keep things under control but I would find it unlikely that they are going to go past the limit anyway. It is likely that the user is going to be disruptive and have attention placed on them if it becomes a serious problem (see the discussion in the previous section), and have a great many other issues as well.

Again, I don't think we need to get aggressive here. I certainly was a user who came in, made a couple of edits, and then left for six months only to come back and become a significant contributor. I'm willing to assume good faith and presume most users have the best of intentions when trying to add content.

As for scanning to see what other images a user has uploaded (if you think it may be excessive), I would suggest checking Special:Logs and entering the user's name. For most users, this is usually page moves and image uploads.... again, I seriously doubt that a major contributor is going to be a problem here. It would likely be somebody who is trying to upload a whole bunch of images all at once and/or be a vandal anyway in other ways that would be a problem. --Robert Horning 12:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There has been no discussion on this topic for a while now, and still personal images are being deleted on a regular basis (yes in accordance with current policy). It seems that most who have discussed this see no no harm in allowing a few personal pics that are rs based. Does anyone have a valid argument against? (Besides "cuz we shouldn't") And if no one does, does some sysop then just come along and add it to our policy? Oh, and maybe add that the pics should be named after the outfit worn, so we don't get multiple identical pic uploads? Is this agreeable?--Degenret01 06:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

GE Price "Live Feed"
I am interested in programming a web application that would query information from the official Runescape GE Price database, so that all prices could be current and accurate. No other fansites have this, although it has been done with the hiscores. I haven't looked into it too much yet but I believe it is possible. Is anyone interested in having this as a feature of the wiki? (if not I'll sell the patent to tip.it =P). I could also implement the type of thing Reddo suggested way up at the top. Quote: "now that the GE database has been released couldn't someone create a bot to pull the prices for each item off of there once a day or something?" Excalo 01:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Having a bot to edit those pages would be much more convenient and efficent, it would be great if this was done in my opinion. -- 03:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Pointy said something about this a while back. Let me try to find the link, it might still be on this page actually. Skill 05:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, it's under the first two headings at the top of the page. Skill 05:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've not really had time lately to make any progress on a price-scraping bot, and it looks like it wouldn't be allowed to run anyway based on the bot talk page. I'm still running the chart updates once a week or so, but thats about all I've got time for at the moment I'm afraid. Pointy 15:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Did your bot get to the point where it could retrieve the prices from the database? Excalo 18:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

From our discussions here, Jagex rules state that we can't send an automatic repeating request for updated information and so if a bot gets created to update the prices, a human would have to be responsible for sending the request.-- 14:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I was wondering if there was a rule like that. Perhaps a button next to each price, named "refresh price". Only when it is pressed would the application pull the info from the database. Excalo 14:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I also posted this above but what about a bot that only grabbed the prices once every 24 hours? I believe that this falls within the rules that jagex has stated. Reddo 02:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "It must not automatically make repeated page/content requests from our website or otherwise make excessively bandwidth intensive requests from our servers (each page/content request should only be in direct response to a user request each time)."
 * The way they worded it suggests that they don't want us doing even that. However, it would probably be feasible to have a refresh price button on every page and hope that people click on them often. In fact, there could probably be links that would allow simultaneous updating of groups of pages (for example, headings on the GEMW pages) without violating this rule, as long as we don't go overboard. The rule is a bit ambiguous as to what constitutes "overboard", though. Skill 04:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The whole "direct response to a user request each time" kind of puts an end to a bot getting them for us. I like the idea of having a price refresh button on each page but I don't know how we would create something like this (maybe a bot that is activated by clicking on the button).  In the response to the "hope that people click on them often" we could add a parser function like this to all of the exchange pages


 * What if, for each item, it asked "Do you want to update ITEM-NAME?". Technically each request would be in direct response to a user then. Also, what about Wikia's policy on bots? Do they have one? immibis 08:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)




