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:
 * Promoting or beginning a project. Use RuneScape:WikiGuild
 * Discussion that is not related to the wiki but rather to the game itself. Use the forums.
 * For anything that does not have a wide impact, use RuneScape:Requests for comment.

__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)


 * Moving the dialogue for the quests makes sense. Those pages are always long. The pages for the familiars are usually very short, I really think those are fine as is.

Dialogue is completely unhelpful to everyone, who cares what a summoned creature whines about? It's just a waste of spaceJimInRS 04:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * More than one user has said here that they are in favor of keeping the dialogues,. And it's just text, and it's at the bottom of the page, and usually pretty short. So space isn't a big enough issue to justify its removal. I think enough people have responded here to invalidate your claim that it's unhelpful to everyone, so that doesn't seem to leave any good reason to get rid of it. It's like the examine text. Would you say that's unhelpful to everyone? Surely few people would benefit from being able to look up the examine text of an object, but we include it anyway, and nobody seems to complain. Bottom line is that the dialogues are helping some people, and they aren't hurting anyone, so we should keep them. troacctid 04:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could have an option to hide/unhide the dialogue on each page, so for those who want it, they can still read it and for those who don't want to see it, they wouldn't.JimInRS 04:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Updated Logos and Favourite Icon
'''Consensus has been reached upon updating just the two wiki logos. The favicon discussion will still be up for comment'''

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 section

 * Update - As I'm posting this again I'm going to vote for updating these images. 04:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay I'm going to have to agree with people below regarding the favicon. It wasn't intended as fan art but i can't argue with the definition (except that it was intended directly as fan art of the wiki and not directly for roonscape).  20:36, 20 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)
 * Update main page logo but keep fave icon - The Fave icon sucks. It looks worse than the current favicon. In fact, a fire rune fused w/a law rune is soooooooo ugly. 21:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Update the logos but keep the favicon, I agree with Amethyst... except for the ugly wording. Oddlyoko talk 23:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I reckon get the herblore and the mage symbols and put the mage hat ontop of the herby symbol and call it 'mage potion'. I think that would make a great Favicon. I would make one but i'm on the laptop. I'll make one tomorrow and show you. R0KK1 =] ((20:40 20/8))
 * Update both Favicon and Logos. 15:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Update The logos, but not the favicon. I don't really think the new one looks that good (no offense) and I really don't think that we should replace the favicon with fanart (especially since we delete fanart here(mixed signals anyone)) this may confuse new users. 15:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Update both. Am I like the only one who liked the proposed favicon? O_O 15:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Update - I recommend that both are updated. But might I suggest the new Omni-talisman as the Favicon? Ok, so it reminds me of an insect thingy...but it is RS icon and not fan art.--Kashibak 19:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Oddlyoko, Amethyst is Derilith. =Þ 21:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't care about the logo, but I would prefer it if we keep the current favicon. The Fire rune in all of my tabs on this site seems iconic somewhat. 07:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Update the logo. I would like to have the one favicon below this message that is the RuneScape "R". Also, will the new logo be transparent? 22:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Idea how about this one? [[Image:RSW_logo_idea.jpg|50px]] Btzkillerv 15:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Btz, your logo is too large (minimum 16 x 16 pixels), and the logo is completely 'violating copyright laws, which close down RSW, and eventually close down Wikia themselves. —Derilith (talk • contribs) forgot to sign this comment.
 * Update logos. But even though I like the favicon, I agree with Azliq far above me. I canrt notice what it is. Maybe better if we stick to one rune alone (I dont mind which one). Cheers, 13:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Idea How about for the favorites icon, we create sort of a 'smily face rune'? it would be a basic blank pure essense image, with a smily face inside it :D. Gondor2222, 30 august 2008
 * No That is just too silly! [[Image:ExplorerRing3.png]]Btzkillerv has entered the building! [[Image:Cape_blue.png]] 17:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Consensus - for just the wiki logos because of all support and no oppose. But favicon consensus still needs to be reached. 23:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Compressed versions

 * The original suggested logo was 18.5kb. This is 8kb.  The only noticable difference is the shortened padding and less visible shadow. The 10kb difference could mean something when hundreds of people are visiting this site each day.  13:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a reason that the original versions were not compressed to maximum and that was to allow for the 8-bit alpha layer, which, as you already noticed, provided a better shadowing effect. The logos compress smaller in indexed PNG format than what is afforded from GIF format. (see Image:Suggested_new_Wiki_logo-low_shadow_quality.png|here and Image:Suggested_new_Wiki_logo-wide-low_shadow_quality.png|here) 14:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah ok. 23:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

New favicon
I created an alternative icon. 08:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just an R. Simple and effective. [[Image:Example favicon R.png]]
 * Zoomed to 40 pixels. [[Image:Example favicon R.png|40px]]

Who keeps Deletin' the pic in my signature!?!?!? 09:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the 'R' the best. 09:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey everyone, just a quick note that the favicons need to be 16 by 16 pixels in size, like this one: which is one I created from the current logo. 22:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The RuneScape "R" is 16-by-16 pixels in size. 02:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I like RW the best. Here's my order (from most fave to least fave).
 * 1) [[Image:RW logo.png]]RW logo - Votes: 4
 * 2) [[Image:Example favicon R.png]]RuneScape "R"1 - Votes: 3
 * 3) [[Image:Favicon.png]]Fire rune - Votes: 0
 * 4) [[Image:Example Favicon.png]]Fire-Law Rune - Votes: 0
 * 5) [[Image:Law rune favicon.png]]Law rune - Votes: 1
 * 6) [[Image:D&D icon.png]]Distractions and Diversions - Votes: 1

