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
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

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)

Registration Revision (take 2)
I have noticed two VERY annoying changes brought on by some new users. I would like you all to read this (my old idea of revising this), because revising the registration process will, at the very least, make new users have a BETTER general idea of the wiki's rules

Here are the two editing flaws I'm seeing:
 * Personal images returning-even though we HAVE been receiving far fewer users who upload crappy pics of their character or whatever, we still have some slip through the veritable sieve.
 * Users believing that their talk page is theirs to control-in this month alone, I've reverted quite a few user edits where the user removed some content their talk page OR flat-out blanked it, thinking that it was theirs to delete. This is not allowed, obviously, and I'd like to have it stopped. However, seeing as how it’s been going on quite often (or at least often in my eyes), I feel that new users should at least KNOW that it isn't theirs to play with when they register.

Granted, I understand that we may not be able to do this, or this suggestion might get shot down again. I do not feel that this will cut the vandal amount down, but instead bring new users who will at least KNOW the rules and possibly become well-established. We seem to have received an influx of users who don't want to stay here; rather, they make a few edits, say a few things on community discussions, and leave. This isn’t good, and it makes us look bad by making other wikis look at us as too (insert bad quality here; there’s quite a few things that I can imagine as bad qualities that other wikis see). This obviously isn’t the case, but still, new users should feel welcome, yet at least know that they’re not welcome enough to think that these things are OK.

In a nutshell, I think that the registration should, at the very least, have it’s text edited by someone (us, Wikia), w/e) so that the main rules are CLEARLY stated…maybe a link to the Style Guide would be sufficient.

Alright, I’m open to discussion. (I probably screwed up and worded all that wrong...)


 * That sounds pretty great, but how about doing this:


 * 1) Put the rule about personal images on the front page in bold !

23:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Skin
Hi, well I've been talking to Richard and we decided we need a Runescapey skin. So, this is my ruff copy, what do you think? I'm very open to ideas and I do create images, so please, I want you opinion! If you don't like it say, what do you want me to change! Phoenix Talk 20:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Aside from the bloated screenie, it looks really nice. =)
 * Yes we do, which is what RuneScape:Theme is for...--Richard 19:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to fit the wiki a little better, I think it looks nice. =D 19:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There are number of things I'd like to point out: 02:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) The skin seems to a copy of the RuneScape website skin.  We shouldn't be copying their skin, but creating our own.
 * 2) The skill images/icons at the header is too large, and cannot be seen beyond the 5th skill image/icon. Could be reduced in size.
 * 3) The font colour for the header ("My talk", "Watchlist", "Log out", etc.) should be white.  Now, it can barely be seen.
 * 4) The titles for the items in the Sidebar ("Bookmarks", "Community", etc.) should also be white.

I apologize for the resemblance to the site, I kind of did that on purpose, but, you are right I should be more unique I will try again. Thanks for noticing the the skill image, I will edit that. I will change the color, thanks for noticing, I've got bad eyes. Thanks for your contribution. Phoenix Talk 20:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

XP needed to get in high scores
On skills pages, it mentions the XP needed to get in high scores. I think this should be removed, as the XP to get in the high scores changes all the time - probably more often than every day. We should only mention the skills needed to get in the high scores. Anyone else agree? -- 22:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I very much agree, unless we could have a bot made to update it automatically. (I don't know how, so don't ask me...) 22:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Getting a bot to update it would probably run into the same issue that a price update bot would—namely, that Jagex has forbidden repeated automated requests to their website, and every request we make has to be manual. It's probably much easier to get rid of the XP than have someone manually tell the bot to update it every day. The skill level needed to rank should serve just fine for most readers. Skill 22:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the level and not the XP. It would be outdated every 5 mins XD. 07:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This should be removed from articles....I agree Atlandy 13:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What about adding a link to the 1,000,000th rank of the respective skill on RuneScape high scores? Oh, but drat, that wouldn't work for skills where 1 million users haven't hit level 30 yet.... --nekobawt 17:32, 9 September 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)

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)

Featured article template
I've "made" some changes to the template, and the new version coding and changes are located at the talk page.

08:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Top Content
How is this determined? For example, the highest voted article according to my browser is Dark wizard (7)! Sir Revan125 21:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox item
Yes, it's time for ANOTHER idea to improve a template.

Item lending!

Is an item lendable?
 * Quest item
 * Tradable
 * Equipable
 * Lendable
 * Stackable
 * High alch
 * High alch

Is an item lendable &rarr; Yes or No.

|Lendable

So, item lending (lendable) under equipable in the template?

06:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
No way. There's only a limited number (about 150-200; I'm bad at counting things) of lendable items. See Item Lending. Changing this template will affect a lot of item pages (about 4,000 articles link to this template), and is not beneficial. Most of them (about 95%) will say "No", while only a handful of item articles (5%) with a "Yes". However, I have a suggestion: why don't you add a line is each of Lendable items to say that it is? Something like:

This item can be borrowed from (or lent to) other players. For more information, see Item Lending. 07:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That would be better yes. 14:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Alchemy Guide
I know we have articles for both high and low level alchemy but why not create a guide to alchemy. We have a money making guide (which is very poorly written). If we could write an alchemy guide in a third person, unbiased style different from that of the money making guide then why not? The guide would include what items to alch at what levels and what items are profitable. What do you guys think? 23:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to use my thread on the official forums for this.Planeshifted 23:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and that should help with the items we don´t have the high and low alchs of, but first we need a community consensus. 00:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and included my research into the High Level Alchemy article.Planeshifted 14:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How is an Abyssal whip "worth" casting High Alchemy on? It's worth  coins in the GE, and the value stated in the guide is 60,000 coins. That is a loss of 0 coins. I don't even know if this value (60,000) is even correct, as the high-alch value stated in the Abyssal whip article is 72,000 coins.  Hmmm...  15:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright it seems you guys like it, but it'll take some time and work to create, and guide articles usually take a while to perfect, since they need touching up. I'll go ahead and create it, then semi protect it so no ip's or users newer than 4 days can edit it. We should try to follow the same format as the Money Making Guide and have the profit ratings (unlike the MMG's difficulty ratings). We should also try to provide a table on how much profit will be made depending on how you do it (if you gather or buy the raw materials, or if you buy the item already made). We should also create a separate part on the best items to use if you're training mage. I'll go ahead and create the article but it'll take a while to perfect. 21:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediawiki update.
Hi,

The morning of Wednesday, September 10th (UTC), our tech team plans to roll out MediaWiki 1.13.1 to all of Wikia. This is the latest stable release of the MediaWiki software which runs Wikia, and it contains a number of enhancements and bug fixes. You can read more about this upgrade here. While we don't anticipate any major problems, some issues may appear. Please report any odd behavior on this forum page.

This message is only being sent to wiki admins, so please pass this information along to other members of your communities as needed.

Thanks, The Wikia Community Team

Just to give you all a heads up. 18:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * All Wikia were upgraded today; if you see problems, post them here.--Richard 20:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Editors: Grow Up
Okay, in regards to: http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Stinkowing#Heh

This is out of hand. Seriously. It seems like every time I come to this Wiki to contribute, I see some kind of war involving someone named Totally Rune, Stinkowing, some Christine girl and Earthere.

Are you all in 4th grade?

Please grow up. I've reported this incident to Wikia. I'm sick and tired of people's drama being brought here.Planeshifted 17:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL XÞ. I've seen the same thing. Get over it (towards the arguers(?)). You guys do realise this wiki is for RuneScape and nothing else?? Sure, we're not perfect but COME ON! 19:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been gone for a month, the only recent time you've been active. -.- Christine 20:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Who me, or Planeshifted? 11:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I really don't care. 11:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Planeshifted...if you're not involved in any of those "wars", please stay out of this whole thing. You don't know Total Rune, you don't normally speak to Earthere and I, and Christine is someone I see you normally getting along with. Why try to condemn what we do now when you don't know what any of this is about? That link to my talk page? None of your business. These "wars" stem from incidents that occured WAY before you joined, so I don't see ANY reason for you to get involved. Please...have some common sense. Barging in and telling people to "grow up" when we're trying our best to ward Total Rune away from the wiki isn't helping at all. I must apologize for sounding harsh, but...wow...
 * Like Stinko said, Total Rune is our main concern. 12:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is my business as I edit here regularly. Do not attempt to bully me.  I reported the situation to Wikia and from my understanding Jsharp intervened.  If this Total Rune person is a threat to the wiki, do what I did and take it to the high court - Wikia.Planeshifted 17:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I feel that I should say that I did not intervene as this wiki has very competent local administrators and they had already blocked the user in question by the time I received a call for attention to this matter. You can find a list of local administrators at ListUsers/sysop to whom you can report problems such as this and they will act on them. However, If you are unable to contact them please feel free e-mail me at community@wikia.com -- JSharp (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And this, folks, is why Wikia is held in low regard. 19:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What did you expect the Wikia general admins to be doing here? There certainly are a bunch of admins that are acting in nearly a professional capacity and stay out of these petty fights.  I'd have to say that I really don't like administrators making comments like this to anybody, and all this accomplishes is to feed the trolls and encourage these sort of flame wars.  Planeshifted is offering a legitimate complaint here about this sort of behavior, and perhaps this behavior needs to be called on the carpet.
 * As for Total Rune, he is a troll and should be treated as such. He is coming back as a recurring vandal, and as such needs to be dealt with on occasion, but it is the behavior of the admins involved that does warrant some attention by the community as well.  Such is the life of a wiki.--Robert Horning 00:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Editors tend to wheel war . 01:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly what is this obsession you seem to have with me Earthere? I've stayed neutral throughout your war with christine (and what seems to be an eighth of the other admins here) yet you seem to be against me for some reason lately. If you have an issue with me do say so, however, until then leave me out of this. 01:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have any issues with you really. Those were just examples I found in approx 5 minutes. Two of them show my buddies wheel warring, and two of the links just make me look bad. =p  10:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding music to quest info
Hopefully I've put this request in the right place.. I thought that in the past I had seen quests with a section that listed the music that is unlocked during the quest, but now that I try to find examples, I can't find them. I was thinking about adding a section entitled "Music Unlocked" between the rewards and the trivia sections and then listing them. This was also one of the requests on the problem reports list. It would take a little while to do, but if it's ok I'll take care of it. I was hoping that somebody with the authority to say yes/no could leave me a message on my talk page with the final say, but I'll also watch this entry. Thanks.

Vadanea 07:22, 11 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)