 * This would put all exchange articles that haven't been updated in the last 2 days into a new category, (GE articles needing price updates) this could help us keep a little more update with the current prices without having to assign particular articles to people to update each day and without having a bot to do the whole thing for us. Reddo 05:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Within the guidelines they layed out, saying that requests have to be activated by a user, we could allow users to update all the prices at once. However, I don't think that this would be a very good option. Querying 4,000 of their pages will take a while. Perhaps in the Category:GE articles needing price updates, an option to update all articles needing price updates. Excalo 18:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I added the parser function, the list of old prices can be found here. Reddo 16:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(reindent) I'm not too great at JS myself, but would there be any way to read the content directly from the RS servers using AJAX (or similar) and then automatically edit the page based on said data? I know the JS editing should work, as they have scripts for it on Wikipedia, but I'm not too sure the AJAX would go too well... especially since the page might not be well-formed XML (Jagex uses HTML 4). I have no way of checking whether it is at the moment, as the GE database went down about 40 minutes ago. :\ Skill 09:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's back up now, it must have been down when they applied the website updates. It's under Game Guide -> Grand Exchange on the new website, BTW. Also I was thinking of scraping it from an external program, ie it runs on some user's desktop every day, because I don't think Wikia allows JavaScript on a wiki page. 125.236.142.163 03:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, I thought I was logged in when I posted that last one -- immibis 04:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The bot is done (that is to say, it works. I've got a few more changes in mind like a configuration screen so you can change how it runs. It has successfully made one edit (to Exchange:Ibis_pouch, see diff here. As per the bot policy I ask people to vote on this.
 * The bot works by downloading the prices for every tradable item from the RuneScape website, then for each item it makes the necessary changes to each price, moving the Price and Date fields to Last and LastDate, and updating the current price and date. It ignores pages that don't exist or are missing one or more fields. However, it is accessing pages without human intervention, which Jagex doesn't want to happen. immibis 07:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The whole point of the discussion was that according to rule 7 (point number 7 in the section I linked), every request to a page on the RS site has to be a direct response to a user request. In other words, we can't have a bot to automatically request every item page listed. There might be some ways to work around this, which is what we were trying to get to, but a fully automated bot won't work. Sorry. :\ Skill 08:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh. What if it asked "do you want to download and scrape http://address.goes.here/?" for each page? Would that work? immibis 08:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But how do we implement that for each and every query that is made by the bot? Skill 11:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(reindent) Simple. You know when you close Word and, if you haven't saved, whether you want to save? Like that, only for each Grand Exchange page that is downloaded. Also, would it be a good idea to discuss this in User_talk:Immibot as this section is getting a bit long? immibis 23:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And you're willing to press "yes" manually for each of the 1500 pages every day? If that's what you're trying to tell me, then go ahead... Skill 00:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, it can get the prices from the page with a list of prices (eg when you click on A on the website it shows the first N items starting with A) so it shouldn't be more than about 200. And if the button appears in the same place each time, you can just keep clicking on that spot, and it wouldn't need to ask this for updating the wiki, as Wikia doesn't have that rule.immibis 00:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Pages in need of attention
Hi i know I'm kinda a nobody and no one has heard of me but I hope you will listen to me. I find that i have a lot of spare time i.e. when i can't play RS and I'm on the wiki. Scrolling through random pages doesn't always guarantee tha you will be able to find an article than needs attention. Let’s face it, we have some rubbish articles on the wiki. Most of them are newly created article by people who want to help but don’t know how. I find that a lot of these articles come in batches usually in the new addition of a missing part it a series/category or when new quests are released (not exactly necessary since they all get jumped by B’crats admins etc.) But I was just thinking could we have something like Wanted Pages except that it doesn’t show links but shows pages that need attention. I suppose that it would be similar to articles in need of attention but I feel nobody really cares about it. This might simply mean having a people sticking the cleanup template on such pages and more people actually tracking these pages. And btw would it be possible to have a system that automatically capitalises i? Freefall333
 * I know it might not be exactly what you are looking for, but here are a few places to check for articles that need a bit of work.
 * New pages
 * Short pages
 * Dead-end pages -> although you won't find too many articles in here.
 * Orphaned pages
 * Articles in need of cleanup
 * Articles to be merged
 * Regards, 10:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you looking for something like this?-- 14:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Talking of things needing attention, the wanted pages page is a bit of a mess, mainly because it looks at pages outside mainspace, such as userpages (e.g. User:Mr_webster6) and talk pages (mainly discussing pages that have since been deleted). Both of these we are not supposed to edit. Would it be possible for someone to raise this with the Wikia people, to see if there could be some way of filtering out anything outside of mainspace? If that is not possible, something that would help is a change to users POH pages. The template creates links from whatever people decide to put in, e.g. 'My Bedroom', 'Torture Chamber'. If this link could be removed from the template, a couple of dozen items would disappear from the wanted list. Hurston 12:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Annoying ads?
These annoying ads pop up all over the place, like "zezimas password", and "free runescape hacks". Also, these may put adware on your computer. Is there something that can be done? 16:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I hate the new ads. They are very distracting and take up a lot of the space on the page. I don't like monobook's ads, either, they cover up some of the words. That's why I use quartz. 18:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * For me (a monobook user) the words tend to cover up the ads. Which is fine with me. And I don't get the "Zezima's password" ads from Google or whatnot, either. Monobook ftw? -- 18:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So we should all switch to monobook, then? Planeshifted 23:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Monobook and the old wikia skins are best then, because the Monaco skin's search bar is annoying. You have to wait for the "Search RuneScape...." thingy to load or else if you type there, it removes your text. 11:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We can't change to monobook. A lot of users wish to move towards the future (Monaco). Personally, I use Monobook too and I do find that sometimes ads cover up writing but I learn to live with it; Monaco and quartz ads are really bad.. [[Image:Kandarincrest.gif|25px]] Chicken7 >talk>RfA 12:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't the monobook advertisements be fixed? 20:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of these ads are causing my IE to fail ("Internet Explorer cannot open the Internet site http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/RuneScape_Wiki. Operation Aborted").  And then "Internet Explorer cannot display the webpage".  I understand the need for advertising, but the ads shouldn't interfer with viewing the Wiki! Hatchenator 16:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Do away with neutral votes
I don't see the reasoning behind a neutral vote, and I propose we do away with it. It doesn't actually help bring the community to any sort of consensus, since it doesn't lean towards support or oppose. More often than not, it's used because the user doesn't know the nominee (in which case they really shouldn't be voting until they do know the candidate, but that's a not why I'm posting). Comment would do just fine for this purpose, as it serves as a clarifier or lets the nominee know what the user posting would like to see. Opinions? 06:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree, Commment does the same thing, Neutral votes just make more confusion. 06:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So would it be valid to just change anything marked "neutral" to comment? 09:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter or what harm is there in this sort of situation? The "reasoning" behind such a "vote" is perhaps the person trying to make a remark isn't really committed one way or the other (aka supporting a deletion or endorsing a proposed administrator) but has some information that may be relevant to others casting their vote.  In this case, they are genuinely "neutral".  I suppose it is a comment but the term "neutral" does carry with it the context that they haven't yet come to a decision on the matter.  Bureaucrats and administrators shouldn't really be "counting votes" anyway on such pages, but should be reading into the depth of comments and the strength of the arguments in favor or opposed to such an action.  I just don't think we need to be paranoid about such votes, as it really isn't as important the exact format of such a vote but rather that people are participating.  I'd rather have these neutral votes than to turn away people from making comments.  --Robert Horning 11:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I know that sometimes they don't always help, but I don't think we should do away with them. Maybe we should change the neutral votes to just comments, so we don't have both littering up pages. But i think that people should have the option to express their opinions and give advice without having to vote. Neutral/Comments provide a great to give opnions and feedback without having to flat out Oppose or Support. [[image:Prayer.gif |25px]] Sir Lenehan [[image:smite.PNG|25px]] 12:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with Robert on this one, for slightly different reasons. A Neutral vote does have an effect on the result of a discussion.  Take this as a situation: there are two strong support arguments for a decision, and one oppose.  It would be hard to see a consensus there, but you might say that the decision was toward the supports.  However, given the same 3 votes, what if you had 2000 neutral votes?  It would be obvious that "Support" was NOT at a consensus, as 2001 people had declined to support the decision, even if only one openly opposed it.