1Needs to be recreated
 * I don't see the point of recreating this icon. See "Fair use" section below. 02:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

00:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't like how the logos and such are mage-oriented. Maybe a non-combat rune, like a law, would be best. 00:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I would vote for the RW favicon since it is directly from the logo and as such would clearly stand out. To me the current fire rune is simply too dark in contrast to related icons as seen here: At the least I'd suggest lightening it namely it's background. 09:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment -- I'm really not trying to be an ass or anything, but the "R" is copyrighted by Jagex. While that in its own doesn't really matter, using a section of the RuneScape logo as our own favicon definitely does not constitute Fair Use. It implies affiliation with Jagex, and that's not good at all. We could write a disclaimer or something saying that we aren't jagex, but it'd kind of kill the whole point of a favicon. The favicon imho should represent us as a Wiki (again IMHO). 05:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See "Fair use" section below. 02:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What if we changed the shape of the R a bit? I don;t know any legal stuff but I think if our R doesn't look like their special R, it's ok.--Degenret01 13:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's perfect. =) 04:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a law rune would work well. Kind of symbolic of RSW in a way. 05:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The RW works for me.--Degenret01 06:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think that the "RW" is goodlooking, but still, its deprived from the RuneScape "R" which is still "(c) Jagex under 'Jagex Limited' from 1999-2008". So, like Earthere, I don't really think that the RW will work, but I still support "RW".


 * For those favouring a law rune here's a cleanly rendered version [[Image:Law_rune_favicon.png]] and it's .ico version. (Has anyone else noticed that the detailed law rune image that we have appears to be an older and darker version than what is shown in the official RS GE DB?) 22:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I prefer the RW logo. It is the best imo - 01:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Another favicon: DnD icon added. 02:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair use
Taken from Fair use article in Wikipedia.

Additional points:
 * All icons (regardless whether it is taken from the website, or the game itself) are technically copyright of Jagex. The use of "Fire rune" icon is the same as using the "R" or "RW" icons.
 * "The third factor assesses the quantity or percentage of the original copyrighted work that has been imported into the new work. In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, ... the more likely that the sample will be considered fair use." This may sound counter-intuitive, but the less it looks like the original, the more likely it is considered to be fair use.
 * "Although normally making a 'full' replication of a copyrighted work may appear to violate copyright, ... it was found to be reasonable and necessary in light of the intended use." Since the intended use of the favicon is to promote RSWiki, and that RSWiki is a non-commercial site, I do not think that the use of images/icons violate any copyright laws and thus falls under "Fair use".
 * By using these icons, it doesn't imply that we're affliated with Jagex, and we have clearly stated THAT in the copyright notice at the footer of the Main Page: "RuneScape is copyright 1999 to 2008 Jagex Ltd. The RuneScape Wiki is in no way affiliated with Jagex."
 * A simple way to state that the Favicon is copyright image is to put within the summary page of [[Image:Favicon.ico]].
 * The Favicon can EASILY imply we are affiliated with Jagex. It looks like something Jagex would use (first letter of their most popular game), as it would "go really well" with the RuneScape official site, and most anons aren't going to notice the fair use info either.
 * I appreciate the effort, but the fair use rationale still isn't sufficient. 04:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk/user pages for vandals
I've noticed some very well meaning people who have recently been putting up warning notices on talk pages of vandals, and in particular for anonymous "ip user" vandals. I completely understand that sometimes people do make mistakes and deserve a second chance, but in this case I want to focus on users who exclusively vandalize the wiki or set up incredibly offensive user names meant to incite flamewars or simply piss off administrators.

Simply put, I believe that attempts to reason with trolls simply is feeding their behavior. Or more to the point, what is the likelihood that one of these blatant vandals even read the warning message? More often than not, they are already well versed in the basic mechanics of wiki editing... indeed a great many of them get into cute games to fight against specific administrators and are pushing for a fight. Some are previous users that have been banned from this wiki for some reason or another.

What I'm proposing is a general policy to delete (aka a "speedy delete") all user pages and talk pages of users that have made zero contributions to this wiki and are being used exclusively for the purpose of vandalism. In other words, treat these users as if they never existed in the first place. They deserve no recognition, and even the distinction of being a "banned user" is giving them too much notoriety.

Warning messages do have a place, but I believe they are much more effective if they are place on pages of what are obviously new users who have made a few mistakes and have other edits to show they have made some valid contributions somehow. I am not asking that users of this nature be denied the ability to edit their talk pages or to be punished more severely.

I can understand a few minor exceptions when a banned user page/talk page is repeatedly hit with offensive content for some reason, but I believe that to be a major exception rather than typical behavior even among trolls. This exception is that a minor note ("This is a banned user") can be posted and the page protected from all but admin edits. Use common sense here, but I don't believe that these sort of vandals are unaware of what they are doing. Unfortunately, a great many of the current set of users who have been banned (see Special:Log/block) have talk pages, and it certainly seems unlikely that they will be monitored in the future even if the user tries to respond there. --Robert Horning 16:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That is a good idea. I don't mind us having a policy about that. Are you also suggesting deleting IP talk pages, like ones with the "No Vandal" temp or a "Test" temp? I wouldn't mind deleting those too. -- 18:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to swear in this reply, so anyone who dislikes foul language should probably just skip past the example I give here.
 * I totally support this idea. Trolls are ridiculously stubborn, let alone forgiving, and their flames usually take a while to smolder away to nothing. In fact, I have a VERY good example. of what trolling does to people, should some of you not understand their idiocy.
 * This site, which appears to have a few users from the wiki appears to be preparing for a flame war with these bastards, who actually worship Tehnoobshow. Yes. That's right. Tehnoobshow really DOES have no feelings. And why would I say this about the godlike YouTubing RuneScape moviemaker? Well, personally, I think he's waaaaay overrated, but that's not the point. From what I see, Teh is trying to just harrass people who dislike him by spamming any sites they go to. For example, Danger Pks U, one of Chia's friends (not sure if he has a wiki account) has had his YouTube spammed by Teh and his subscribers. Which of the many spammers/flamers happens to be Teh is a complete mystery, but both sites have suffered. From what I can see, Ubnub.com started this whole problem, and a few dedicated users from that site were spamming Kiotomi.com's shoutbox. Chia alerted me of the problem on IRC, so I went to check it out (even though there was practically nothing I could do). The THREE users there flamed me relentlessly, believing that I had spammed that fucking Ubnub. When I provided proof that I hadn't, they *miraculously* accepted it, but kept flaming me, thinking that I just wanted to leech off of their "diety's" YouTube popularity! After 20 minutes of attempting to trigger their brains into acting reasonably, I gave up, just as one of the fuckers was about to launch a VERY racist commnent (I saw it when I came back later and they were gone...they called me an Aisan, which 1. I'm not, and 2. is racist).
 * My main point is that if we fuel the troll's will to flame, like I was inadvertantly doing, we'll lose in the end. So, without further ado, I support this idea.
 * I mostly agree with this proposal. While I often like to give people the benefit of the doubt and offer them a chance to redeem themselves, I often go straight from rollback to CVU, then the warning. Often times, a week or so later, I find the vandal back being stupid again, with a tag with my sig on their page from the last time I reverted their vandalism. It really seems to be a waste of time sometimes, but I don't think that pages that currently have them should be deleted. I personally feel that the majority of the vandals to the encyclopedia are very young and just think they can do it and get away with it, usually not checking back to see if their vandalism has been reverted. In time, they will most likely mature, and perhaps the warning on their page will cause them to stop and think: "Damn I was stupid, what was I thinking?" I hate to stereotype, but I feel it's entirely correct. By acknowledging that they were once here, and now they are not, I feel it gives the Administrators an aura of authority, and could show people that vandalism will not be tolerated. We are all here to better the encyclopedia, and to ensure it provides accurate information for everybody who needs it, and I think those who have a different mindset deserve to be labeled as they are; vandals.
 * On the other hand, I think just one warning is sufficient, and the could probably be done away with. The no vandal template lets whoever the individual is know that what they did was wrong, and they should review the rules. Warn3 is, in my opinion, and as Stinko would say "fueling the trolls". If they didn't get the hint the first time, then tough for them. Ugh, I'm getting way off track... Their talk page needs one template. No other comments, not "DON'T DO THIS AGAIN!!!!!!1!11!11one!1" or anything else. Keep calm, and let them know they screwed up.  19:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I like Ubnubs and Kiotomis...=s. 00:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I support this policy. Simply put any sort of feedback is basically giving the vandal what they want which is, in a word, attention. That type of vandal doesn't care if the attention is positive or negative, so, I feel that giving zero feedback ala the "never existed" treatment/policy is definitely the way to go. 14:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

AOTM changes
These are really a few disconnected ideas regarding the current AOTM process, so I'll list them in bullet points:


 * On the RS:AOTM page, each candidate is given its own subpage for voting at the moment. While this is a relatively minor point, I'd rather have the discussion on the page itself. It really is one big discussion in a way, and the page length wouldn't be very long if this were done. Combining the discussion would also make the page easier to maintain and organize.
 * Template:Featuredarticle should incorporate the entire lead section of the featured article, or for leads longer than about two paragraphs, significant parts of it. This draws more focus to the article itself and hopefully gets more readers interested in its content. (As was mentioned on the UOTM VFD the AOTM text is generally very short compared to the UOTM text, and I agree that this should be changed.) If the article featured doesn't have a substantial lead, it shouldn't be the AOTM!
 * This is a bit off topic, but I posted above in the section about an "article of the week" regarding a focus/collaboration article that could be chosen every week and listed on the main page. I really think this could improve the overall quality of some of our "core" articles, articles that could go on to be featured. If it looks like there's some interest in this I'll try to write up a more detailed proposal.