 * I do think that we can do away with "Pending" and "Not yet/Wait a little". If your vote is pending, don't write anything, or use Neutral.  It just clutters things otherwise.  "Not yet/Wait a little" are just oppose votes; you can explain your reasoning or intent for future support in the accompanying comment.  Both of these seemed like they were added by the one or two people that use these keywords, and they tried to make them global for no real reason.   14:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need Neutral vote because they don't count towards anything. It's either a "yes" or "no". Like Sir Lenethan said, we should just put that under 'Comments'. 17:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral I mean I don't think it's necessary to restrict the markup that a user chooses to use. A well explained neutral vote is exponentially more useful to a closing bureaucrat than votes consisting only of Support, he deserves it because he's a good guy.  It's the arguments for and against that are more important than markups or numbers. Dtm142 19:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. If Neutral votes were removed everyone would have to Support or Oppose from the outset, which might mean a different outcome than if a lot of initially-Neutrals continued to discuss the proposal until they had decided which way to vote.
 * One or two neutrals in a discussion won't really affect the outcome of a proposal anyway, but if a lot of people haven't made their minds up then it means the conversation obviously needs to continue for a while longer. Pointy 13:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Pointy. And if there was no voting for ages because people were still thinking the discussion might just end when people were still thinking. So... I oppose to this discussion. [[Image:Kandarincrest.gif|25px]] Chicken7 >talk>RfA 02:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Save the orphans!
It seems that many new users tend to have a habit of uploading a new image into a new namespace, then turning around and editing the article containing the image to point to their newly uploaded image and leave in their wake an orphaned image. Often times these orphans contain historically relevant information as to how things once were on the face of Gielinor and as such I do not feel they should just be deleted into non-existance. Is there a policy regarding this sort of thing? If not i believe there should be. Already lost includes been lost to CityYanille.PNG and more are on the way including Image:Brimhaven.PNG which is becoming orphaned by Image:CityBrimhaven.PNG. Personally I'm at a loss 09:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In such situations like you are describing here, such "images" perhaps ought to be merged for historical reasons. Article and image histories can be merged together by deleting the "new" page, performing a page move (or image rename), deleting it again temporarily as an administrative action, then undeleting the whole thing.  I would have to agree that preserving the historical images in something that can be scanned by ordinary users does have some relevance, such as what you have described above.  It isn't "easy" to perform such actions, and IMHO the "newer" images that are the dupes ought to be the ones viewed with a jaundiced eye in terms of if they are the duplicates or not.  Yes, I do realize that the game does change and update, but historical information ought to be preserved as much as reasonably possible.  --Robert Horning 11:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So, considering I am just a regular user (with no special permissions), would it be applicable to reupload the duplicated image (assuming it has some new relevance like mini summoning obelisks) into the pre-existing images name space then revert the article back to point to it's original image? Currently many long existent images are now showing up as orphaned images.  00:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I created a new category a couple of weeks ago that may be relevant in this discussion. It is Obsolete images, and is intended for images that are no longer current (as in up-to-date as per the game) but which are kept on the wiki for historical documentation.  I wonder whether some images may be appropriately classified here rather than being deleted or merged.  Leevclarke, AKA Max Bulldog [[Image:Bulldogh.gif]] 04:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Images
Well forgive me if someone already created a section on this (in which case you can delete this) but when Jagex adds the new detail mode in July we'll need to add thousands of more images to the database. Taking all of these screenies will take lots of time (although I'm sure there are many users up for the challenge here) and we'll need to add a new image section to all ncp and item templates. That way, we could display the old detail image and the new high detail image, since the current detail will still be available. Thoughts? Perhaps we could put together a whole team of users willing to do this. Again, I'm sorry if this has already been discussed or added to the Yew Grove (I read over it, maybe I missed something) but this is something we'll need to take care of. 15:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What Ilyas said. I know it will take along time to update the pictures, but it will be for the better. I will try to help as much as I can. (but only the f2p pics) oh and sorry Ilyas for the mispell. (I was typing fast and didn't profread.) 17:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was thinking that too. It will be a lot of work to replace all the images that will become low-detail soon. 18:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My name is Ilyas not lylas... And we're not replacing them we're just uploading new versions, so there'll be two versions of each image. 18:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would we want two versions of an image? Unless we're comparing high and low detail in an article, two images on the same page would only take up space. 18:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A different aspect to consider is how hard it's going to be to capture from the new system. It's going to use anti-aliasing, which blurs the edges of all items, objects, etc.  Therefore, replacing the background of an image with transparency will be more difficult, either requiring a lot of time or leaving an undesired outline around the whole image.  I almost feel that it might be easier to stick with capturing all graphics from the current high-detail mode.  But we'll have to wait and see on that; maybe we'll just be able to disable anti-aliasing and it will be just as easy.  I don't think we need duplicates, though...I mean, we don't have both low-detail and high-detail images right now, even though both game modes exist--why would the new game mode by any different? Let's always work to reduce redundancy and clutter.  18:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not establish a standard for image uploading; i.e. all images should be captured from (Low/High/Full) detail mode only? Planeshifted 18:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree; I just think we need to wait until the full detail mode comes out before we have enough information to set that standard. I'd definitely argue for either High or Full though.  19:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But remember, we are an encyclopedia and our goal is to provide players with information to enhance their gameplay experience. If we only give the current high detail or the new full detail we wouldn't be helping all players. And the difference between the current high and low detail modes is far smaller than that of the full detail and current high detail modes. Since our audience will be using both modes, I find it best to have duplicates. You also mentioned making transparencies being harder. Although we will have to wait and see, I'm pretty sure I can do it with my handy MS Paint (to crop the image and take out the background) and GIMP (to make it a transparency). If not we can always stick with the background, although it wouldn't look as good. 19:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Things like items, though, I think should always be full-detail. 19:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You clearly don't understand what anti-aliasing really means. I'd love to see you try to do what you're saying in Paint.  GIMP would be possible, but as I said, removing a background from an anti-aliased picture is not an easy task.  And unless there are actual differences between two images (instead of just the level of detail), why the heck do we need to clog up articles with two versions of every picture?  You don't think our readers have the mental capacity to look at a high-def image, compare it with a low-def image, and see the similarities?  19:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "And unless there are actual differences between two images (instead of just the level of detail), why the heck do we need to clog up articles with two versions of every picture?" - Exactly what I mean. But the full detail hasn't been released yet so we don't know what task we're up against. Why don't we decide all of this when the updates come out instead of uselessly flaming eachother for what we don't know shit about. If the difference isn't recognizable then we can put up two images, otherwise we'll use whichever is convienient. Like you said, cropping a full detail image can be hard but imo well worth it. 20:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It will be very hard to transparerize item image with this update. On one of my other wikis, the game uses anti-aliasing and it turns out extremely bad when transparency is added. I think there should be only one image but we can sort that out later. And also, is there a way to stop users being able to upload images for a while. Once the new graphics are released there will be a flood of new images and we will still need to discuss options.... Cheers, [[Image:Kandarincrest.gif|25px]] Chicken7 >talk>RfA 12:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think just overwriting the current image with the new super-detailed version would probably make the wiki look nicer. People who stay on the high-res afterwards will be at no more of a disadvantage than the people who currently use low-res are at present.


 * We might need to accept that the anti-alising (i.e. outline smoothing) means we can't remove the background, and just cut a rectangle out of the screenshot including the background rather than tracing around the npc or object. Doing that would probably look cleaner than fudging the anti-aliasing, which will always end up looking messy if you use a very light or very dark wiki skin. Pointy 13:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, i think I have a devious plan... On the Jagex RuneScape GE database, don't they have item images? We can just copy them from there. Or is that copyright violating (It's going to look the same either way..). What do people think? [[Image:Kandarincrest.gif|25px]] Chicken7 >talk>RfA 08:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about that - I'm sure someone else can probably answer better than me. In any case, copying them would only cover the item images. There's hundreds upon hundreds of NPCs, quest scenes & rewards, animations, maps and so on that would also be affected. Pointy 12:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I just mean to solve our anti-aliasing problem with item images, I believe the RS site images are transparent. [[Image:Kandarincrest.gif|25px]] Chicken7 >talk>RfA 12:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a copyright violation either way - virtually every image we have on the wiki is evidence of it. That said, fair use may give us a lot of leeway, but broadly speaking copying Jagex's content via any method is just as bad (or good).  Either way, the legality of it is not really an issue vis-a-vis image capture method, whether new graphics or old.


 * Anti-aliasing would be a problem - I use PhotoShop and it's hard enough to compensate for with that. See my note on Firefox 3 - the images on the G.E. are subject to it with the new version of the browser, but luckily there is a way around it... for now.  Leevclarke, AKA Max Bulldog [[Image:Bulldogh.gif]] 05:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But my point is that we really don't know exactly what the updates are like yet, but if when the full detail comes out and we see there is a huge difference between an NPC in full and an NPC in high then we'll have to have two images. I know this would just be harder but remember, we don't know what they'll be like yet. As for the anti-aliasing problem, perhaps we can give part of the background of the item, like cut out a little square and leave the brown part from the inventory screen in it. If there isn't a recognizable difference between the two we can just use the high detail image. 14:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The members' version of the update gives the option to turn anti-aliasing on and off, so it shouldn't be a problem, right? 15:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well hopefully it won't be too bad of an issue, but already i see the hopes of a transparency potentially quickly slipping away. As such i've created a template based in the JPEG template. See Template:Anti-aliased and let me know what you think please.  18:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, I'm up for the challange of getting some of the images, feel free to let me now if you need my help (void knight pictures anyone?) The pie 08:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thankyou. And on the topic of anti-aliasing, the item images a fairly the same and anti aliasing can be turned off. 12:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Firefox 3 users
Users of the new Firefox 3 should be aware that the browser now scales images if they are not being displayed at their original size, and the resampling adds a blur. This is critical if you're taking "detailed" screenshots of items from the G.E. database.

For example, look at the bucket of sand, and in particular at the detailed image on the right. If you take a screenshot of this and zoom in closely, you will see the blurring. The way to get around this is to right-click the image and select "view image" to see it isolated in original size. Better yet, you can just select "save image as" instead, and edit it from there. Leevclarke, AKA Max Bulldog 05:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've also found with Firefox 3 that if a link is in bold, the normal colours of red and blue are reversed, but fixes itself if you mouse over the link. Has anyone else found that or is it just me? Hurston 10:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Mine seem fine in that respect - I can only suggest checking your colour settings! Maybe some Wikia skins/themes include weird colours - try not allowing website to use their own colours.  Leevclarke, AKA Max Bulldog [[Image:Bulldogh.gif]] 09:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'm still back on FF2 (I generally like to wait for a few rounds of bug fixes before jumping into the newer stuff). But as for the "Save image as" command, I find that to be the *only* way to go when dealing with images. I highly recommend that others contributing images follow the same method as that way the transparency already present can be preserved. 19:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well most images are taken from the game itself, for which we cannot simply save images, and have to do a screen dump then edit from there. The detailed item images on the GE database pages are a blessing, but just make sure we're treating them properly for best quality.  ;-)  Leevclarke, AKA Max Bulldog [[Image:Bulldogh.gif]] 18:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering templates for deletion
There are three templates that I suspect may be candidates for VfD, since they are very small and have limited usefulness. If you see them you will understand what I mean:
 * Template:No armour smith
 * Template:No item smith
 * Template:Normalmagic

Basically if people here agree that in principle they are valid and should be kept, then I will just leave them alone. If there is an argument for getting rid of them then I will go for a formal VfD to gauge consensus. Leevclarke, AKA Max Bulldog 05:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeh. They're pretty useless. All that could just be typed by hand. And no one's going to look for a template to say that. So delete them I think. [[Image:Kandarincrest.gif|25px]]<font face="Kristen ITC"><font color=#B22222> Chicken7 >talk>RfA 12:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I say- Delete Them. Just like Chicken said, it's easier to type those by hand. Besides, I have never seen, used, or ever heard them before. Just delete them.  19:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree VfDelete them. I'm half sorry i ever got my fingers into one of those. 00:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they're almost useless. I think you can put it up on VfD now. 01:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