Any thoughts? (If anyone would like to list some ideas of their own I wouldn't mind.) Skill 06:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoa, Whoa, are you saying changing "month" to "week"? If that's the case, then no.I really don't think that would help because we don't have that many articles to show (or at least good quality ones) every week. Wikipedia can do one every day just because they have so many articles. I don't think this would work out in the long run. -- 14:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really what I was suggesting, see the comment I had written in the linked section... it's more of a "collaboration of the week". I do recognize that it would be impractical to have a weekly featured article for the moment, but that's not the idea here. Instead, we link an article from the main page in an effort to improve its quality. It really doesn't need to be too formal, it could be changed by whoever thinks a particular article could be improved, given a few guidelines that we can post on a project page. The idea is to target potential featured articles that aren't ready yet, and articles that most readers would find essential to a complete RS resource. Skill 21:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I can haz edit helps? I love this idea better than the AotW idea (which as i had suggested above, would just rotate previous AotM but would have to repeat after a half of a year. Realising that what Skill is saying is that some of the AotM morph over time with exposure to the masses, I have to concur with the idea of having mediocre articles improved upon through a CotW as being a better idea than the variations of AotW suggested thus far.
 * However, the wily nily aspect of how the CotW would be picked concerns me slightly but only in the fact that someone someday will somehow go off about their pet article being constantly neglected, so in order to circumvent such whinings I would suggest some mostly informal voting-like page (one that isn't really a voting page) that lets anyone/everyone state whatever it is that they feel should be next up for CotW.
 * Another thought - I would recommend new RS features (e.g., DnD this week) be explicitly excluded since they will already be getting plenty of attention regardless. I'm out of thoughts now. 18:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (Sorry about the late response, I've been a bit busy lately.) I'm fine with the exclusion of new features and the like. On the informal voting page, I'm thinking that we could just have a list of candidates, and if there are no complaints for a given candidate, we post it on the main page during whatever week happens to be free. Does that work to prevent any problems with the feature being used to unnecessarily direct attention to certain articles?
 * Also, does anyone have any other thoughts on this, or should I start writing up the detailed proposal? Skill 20:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that should work to mostly circumvent any foreseeable issues.
 * Just one last comment from the peanut gallery; I totally love this concept for the simple fact that it encourages casual perusers of this wiki to become an active part of it as opposed to just being passive mouse potatoes. 15:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Images and animations
One thing has been bothering me recently. I've noticed that images and animations of a single player are appearing all over the wiki at astronomical pace. It deja vu all over again, as this issue was debated in July. See the link below for the thread.
 * RuneScape:Yew Grove/Archive4

Some of the things that clearly bothers me:
 * Replacing perfectly good HD images - with the same animated version of the player
 * Overemphasis of the player in the image - especially since all the images have the same costume. (This is the reason of my deja vu.)
 * Animations are used where images would be perfectly fine - Used for item articles (i.e. players wearing a certain armour/costume.)
 * Creating new images, instead of uploading newer versions of the images. - This creates a lot of "orphaned images".
 * Using a lot of animations clearly slows down the load time. This is because animations are generally larger in terms of size, compared to its still images.  Quest articles are bogged down when there is a lot of animations.

This is what I think should be the case:
 * Replacing old images (i.e. pre-HD) with HD images (not animations).
 * Uploading the image into the same filename (i.e upload a newer version of the image), instead of creating a new one and changing the link within the article.
 * Use of animations only where it is required. (i.e. where action is involved, not when the player is displaying the Worn Equipment, Equipment stats, etc.)
 * For example, animations may be permitted for:
 * Fight sequences.
 * For use in templates.
 * Sequence of actions that explains something, and is important (i.e. casting a Magic spell, a Spinner exploding.)
 * Bad examples:
 * Non-player characters (i.e. Ticket vendor bouncing, Ringmaster bowing, etc.)
 * A player just standing at a location (i.e. in quest-related locations).
 * A player doing nothing important (i.e. juggling).
 * A player "rotating" in the Worn Equipment interface.

I'm assuming good faith here, but if this trend that I'm seeing is not stopped, I won't be amazed if all images within this wiki is replaced with animations of this person. I have nothing against this person, but I like variety and seeing this person in the same costume all over this wiki is definitely not variation, it is repetition. There are positive contributions, but clearly the negative outweighs the positive. 07:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This depends on which person you are talking about. If it the one in the Fire Cape, then we're replacing her. All of those images are pre-HD. If you're talking about one in the Bomber Gear, he's doing all the replacing. While I agree with your point I think you're being a little harsh. I'm all for banning the "rotating" images, and you don't need a .gif for a location spot (unless it's skill-related or a minigame). But NPCs should have animations, so long as they are doing something besides standing around. 22:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The one in the bowman hat is Tarikochi and the one in the bomber outfit is TEbuddy. I like what you're saying that we don't need certain gifs. like a monster just standing in a treasure room, but I don't think there needs to be a wide diversity in the characters in a gif. I think whoever wants to upload a gif. they can, and I don't care if it is the same 4 guys doing all the gifs. There is nothing wrong with repetition. -- 04:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Many of our contributors only have dial up internet, and/or older computers. If the pic does not require animation we need to leave it out. Being thoughtful of others is not a crime. And variety adds more color and life to the wiki. Since we could never get a consensus on this, just go ahead and change any pic you don't like. What the hell, its what hes doing anyhow.--Degenret01 05:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * People getting all up in arms about stupid stuff like this is what made me contribute less to this wiki. A gif image gives more detail than a still image ever can, and the nature of Runescape's graphics allow them to be easily made. Not only that, but whats with all the hate? If you even cared to glance at my user page, you will see a list of every image I have uploaded or replaced. Very few of these images are bad quality, or pointless. I find it pretty disturbing that I am being personally insulted because of a certain users opinion. Dialup users do not make up a majority of this wiki's internet traffic. Making pages more friendly to them is something we should do just as a courtesy, it should not be our priority. Even some of the more complex gifs usually don't use more than 500kb of storage space. On a residential dsl connection which the majority of internet users have, an image of that size would load instantly. There are an excess amount of gif animations, and I agree that having pointless ones like a monster standing in a treasure room are a waste of time and storage space. I'm not a mindless gif replacing zombie whose goal is to spread the revolutionary bomber uniform to everyones monitors. Capturing these images can be very difficult and time consuming, its not something as simple as taking a normal screenshot, and because of that I don't waste my time.