-.- 02:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, didn't see your hidden comment. About that comment, I created No Armour Smith for the same reason.   Earthere 02:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've listed all three now, actually all with the same text for the reason. Sorry about that - I had intended to write each of them individually, but they all really had exactly the same reason, so I just copied and pasted. Earthere, please don't take things personally! Leevclarke, AKA Max Bulldog 04:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm good. =)

Summoning template changes
I have done some changes to templates for the pages of Summoning familiars. The template that have been changed include: Template:Infobox familiar, Template:Infobar Summon Pouch, and Template:Infobar Summon Scroll. I made an example of the usage of these templates in the Steel titan article. This template changes provide better flow to the article, and I hope I did not do any lasting damage. I also modified the article to remove repetitions of headings. If the changes are acceptable, all other familiars could follow this style/format.

I have also updated the Grand Exchange Market Watch/Summoning to include all pouches, scrolls, and tertiary components. I think the list of items is complete. Any other additions?

04:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As long as the rest of the articles follow the same format, it looks much better in my opinion. 16:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Page Move Vandal
I don't know whether to talk about it here or on the MediaWiki Bugzilla. I just got through dealing with a page move vandal... and it has been some time since that was a major problem (at least with me using admin tools). Generally speaking, there is a restriction on new users and IP users to being able to use the page move tool. I don't know the exact stats, but something like 15 days of using the account and 50 edits or so. At least that was my impression. Only in this case it was his second edit and his first day of editing on the wiki.

Is this something that (for those who are "MediaWiki experts") needs to be taken up with Wikia to see if these parameters are set up correctly for this wiki, or is it something that is allowing these users to slip through due to the single-user login for all Wikia projects?

Page move vandals can really wreck a project, and it can be a pain to clean up the damage they leave behind. I know it is possible to restrict page move to an administrator-only function, but I'd rather not see this tool be stripped from ordinary users who generally edit in good faith. The reason for restricting it to more "veteran users" via edit count is that most vandals create a new account (if they even bother going that far) and can't resist the temptation of engaging in vandalism right away... therefore get caught before they get the more advanced tools like moving pages. --Robert Horning 17:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * encyclopediadramatica.com/Grawp
 * Wikipedia move vandal case
 * My point is that Wikipedia is planning on reporting the page move vandal's abuse to his isp.
 * There is a page move restriction for users who are not administrators; it only comes in when you're moving more than 10 pages though or something. Hiwhispees only moved two pages, so it didn't kick in.--Richard 18:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Dang.... I thought it was a little more restricted than that, precisely because of messes like this. I guess some "new users" were complaining a bit loudly.  I have seen some really ugly messes that have come from page moves from some highly dedicated vandals that took me more than an hour to clean up or longer in the past.  This last incident was trivial though, even though he wasn't stopped immediately and moved the page twice.  This is more about future problems than dealing with this particular incident, and some concern in relationship to some really awful cases I've dealt with in the past.  --Robert Horning 22:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Dang.... I thought it was a little more restricted than that, precisely because of messes like this. I guess some "new users" were complaining a bit loudly.  I have seen some really ugly messes that have come from page moves from some highly dedicated vandals that took me more than an hour to clean up or longer in the past.  This last incident was trivial though, even though he wasn't stopped immediately and moved the page twice.  This is more about future problems than dealing with this particular incident, and some concern in relationship to some really awful cases I've dealt with in the past.  --Robert Horning 22:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * from my understanding of mediawiki, this would need to be taken up with wikia. Instead of going all the way and making the move page function an admin only tool, what about a new rank in between the normal user and rollbacker? or we could even tie the two together.  Anyway if your looking for a good explanation on how user rights work and how to change them here is a good explanation Reddo 06:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I should be able to change the settings, I've not done it before, but I'll just need to know what you want (and get someone to show me the right settings ;) There is also Special:Protectsite (admin only) which allows you to temporarily change move rights for the wiki.  For example, you could set them to admin-only for an hour, while there is an attack on.  You can also change rights for other actions, including editing.  The idea is to give short term protection, so hopefully it will help a lot in this situation.  Or let me know about changing settings -- sannse (talk) 09:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Change
Hi guys. Kyle changed the wiki's so that it no longer says "RuneScape". It now displays "RuneScape Wiki". I should have caught all the instances of the magic word, but if you still see a page that says " Wiki", you can change that by removing the and replacing it with "RuneScape" so that it just says "RuneScape Wiki" or replacing all the words with.

The project namespace is still RuneScape: though it can also be changed to RuneScape Wiki: if everyone wants. We'll just have to make sure the links pointing to the old namespace are taken care of.--Richard 18:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait. Why is this page called Runescape:Yew grove? KyleH did something wrong, I think. And I also think we should stay with RuneScape:. 19:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've told Kyle and he's fixed it. Thanks for pointing this out C Teng, I never noticed it myself.--Richard 21:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I noticed the problem when loading the exchange template into a new page, I don't know what the source page's name is though. 03:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA policy?
See this

I've just made a new RfA policy. Tell me what you think about it.-- 16:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks good enough to be a policy. 16:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If it's going to be that short, why not just put it on the RFA page? Skill 18:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree it seems too short and just doesn't have the same feel of a policy. We should simply make a new RFA section to list this under describing the length of an RFA, and who is able to vote. 19:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree that there is a need for a separate policy. Determining if somebody can become an administrator is a part of a more general community consensus concept/policy.