My biggest problem with this is that users are complaining about a useful resource that they themselves are not willing to replace, yet they feel it necessary to place limitations and guidelines on it that drive away new users interested in it, and make it harder for the people who already make the images to get them placed on the wiki. TEbuddy 05:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a good example of somewhere to replace some of Tarikochi's images would be on the Skill cape emote page. They are all in low detail mode and none of them even show the hood. I suggest recreating all the skillcape emote to a certain width specification (perhaps keeping the 200px width as they are now) in HD with anti alising and wearing relevant clothing. For example, the fishing emote would look good wearing blue or perhaps wearing pirate clothing. The woodcutting would look good with the user wearing lumberjack clothing (see below for an example I made).
 * http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/420/woodcutskillcape2er8.gif
 * By having unique looks for each skillcape it would give the page a bit more of a fresh look rather than looking so repetetive. I have the following level 99's, str, att, fish, cook, fletch, woodcutting. If noone objects i might start updating the skillcape animations of the ones I have this week. -- 14:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the Skillcape (emote) page now I added a few as an example. Will make a fletching and strength animation if people approve. Otherwise revert back to the old animations. -- 18:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice, I like it. I support the idea of having unique looks for images.  The look must suit the subject of the image (i.e. relevant clothing).  However, the animations are quite slow to load.. is that the smallest size you can manage with animations?  I'm not familiar with animations, educate me.  18:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The animations I did are smaller in file size than the old ones. The other ones were fast to load because they were cached probably. When you go to the page now they will load nice and fast. -- 18:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't read this whole thing, so go ahead and kill me if I bring up something someone already brought up, but it seems to me that one of the things you're suggesting is that users should only upload images and animations in HD? 20:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Its got nothing to do with the quality or size of the animations, just the sheer number of them. It will happen the same with too many images on one page. We do need new animations, but perhaps with that change we should do as other gaming wikis have done and use a text link to link to the animation, or a single still frame that links to the full animation. I'm on a residential dsl connection and it takes upwards of 20 seconds to load every animation fully on the page. [[Image:Gnomegoggleswithcap.png|25px]]TEbuddy 21:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ilyas, no. I never stated users should ONLY upload images and animations in HD. I stated that animations be used only where it is required. (Every single image doesn't have to be an animation.) Another thing I mentioned is: HD images should NOT be replaced with another HD image, or with an animation, unnecessarily. Basically, that's the summary of this discussion. 06:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with you about the rotating inventory image. I uploaded the one for the Lumberjack clothing because it replaced one that was already there but there isnt really a need for it to be animated and would probably be better as a static image as more colour detail is preserved. Perhaps in the future we should refrain from creating these kinds of images where a user is just holding one item.


 * I do feel though that all NEW images should be created in HD to reflect RuneScape as Jagex like to show to others. If possible the images should be taken with anti-aliasing ON.


 * As for the skillcape emote page, that will always be slow to load initially but such is the nature of the page, it's meant to showcase all the animations for the emotes. People should expect to wait a little longer for the page to load. I agree with Tebubdy about dialup users being in the minority, all the research suggests that dialup users make up a very small proportion of users on the internet these days. Quest guides however should be relatively free of animations unless neccesary so preserve fast loading times for all users.


 * HD animations should only be replaced by other HD animations if the new image is more optimised or has anti aliasing etc. People should not be replacing HD images just so they can show their own character in the image. I think this is common sense, but it is happening and should be clarified.


 * Where possible the animations should show the character in relevant attire and not have the same look in all animation. I have tried to create a nice unique look in each of the skillcape animations I have made to steer away from the samey look that Taro did that can easily get boring.-- 09:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To elaborate something i just thought of. Perhaps an animated image might look good for a full set of something such as Lumberjack clothing or Granite equipment or Bandos armour (bad example as there should not be two seperate images with/without boots) but static images should be kept for individual items like is shown on Granite body. Places innapropriate for animated images probably are Bandos boots and Magic secateurs which shows off the persons character more than the item itself. Perhaps single item images should be kept static and only full sets or outfits should be animated? -- 12:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A little dissapointed at the lack of response from people... -- 07:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol, you're right. I'm kinda new in this wiki, so I hope I'm not offending anyone, but I've noticed that people here do not seem interested in these type of things.  As quoted by Degenret (see above), "just go ahead and change any pic you don't like."  16:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to confess that I get tired of seeing the same character repeatedly throughout the wiki. Variety, as they say, is the spice of life. Additionally I have to agree that way too many images are needless animations that add virtually nothing to the image at hand. Anyone who has ever played has seen a character just standing there.
 * Would a change of costume be too much to ask? Really now?
 * These images are an utterly worthless waste of bandwidth in my opinion and I'm referring more to mine and other wiki visitors and not just of Wikia. 17:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "I do feel though that all NEW images should be created in HD to reflect RuneScape as Jagex like to show to others. If possible the images should be taken with anti-aliasing ON." - Only the very newest computers can run HD, and RuneScape is aimed at people with low end computers, so it would be wrong to make it so new images may only be uploaded in HD. 17:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with HD, however, have you tried putting transparency on an anti-aliased image? If you're proposing that we forgo transparency, then by all means, yes antialiasing should be part of the image, additionally it could look good with animated images (if the image format supported more than 255 colours at least in concerns to those many coloured images).
 * Note however that your proposal to cease using transparency should be put into a new topic. 08:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd forgotten about transparency tbh. Perhaps anti aliasing only for animations and images which do not require transparency. I disagree with needing a top computer to have AA tho because mine is over a year old and isn't that great and runs anti aliasing with no problems at all. -- 16:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A year old computer is a very new computer, and I said that you need a top computer to play HD, not to use AA. 19:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would still disagree. An optimised computer will run HD even if its many years old. My work laptop which is at least 4 years old plays hd (without aa) no problems. -- 22:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My point is RS is aimed at people with low end computers (and btw, I have a four year old computer and it can't run HD, so it has nothing to do with how old the computer is, it's just that only very new computers, with a few exceptions, can handle HD) and it would be wrong to just cut out the image uploading rights of probably one third or even one half of the wiki. 22:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It would? If one user can upload images that are of higher quality than another, then we obviously use the higher quality image. There is no need to maintain support for new non-HD images when we have many users who could take HD ones. That said, we don't need to enforce a "delete on sight" policy for new low-detail images, either—it's better to have a low-detail image than none at all. Skill 23:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Going back to the original topic, I do think animations have been somewhat overused as of late. There are some cases in which the extra bandwidth and loading time required for an animation is excessive compared to the additional information conveyed by it, and these animations should probably be replaced by still images. However, in just as many instances the animation shows the user a significantly greater perspective than a still image would, and these animations should be embraced. For this reason, it is generally a bad idea to place sweeping restrictions on animation content.