 * I also believe that the best "policies", "laws" or similar kinds of regulations are best developed when trying to address a specific problem or situation. What kinds of issues are there that are not properly addressed on RS:RfA?  And then more specific, why are "requirements" on the RfA page not fully detailed in this "policy"?  It seems redundant to have policies about what should and shouldn't go into an RfA in two different places... making what has become an already complicated process even more complicated and Byzantine. --Robert Horning 14:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've expaned it a little. Thanks, 15:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that the content should be added to RuneScape:Guide to requests for adminship and RuneScape:Requests for adminship. The proposed standards should be discussed here. I don't think that three separate pages are necessary to describe one community process. The main RFA page can include policies and the list of current RFAs (like it already does) while the guide to requests for adminship can include advice to nominators, nominees, and RFA contributors about how to get the most out of an RFA. Dtm142 22:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Maintop Changes
I was wondering if we should take out the links to the RS wikis in other languages and the links to the related wikis. The interwikis on the Main Page let people visit the wikis in other languages so there's really no need to link to them in that template. The related wikis (and languages) are also already in MediaWiki:Statistics-footer so I was wondering if they could altogether be removed so as to make the box look neater. What do you guys think?--Richard 18:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be kept. I actually think the maintop looks better with the language links. 20:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Userboxes policy
I think we need a policy on userboxes, specifically on whether non-RS userboxes are allowed, and where they should be listed. My vote would go for a new page listing such "off-topic" userboxes. See Template:User trusts OJ, Template:User doubts OJ, and Template:User likes tea for pertinent examples.

We also need to decide whether images in off-topic userboxes should count as personal images (the policy on that is being debated) or whether they should be treated as images for the wiki. My vote would be to have them as images on the wiki, so that anyone can update or modify them as the need arises. Leevclarke, AKA Max Bulldog 01:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see why the OJ ones were removed, but I want to know why there can't be a userbox for the Fletching Guild. As for the images, I agree with you. 01:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA frenzy?
I've noticed that there are at least 7 live RfA's. Can we do something about it, like make it policy to have 5 RfA's at a time?-- 18:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no point in restricting the number of people who create RFAs at one time. Limiting the number of RFAs will just create a backlog of RFAs that the bureaucrats must eventually close.  It's better to get them all over with at once. Dtm142 22:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Umm, why? If you don't think someone is ready to have adminship, just oppose and give a good reason. It's not that hard. [[Image:Bloodbarrage.png|15px]] Butterman62 (talk) [[Image:Icebarrage.png|15px]] 12:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah and if there really are a lot of good editors out there ready to use sysop tools to help the wiki, why turn them down? 15:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Restricting the number of RFAs or restricting the number of sysops who can properly use the tools will only punish the wiki with vandals. Dtm142 19:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with keeping a lot of RfAs up at one time. What would happen if five new users that would probably not get adminship because of their low editcount requested adminship before a very experienced user did? 20:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"User profile" feature
Note:I've changed my mind about the idea due to good points brought up by Christine

I've been doing a little research and I think we should obtain one of Wikia's new features. Each user has a profile (different from a userpage) that they can edit with information about themselves, an avatar/pic, etc. They can also send gifts to each other (maybe to thank someone, which will then show how respected that person is in the community), add other users as friends and a lot of other things. Even though it may just seem like a newer version of userpages, I am all for moving towards the future and I think this would benefit wiki growth and community building. Administrators can also add extra bits that will be more RS related (like what guilds the user is in, clans, fav area, etc.). There is more info here and the profiles is currently being used on this wiki among others. If we wish to enable this feature on this wiki we need to send a request through this. What are other peoples opinions? 15:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds cool but we can't upload images of our characters on the wiki, it would have to be offsite (like on an image hosting site). 16:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it sounds cool too. We should totally do this. [[image:Prayer.gif |25px]] Sir Lenehan [[image:smite.PNG|25px]] 16:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreeing.
 * Cool. =]
 * Agree only if we can sort something out with the image policy. People /are/ going to upload their images if this is implemented, so we need to decide if that's okay or not.
 * This would be rather enjoyable =p


 * If we can work out a way to block/stop people from uploading images, we could have our own ones that we have already uploaded that users can choose from. Or give them the option to use one from a image-hosting site. I'll look into it if we can do that. Aand as Earth said above, their is also "User levels" which I forgot to mention, which could show how much time and effort someone puts into the wiki without looking at Editcount and contribs. Cheers, 00:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I cannot stand user profiles. Wikia is not facebook, wikia is not myspace, wikia is not AIM. If you want a profile, make an account there. Christine 01:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, no user levels. If you were to see the flame wars and all out chaos that happened on Halopedia, you would see this is terrible. People, quite honestly, make shit edits just to get more points and raise their level. There is absolutely no good in it and is just a way for people to make crappy edits and do another phrase I could insert here that's extremely crude. Christine 01:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't expect anyone who doesn't edit Halopedia to understand this. But it sucks. There have been numerous blogs written about how bad the new features are (ironically). I would like you all to read this by Darth tom at the least.