In the past, it has been suggested by some users that the lack of variety in animation characters is actually a positive rather than something to be avoided. This is almost certainly incorrect in my view. If the animations happen to depict a small number of distinct characters by coincidence and they are the highest quality available, there is no need to make arbitrary restrictions in the name of variety. On the other hand, the idea that we should deliberately attempt to make all animations similar for reasons of "consistency" is flawed. I would much rather see variety in the characters shown than the same character over and over, and it's likely that many other users share this aspect of my opinion. My two cents. Skill 23:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A non-HD image is surely better than no image at all but people should not worry about overwriting someone elses image and getting shouted at if they are replacing with a higher quality picture. -- 08:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't kill me if I say something stupid here, as I didn't really read everything above.
 * I am one of the users that appreciates Tarikochi's and TEbuddy's animations. But I am also a user who at least wishes they would mix it up a little on their outfit. Seeing Tari’s “leaf” (I KNOW it’s a bowman hat, ‘kay?) and her fire cape is getting extremely old…and fast. When Total was here under the name of Daedryon, he suggested a VERY ridiculous outfit for everyone to wear-3rd age melee armor. Not only is this re-presenting the problem at hand by forcing EVERYONE to get it, but it’s also crazy expensive armor; only the richest players would be able to buy the full set, with the dumbest actually using it in their animations, mainly because there’s really nothing specific (animation-wise) to 3rd age.
 * I saw a suggestion that claimed we should try to wear colors and outfits that “match” the animation, and if you HAVE the means to make it better, go for it. Red/orange/yellow clothing would work for the Firemaking capes emote, for example, and if you happen to have an Inferno Adze, then by all means if you think it’ll make the animation look better, try it. I don’t know what else to say, now…
 * Noone is thanking poor old Mercifull for making the new HD skillcape emotes :( lol -- 21:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Adressing the issue of non-HD images, I created a template and a category that I believe well help speed the replacement of older images (just as the transparency and JPEG templates and categories have.)  00:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * for a perfect example of useless replacement of images with animations- seethe Glitch page, under the "Invisibility Glitch" section, you will see that hapi removed a whole gallery of perfectly good images and replaced them with a single animation featuring (you guessed it) himself!!!  This really ticks me off- there was absolutely no reason for this to be done, the images were in high detail, taken from good angles, and frankly, they showed the glitch better than the animation does.  Even the Image/media policy says that "images should not be used in articles", but here it is, hapi replacing images for no reason other than to plaster his character's face on every page of the wiki!!!  whew...  20:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Does this make it *cough* illegal *cough* to upload low detail images? If it does you can expect me to break the wiki rules for the first time =P. 21:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I just think people think that high detail looks better, i see no reason to "outlaw" standard detail, but i think that people should not be replacing perfectly good images with overkill animation for no reason at all like hapi has repeatedly done! 21:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said anything about replacing images with animations, I'm just addressing the extreme hatred towards standard detail images. 21:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To me, i feel that their one in the same. people don't replace the standard detail images because they look bad, they replace them so that they have a shot at getting their characters picture on the wiki, and that's a problem, we need a way to remove that motivation so that if a picture aint broke, then there will be no need to fix it.  21:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's true, but it's a good thing to replace standard with high, just not an image with an animations when not needed. That motivation is a good thing but it's driving people to the point where they put the same character with the same outfit in half of the wiki's images, even when doing something completely unrelated to the subject. 21:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Couldn't have said it better myself! 21:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahem... Don't tar us all with the same brush please. With the exception of my pink hair not a single image or animation that I have uploaded showed off my own character in costume. Also I dont think there is a hatred of standard detail images but they should be replaced by high detail images where possible. -- 13:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think they meant Hapi, but I might be wrong. 13:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * your right az, we here talking about hapi, and I don't really mind that he looks the same in every picture, its when he removes perfectly good pictures and replaces them with his animations that I have a problem. 00:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