''Halopedia, at the moment, is laughed at by the general wiki community. No point beating around the bush. ‘HaloSpace’, ‘MyPedia’ and ‘Socialpedia’ are names widely used on the IRC channels of other wikis to refer to Halopedia, referring to the element of social networking that surrounds and fills Halopedia, one that not many try to deny [...] Very soon, we received an influx of new users. Good, you may say? Not so. Unfortunately, these users turned out to be immature, young users, interested only in these ‘new features’, and in using Halopedia as a social networking site to occasionally chat about stuff vaguely related to Halo. That is not what wikis are for. Wikis are for collaborating with passionate users who share a common interest in a particular topic with yourself, where you can work in collaboration with a variety of new users to try and amass a database of information about a particular subject [...] Userpages, firstly; why do we need such ‘social userpages’? Why do we need two userpages? Userpages aren’t even important to the wiki, and take a very secondary approach, and a ‘social profile’ is complete and utter social networking [...] Messages? Useless. This isn’t, I reiterate again, a social networking, internet messaging site, and talk pages are all that should be used, in Wikia style. We are a wiki, not a social networking site [...] And to an utterly terrible idea; the point system. No more than an excuse to hold silly, useless and pointless ranks amongst each other, the system is open to complete abuse and is completely un-wiki. Open to point whoring and obsession with only gaining points, that’s the main reason why some people edit this wiki, and that’s wrong. A wiki should be edited for the joy of editing, for the joy of seeing an improvement in a topic you’re passionate about, not for silly and useless points.'' Christine 01:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I want to link you guys to some blogs showing the issues. For those who really care, take a look. Halopedia did the point structure. People were point whores, only doing the tiniest of edits to get points. The edits got so insane, that people ended up being temporarily blocked because in reality, this editing was destroying the wiki. So they redid the point system, and you should see the problems it caused. And the same will happen here. People got so pissed, they actually suggested adding admins as foes, not friends. And that admin makes a great point, points do nothing for you. Those who played games only or made sock puppets to boost points caused the most disruption. He left because he lost a lot of points (read the comments). A whole lot more blogs than this were made because everyone was complaining about losing points (most were in all caps, they were deleted as spam). [http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Blog:For_Those_of_Objection. It seems only one came around to understand that points don't matter.] Dan, a staffer warns that "making a lot of junk edits is gong to get you banned, and quickly. So don't." The issues and ways of "point whoring" are outlined here under "Edits and Spam." And after all that, people hate it. Halopedia does have a large community, larger than ours, but a majority of users, especially veteran users, have signed that page. If the veteran users care about this wiki, they'll see how the changes have nearly destroyed Halopedia. If you care about the wiki, you won't want these changes. At least the user levels. They cause no good. User levels are like our "top contributors" that are shown in the Monaco sidebar, levels aren't needed. Top contributors are shown on WkiStats. There's really no need for levels and points, and that feature at least is what I am most adamant about. I have seen what it has done to another wiki. I don't want that happening to RuneScape. Christine 02:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing my support, because I don’t want the wiki to become utter trash again, like it was in 2006 through 2007. I want to reject the idea that it’s bad, but overwhelming examples of the garbage that’s on HaloPedia have convinced me. And I don’t even LIKE HaloPedia!
 * Yeah, points aren't such a good idea.
 * But for god's sake, is Halopedia having a turf war? No, but we certainly are.  Frankly, I'm sick of it.  The "lol earth is idiot" and "omg christines crazy" garbage really needs to stop.  In the end I think profiles will help spread the love, reuniting us a bit, something rsw desperately needs, if you know what I mean.  ffs, add in the gifts and blogs.  in any other circumstance I wouldn't want an gifts feature, as normal messages would suffice, but we could really use it; the blogs would give a good opportunity to for users to vent and give their analysis of RSW, the former reducing wikistress and the latter being helping for us in the long run.
 * The blogs on Halopedia are mostly spam, and this certainly wasn't the place to bring up personal issues. Duh. No one said anything about a "turf war" and it was pretty dumb to bring it up here, you know it'd just cause more issues. Christine 02:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For god's sake Christine, a dedicated user just quit the Wiki because of it.
 * But anyway, my point is that these things will help this Wiki become a friendlier place. I'm more than willing to deal with insipidity so long as editors stop quitting right and left.
 * Who? Christine 03:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how much gifts will actually do in terms of fighting... but for the blogs, why not just write an essay in project or user space? It'll probably have more visibility than an overrun blog namespace anyway. Skill 04:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and to clarify about avatars guys, they're uploaded with a special page, and I think they're kept separate from normal wiki images, so I don't think they'd be a problem (but I'm not sure, so I'll ask an admin from their wiki next time I talk to one). Christine 02:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Earthere, the profiles could be really cool. And on Halopedia, I think there's some Special:UploadAvatar, like Christine said, and even if they are kept in the image namespace, I see nothing wrong with categorizing them into something like "Category:Avatars." —C Teng (talk • contribs) forgot to sign this comment.
 * The wiki is for editing. It is about Runescape.  It is not a social network.  Yes we all get together for events and such.  We also chat in game and in IRC, but to turn this into a myspace is stupid.  Also, the points thing is like an edit count.  People need to understand when they hit a certain edit count they shouldn't be made an admin..nor have any "rank" over another user.  I have a ton of edits (most vandals and small) and have no reason to become a an admin, nor do I want to be "ranked" higher than anyone.  Making a ranking system will only spread people apart...and cause a bunch of arguing [[Image:Drunk Dragon.PNG|Drunk dragon]]Cheers! Atlandy 03:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I must say I agree with Christine. Not only given the evidence, but the fact that we know the community will use it to chat rather than to improve community relations. Look at what happened with the forums after we updated it. It has nothing to do with the wiki anymore. Just as people come for the forums only, people will come to talk to each other rather than edit. If you feel an instatiable desire to tell people about yourself, make a template or something; this wiki is meant to be a fountain of knowledge, not a social network. 03:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding ranks, IMO, would be equivalent to formalizing all the edit counting that's been going on: we've already seen from Halopedia that people will edit solely to obtain a higher rank, and that's a very bad thing. It's essentially equivalent to the number of mainspace edits, anyways, which is already visible on the wikistats (and already causes a few problems). As for profiles, gifts, and blogs, we should stay away from social networking features and focus more on improving this wiki as an RS resource. We already have the forums for socializing, after all; why do we need to add these sorts of features to the wiki? Skill 04:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with Christine now and am not so supportive myself of the idea. I was just thinking that there is so much arguements and hate on the wiki that this could be a way to improve friendships and stop all the, well, comments we don't need. But, as Halopedia as an example, this doesn't seem like such a good idea anymore. But I think we should still be looking for ways to improve. 09:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Not that I want to get too involved in the decisions your Wiki has to make, i'd like to voice a few points that may be helpful. The new features brought a great increase in users to Halopedia, and some of these users have become dedicated users to the site. However, the majority of the users have joined only to use the new features. The blog system provides a great opportunity of faster discussion amongst the wiki. We do have to deal with many blogs that stray miles off-topic, and usually are just a waste of space and time. Like Christine has already mentioned, the new features rapidly turn a Wiki into a social site rather than an encyclopedia. Also, the newer messaging system/gifts system/friends system are incredibly annoying. Everyone tries to gain as many friends as possible, so you'd have to expect a constant flow of friend requests and gifts. This also means you'll be spammed by emails saying "????? has added you as a friend on Halopedia!". If you ever try removing a gift or friend, you can't mass remove, you have to remove them one by one, and that takes time. I've also never seen so much arguing at Halopedia as I have since the new features. Ok, I hope this has helped. If anyone wants to ask me anything about it i'm in #rswiki more or less every day. 82.5.192.43 10:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC) (HaloDude)

I still don't see any reason why not to have user profiles for getting information about a user. I agree the ranking system would cause problems, so I don't think this wiki should have a ranking system. Sir Lenehan  10:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that a User's information can be placed on an ordinary User page wothout the new features being used on the Wiki. 82.5.192.43 10:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC) (HaloDude)
 * Withdrawing my support, now that I think of it Christine is right. 15:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just want to comment that HaloDude is an admin on Halopedia (one of like, only 7 or something), so I'd trust his judgment. He came and commented before I even asked him to D: Christine 16:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I oppose. =/
 * Not so sure about the quizzes. I'll do some thinking over that feature.