New Additions to the Main Page
While browsing some other sites, I figured a featured picture and a "Did you know?" section would make the main page more attractive. These would be changed monthly. 03:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What are you suggesting we put in that section? Trivia? Updates? What? -- 03:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A high quality picture showing something in RuneScape and just some info people might find interesting. Perhaps we could tie in all that scattered trivia to become something people will read in an organized section? 05:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Great idea.. I suggest using facts from the Trivia section. For example: "Did you know that if a player loses their God book, they can go back to Jossik who will have found it "washed up ashore" and get it back for free, complete with all the pages it had beforehand." (from the God books article)  05:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The featured picture should be a high resolution picture of really well done areas of the game. Sounds like a great idea. [[Image:Gnomegoggleswithcap.png|25px]]TEbuddy 02:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * On the note of new content to the Main Page, i was thinking something similar to the RS GE DB's Item of the Week would give a nice touch as small side widget or some such perhaps nestled under the CTI Today:  section. Of course it would have to be relatively brief in size say only the item's name, inventory icon image, and examine text. Considering the sheer quantity of items it could actually be an Item of the Day feature, however I think that would be too much churn for this wiki currently.  19:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Seed Documentation
I have written up some documentation for Template:Infobox Seed. Tell me what you think - please vote using Support, Oppose or Comment, and don't forget to back up your opinion with a detailed description of your suggestions or criticism. Thanks! 07:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Umm, I don't think a full-blown documentation is necessary since Seeds are not being introduced by Jagex on a frequent basis, and may not be expanded at all. As all the current seeds have complete infoboxes, I don't see the point of having the "detailed" section for the documentation.  The current documentation is adequate.  07:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - For myself, just make the changes and don't seek to get consensus on this idea. If you want to take the time and improve the documentation, it is a thankless task that can do nothing but help improve the project in the long run.  Documentation of templates or for that matter documentation of any kind is always useful for those who are new to a project like this, and getting explanations from the "veterans" who do use these things is always more helpful when you try to make changes... as will always be the case at some point down the line anyway.  --Robert Horning 13:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sitenotice?
Can we change the header to say this? I want people to join my clan for Clan Wars. The Autumn Wikifest 2008 will be on Saturday, October 4 at 9:00 pm GMT. Please see this page for more details. Sign here if you plan on coming. Sign up for fortress wars here! Sign up for Clan Wars here!

 Mast  e   rp443  22:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So you can hold your own rival wikifest? No. Dtm142 23:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No. [[Image:Gnomegoggleswithcap.png|25px]]TEbuddy 00:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not rivaling the wikifest, FYI. Its supposed to be like the fortress wars for free players. Besides, this comes when the members go have a house party. Come on, only members get to have fun? =\  Mast  e  [[Image:Summoning.gif]] rp443  02:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we change the header to say this? I want people to give me money for free.

The Autumn Wikifest 2008 will be on Saturday, October 4 at 9:00 pm GMT. Please see this page for more details. Sign here if you plan on coming. Sign up for fortress wars here! To view this page properly, give 100k to the best RuneScape player ever! If that does not work, try sending another 100k. 23:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/1418/funnypictureskittenshoeqy0.jpg 00:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture Of the Month
Do you think that rs wiki should have a Picture a month. P.s Check the Forum if you dont understand. 01:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I really don't care. It may be a possibility in the future. -- 01:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Japol1, you forgot to provide the link to the forum thread. I think you should come up with a proposal on how to implement the "Picture of the Month" feature (design layout, how the pictures are chosen, etc.)  That way, people can decide whether it is acceptable to included in the wiki.  08:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-interactive scenery
Based on the Granularity policy, non-interactive things do not deserve articles. However, I was wondering if some of them are bunched into a single article: Non-interactive scenery.

Personally, I like to Examine things in RuneScape, and read the texts. The examine texts are there to be read, and I'm sure it will be an interesting and amusing read. The examine texts can be listed under an article, or divided into several sections (similar to the Trivia article), depending on the amount of information we have.

However, I'm not sure how to proceed with this idea, as this is not a small task. 08:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There really are huge amounts of non-interactive scenery, but if you wanted to undertake such a massive project, you should start by sorting by location. troacctid 22:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You will find that many individual pieces of non-interactive scenery have the same name, despite being in very different locations. I think many users would find it difficult to maintain enthusiasm for a list documenting every little thing, and it would be an awful lot of work for a few people to take on.  Despite the granularity policy, I think there are some items of interactive scenery that are not worth documenting (for example, "Crevice" - you can only enter it or examine it), and listing the examine text for non-interactive scenery would be very trivia-y.  If it's particularly notable you might add it to Trivia or Cultural references.  Of course, I would not object if you wanted to start the list, but it would be a big task to undertake.   01:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Alrighty then. I was thinking of bunching these items based on type: Flora (for anything green), Fauna (for animals), etc.  But since it is such a "big task" and a "massive project", I won't bother with it because I won't be able to do it by myself.  I just don't have the time.  Just thought it would be a nice idea... This "project" needs contributions from many people, and is not just "for a few people to take on."  15:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As a thought along this line, it may be nice to put details of non-interactive scenery into articles about the areas where they are located.... aka cities, dungeons, guilds, etc. I'm suggesting this for two reasons:  both because some of these pieces of scenery do need to be documented (Jagex does occasionally turn these into interactive scenery or a part of a quest), and to provide a starting place that have existing articles.  As far as this being a huge addition to this wiki.... take it in small steps.  Almost any endeavor worth doing is a huge task, but it all starts with small steps.  This certainly is no different.  --Robert Horning 10:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I like Robert's idea of putting it in the location articles. And he is also right about doing it in steps. The GEMW is huge. It started with about 2 people and now look. :O I wouldn't oppose but I wouldn't really support either but you can do it if you are willing. Place it in the projects/tasks section on the community portal. 12:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism template image changes
TBH, I don't really like the current warning template images (See warn 3's image and block's image}, they look too plain. I propose to replace these images with ones which I have edited, which I will release to the public domain per approval of my proposal. Here are the proposed replacement images...

What do you think? 09:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Umm, aren't the icons a tad too big? The icons themselves are nice, especially the ones in the middle.   10:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do plan on reducing the icon's sizes when they are applied to the templates to about 30px. 10:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I like Block proposed-1 and warn proposed-2, they both look much better then the current images. 21:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the current warn, but the first block seems better. 21:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I like block proposed-2 and warn proposed-2. They do look a lot better. 23:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the proposed #1 and #2 also. Way better than the current icons. -- 00:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * i like number 2s, because the shinyness really makes them look cool, better than the dull old ones, but i prefer to keep the shield as it's more digital and looks cooler [[Image:ExplorerRing3.png]]Btzkillerv has entered the building! [[Image:Cape_blue.png]] 17:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In keeping with people's love for the shield icons, I've made a new block proposal (which I don't personally like that much but mehh...). Please remember that it's only a draft one, which I made in like... 5 minutes, I would make a better version but I can't be bothered ATM. What do you think? 06:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok I just added the final version (because I have nothing better to do right now). 06:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * i like that, nice! [[Image:ExplorerRing3.png]]Btzkillerv has entered the building! [[Image:Cape_blue.png]] 10:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Should we make a item type subcategory?
i was thinking, it would be easier to find items if they are more categorised, for example, items like swords and schimmys can be put into the blades subcategory, while spears, staffs and hastas can be put into the polearms subcategory, the same can be done for armour and shields.. you name it, but it will certainly be easier. to find them through that way Btzkillerv has entered the building! 17:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think we can add sub-categories for "Melee weapons", but not for "Armour". Currently we have these categories for armour:
 * Category:Armour
 * Category:Armour types
 * Category:Shields
 * Category:Kiteshields
 * Category:Helmets
 * etc.

And for armour weapons:
 * Category:Melee weapons

The list of possible sub-categories for Melee weapons are as follows:
 * L1: Category:Unique weapons - for all unique weapons (such as TzHaar weapons, quest-obtained weapons, etc.)
 * L1: Category:Two-handed weapons - all 2h weapons
 * L1: Category:One-handed weapons - all 1h weapons
 * L2: Category:Smash weapons - Maces, Warhammers, Mauls
 * L2: Category:Slash weapons - Blades, Battleaxes
 * L3: Category:Polearms - Halberds, Spears, Hastas
 * L3: Category:Blades - Daggers, Swords, Longswords, 2h swords, Scimitars
 * L3: Category:Battleaxes - Battleaxes, Axes, Pickaxes
 * L3: Category:Mauls - Granite maul, Barrelchest anchor, Gadderhammer, etc.

That should cover most (if not all) of the melee weapons. 07:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * i don think maces and warhammers belong to the polearms, i think they belong to the warhammer subcategory. also, daggers should be put into the larger category blades along with the category of swords. I would prefer to put the maul category as a smaller one inside the category of smash weapons. along with the warhammers and maces. then the blades can be put into the larger category of slasher weapons. along with the battleaxes subcategory. [[Image:ExplorerRing3.png]]Btzkillerv has entered the building! [[Image:Cape_blue.png]] 10:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * NOTE: Updated the list above based on the comments by Btzkillerv. 07:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be better to sub-categorise armour by combat style, i.e. melee, ranged or magic? Then divide each into body, legs, headwear, shield, etc.   13:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Hmm... but we have some categories for armour already. We should "revise" them: make some changes to the hierarchy of the armour subcategories.  The list above is partial (based on what I found in 5 minutes).  A full list of available armour categories should be compiled, if possible, before making the appropriate changes.  07:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Article count
now says ; is it just me, or did this number jump a couple thousand in a day or two? I'm thinking another namespace is now being counted in there, which seems to have happened to other wikis as well. Or maybe it's just me.--Richard 20:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not happening for me. 23:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it jumped from around 9,000 to the current . That's roughly 4,000 article.  Did it add the Exchange pages since it is a custom namespace?  01:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, wait, I see. Yeah, I see it. 01:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: The count now adds the Exchange (about 2500) and Update namepsace (about 950). Both namespaces are custom.   01:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

.OGG readers, and what to do with Adventurers' Tales
As a wiki, we stride to become a good one. We already are, but there is one thing that we could defely use. As used by Wikipedia, having the ability to play .OGGs while a reader is reading an article could make the experience on this site better.


 * Having trouble pronouncing something? An .OGG could be played to show the reader how to say it. (I would be willing to do this.)
 * If anyone was willing to do such a thing, we could have narrations of articles.
 * Plus some other stuff, which escapes my ming mind at the moment.

Someone in #Wikia a while back said that to get an .OGG player, all one would have to do is request a staff member to install it, and it should be pretty much as simple as that.

But on another note, do we need RuneScape:Adventurers' Tales anyone anymore? RSFF covers that now. If we deleted it (or whatever a verdict may turn out to be), it wouldn't really do any damage, as the actual content is in the respective users' userpages.

So yeah, discuss and stuff. 05:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I should stop trying to type stuff when I'm so tired. :")... 19:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

OGG
Support - I like the idea of having .ogg's for articles (definition). And you don't need to worry Chia, I wont let your ideas escape your "ming" (lulz). =) 06:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Support per myself. 19:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Support I'd be willing to do it with my *cough* webcam sound recorder. However, this will take up lots of space (just like animations). 19:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Adventurers' Tales
Neutral - Adventurers' Tales are fan-fiction, and I feel that they should belong in RSFF. I would like to suggest that a note is given to the authors to move their content to RSFF, and we put a note on the page to say "We have moved to RuneScape Fan Fiction, please list your stories in RSFF." 12:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep Adventurers' Tales. The RSW and the RSFF Wiki are separate. There is no need for us to remove it. 12:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We may indeed be seperate, but both are run by the same community. 19:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Support discontinuation - Per myself. Not really deleting it, but maybe removing most of the contant and replacing it with 'yadda yadda, this has been discontinued and stuff, please use the RuneScape Fan Fiction Wiki indead'. 19:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)