 * Lol I asked him too :D And about quizzes. I might oppose them too because I remember when I was taking Halopedia's quizzes (I only got like 8% right because I've never played) there were so many duplicates and questions that didn't make sense. And people just came to write quizzes I heard. Anyway, 04:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In quick theory, it is a very good idea. But when you add humans to the equation, it gets messed up. Halopedia is a very good example of how it backfires. The admins there are constantly dealing with spam (though since we have 5x as many sysops, we'd have it much easier). 02:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Oversight
Any chance Wikia could grant Oversight to one or two of our 'crats? In the past I've noticed some... um... links to keyloggers, account passwords, pornography etc. If these are just added in spam articles, administrators can just delete them. That's fine. But if those sorts of edits are made to, say, Quests, they really need to be overseen.
 * Only Wikia Staff may use the tool. See wikia:Forum:New_Features%2C_27_Feb_2007. Swordmagic24 19:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Should this link have been to Wikipedia:Revision hiding?  09:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, oversight should be used in an even stricter sense then you're suggesting. IMO, if a user goes into the revision history and looks at a vandal's revision (which are obvious by looking at which revisions have been reverted or undone), they should be prepared for anything.  The only thing of the three that you mentioned that I think should be hidden would be account passwords.  Oversight is basically used to hide information of which the subject would want to be private: personal address, passwords, etc.  Pornography and keyloggers can be found with a Google search, so there's really no point in hiding them here.
 * I just wanted to add that even if such edits were made to a major article like Quests, a sysop could delete the article, then leave inappropriate revisions unchecked while restoring the page. 03:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Minimap icons in top-left
Just need abit of a consensus on this. Check Hairdresser for an example. Should we go through and maybe do this for all the NPC's? Daedryon 01:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any harm in it, but I also think it is pretty hard to notice, way up there in the top corner. Do you think maybe it would be better to include the minimap icon in the "Sells items?" field of the NPC template?  That would at least draw attention to the icon, and in a place people would naturally be looking.   13:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I recognize that wouldn't really work for Hairdresser. Maybe put it in the template, before the name of the NPC at the top?

Should inactive bots ever lose their flags?
I noticed that User:Wowbot has the bot flag and has never even used it, User:Richardbot hasn't edited for about 14 months, and User:Nq2h Bot is even tagged as inactive now. Should inactive bots keep their bot flag or should the bot flag be removed? Swordmagic24 02:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If they became active, they would just need to be botted again. Besides, they're still bots even if they aren't active. 05:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine for the last 2, but the first bot has never made a single bot edit. O_o Swordmagic24 16:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The ads
A period of time ago the advertisments were moved downwards from the right top. I am not fully opposing the arrangement since I know there must be something in it.

But the reason why I'm speaking here is that those ads are really barricading the original design (i.e. adding illustrations) of an article. I just hope that someone more powerful (meaning Wikia-power) than me could send those ads back. =[ 05:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I absolutely hate the new layout. Thank god they didn't get rid of monobook. :) 08:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Animated Images and the characters in them
Ok, this has been bugging me for abit. I've noticed in nearly all our animated pictures, they either contain Tarikochi, or our newest editor, Tebuddy. Now, I've been thinking, shouldn't we start remaking all the animated images, but instead of a certain costume based on who's making it, we should just use the default look. Bald head, beige shirt, green pants.

This way, we don't have another Tarikochi-RFA-disaster where we just sysop someone based on their ability to make animated GIFs, instead of their ability to be a sysop. I'd like to get a mass community census on this because I'm tired of going into articles and seeing an animated GIF containing a guy in a miniskirt and a lava cape, or some guy in a bomber cap and gnome goggles. It's just a popularity contest now. Daedryon 06:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I for one absolutely hate the default look. I think a variety of costumes is best, with whoever uploads a particular pic first pretty much having it the way they want. Replacing pics because we don't like the costume could and most likely would lead to a HUGE edit war. Theres enough insanity already.--Degenret01 07:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree on some points you made, mainly the insanity. Allow me to explain;

Being a new user, and only lurking around the wiki since about 2 weeks ago, when I first announced my debut, I've witnessed alot of the insanity. And I'm not trying to sound biased against Tebuddy or Tarikochi, but it seems that Tari only got a successful RFA in such a short time, simply because she could make animated GIFs (which, I will be honest, these days, any 3 year old with Photoshop can do). I also agree that the default look is quite horrid, and maybe settling on a wikia-wide default outfit would work. Maybe something everyone has access to, like maybe a full set of Black Armour, or something. 07:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The character in the animation should look as the animation taker wants them to look. It's their animation, not our's. 07:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Chiafriend and Degenret as there should be variety in the animations. No offense to Tarikochi, but her animations seem to be everywhere, and after a while the animations gets boring and stale. I would like to see more hair colours, different skin tones, various armours, etc.  I don't want to create controversy, but Tarikochi's images are female, this would be seem RuneScape Wiki supports feminism and only encourages female animations.  What about the males?  Male characters are not represented in animations.  It's only Tarikochi, Tarikochi and more Tarikochi. =O   08:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Too bad I am not a 3 yr old with Photoshop, my digging for clue pics could've been animations otherwise. lol --Degenret01 08:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)