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.

Topics that should be discussed here include policy proposals and changes, discussion of community processes (such as RS:AOTM), and changes to significant wiki features. In general, anything that the community at large would be interested in can go here. This is not a replacement for RS:VFD, RS:RFA, or talk pages, as this page is specifically for discussion that has a wide impact. __NEWSECTIONLINK__

Image pages
I noticed that image pages no longer let you know when pictures have a transparent background : a few days (weeks?) ago, if an image had a transparent background, it would have a tiled background on the image page. Now the background is white, so it's impossible to see quickly if the background is transparent or just really white... Can't this be reverted to what it was before ? 07:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki was upgraded to a new version yesterday, I would suspect something to do with that. If it is because of the upgrade and not a setting that someone changed, then it's hard-coded and might be hard to change. Skill 07:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I noticed too. It would be good if there was like a non-transperant category too. Then people who can make images transparent can go through the images like the Wanted Pages and Category:Needs Image. [[Image:Kandarincrest.gif|33px]]  C  hicken  7 [[Image:Kandarincrest.gif|33px]] 11:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If you do a hard refresh now the checkered background should show up, but it's a little off from what it was before. The image used is Image:Checker-16x16.png. It's sysop protected because of the potential for abuse, let me know if there are any changes to be made (there probably are). Skill 22:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Wiki logo
Okay, let's have a vote on which Main Page logo to use in quartz format: Image:wiki.png or Image:wiki_wide.png. If you support, you are voting for Image:wiki.png, and if you don't, you're voting for Image:wiki_wide.png. (Am I doing this right, Chia?) 02:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I use Monobook, so it doesn't affect me one way or the other, however, I'd definatly have to say that Image:wiki.png looks much neater, and more professional. Sorry, webmaster point of view there... 03:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no voting here guys. Monobook uses wiki.png, Quartz skins use wiki_wide.png. End of story, you have no choice. Quartz skins MUST use that logo, it's written into the coding. Christine Talk 03:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Could we not change the wiki_wide.png logo then? I mean, it's not like there's no choice, theres gotta be some changes we can make. Even if we can't use the wiki.png logo, use something else. 03:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * He's got a point, everyone likes Image:wiki.png better, we could change the image. 04:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I much prefer Image:wiki.png76.232.1.32 09:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have just created an account and switched to the monobook skin, this is what I have been looking for all along. Why is monobook not the default skin as seen to public users? I personally think that smoke looks disorganized and unprofessional.Tebuddy 09:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Smoke? We're talking about quartz skins. 21:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Smoke is the name of a Quartz skin. -.- Christine Talk 22:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You think monobook is better than quartz, Tebuddy? I accually disagree (and apparently a lot of other users). But this is a discussion of which is better, Image:wiki.png or Image:wiki_wide.png. 01:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The thing is that the Monobook logo has a diferent size than the Quartz skin one, if it was resized, it would look really ugly or small, also, if we made a new one, it may be even worse than the actual one, let's evade problems and let it as it is. 01:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * C Teng, learn to read a discussion before adding in a new comment. -.- There is no voting here guys. Monobook uses wiki.png, Quartz skins use wiki_wide.png. End of story, you have no choice. Quartz skins MUST use that logo, it's written into the coding. It doesn't matter which you think is better, the wide one has to be used for quartz because of its size. Christine Talk 01:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Even thoguh christine has a point, its written into the coding it can't be changed, Christine could lighten up a bit and be a little less,-how do I put this delicately-, rude., 01:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, yes, I agree, and second of all, I was referring to Nq2h's idea, change wiki wide. That is, assuming the vote is won. 01:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Change the image in the smoke (quartz) skin, or change the default skin is what needs to be done. Tebuddy 05:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment For some reason, there's no way to change the default skin to monobook, only to a different quartz theme. There doesn't seem to be an interface page for it either. On the topic of logos, however, someone will probably need to design a new one for Wiki_wide.png (assuming to decide to change it). Wiki.png can't simply be stretched into the size required for the quartz logo without making it look deformed. If I understand correctly, the last time we needed a new logo, several people just submitted their ideas and they were compared; it seems logical to do the same thing here. Skill 08:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think changing the default skin would be a good idea; I'm not sure it can even be done. 12:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it can. -.- <font color=RoyalBlue>Christine <Font face=Sylfaen><font color=LimeGreen>Talk 19:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Skill is right, we can't use the same logo, perhaps we can submit ideas and choose one, but it would be better if we uploaded them to Imageshack or Photobucket, now we have to wait for the decision of the community 17:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:New-wiki-wide.png is a logo I made based off the other one in paint.. only took about 10 minutes. Anyone else who wants to make changes or improvements is welcome to, as I have no decent graphics program on this computer. 18:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I also made one here, I can add more Runes if you want:http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/3609/runescapewikiaa7.png 18:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ben's is great. I say we use that one. 20:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I like that it's adapted from the old logo. I've uploaded a new version under the same name as Ben's in which I removed lines and misplaced pixels created by cropping through airbrushing and just edited some incorrect shading. That can be reverted if need be, but I don't think he'd mind since he said he didn't spend much time on it. Everyone else should keep submitting logos though and we can put it to a vote. <Font face=Sylfaen><font color=RoyalBlue>Christine <Font face=Sylfaen><font color=LimeGreen>Talk 22:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks great. Does this count as the community decision, or should we put a link at the top of the wiki and have a longer one? 01:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I like bens as well.Tebuddy 06:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Christine, do you want to go one step further? I thought it be nice to make the number of runes on each side of the title symmetrical...you could easily do this by having one extra above the title, leaving 4 on either side.  That's my only criticism, that it's not symmetrical.
 * Well Endasil, I only spent a few minutes on it. I knew that it'd have to be repositioned eventually but thankfully Ben did it so I didn't have to XD <Font face=Sylfaen><font color=RoyalBlue>Christine <Font face=Sylfaen><font color=LimeGreen>Talk

Flickr 23:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've made it a little more symmetrical now. Compare [[Image:new-wiki-wide.png]] with http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/runescape/images/archive/5/5b/20080131231338%21New-wiki-wide.png 23:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So, are we using it? 17:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Familiar's Special Moves
Okay, as this seems to be a common discussion between the familiars pages, I'm moving it here. Basically this discussion is: whether or not we should merge the special moves with the familiars page. Here is the comments from Talk:Cheese Feast:

Merge with Albino Rat
I disagree, under the RuneScape:Granularity policy. "All items are worthy of their own article." As this is an item, technically, it does deserve it's own article. However, the title should be changed to include "Scroll" at the end, as that's technically the items title. 02:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree. This page's content should be added to albino rat, but remain an article by itself.

This is not an article about an item, but a move, therefore RuneScape:Granularity doesn't apply. The entirety of the content of this article could be added to albino rat for simplicity. Chocotard 07:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see that now, I assumed that it was about the item. If that's the case, maybe all of the move pages should be merged as well? If so, maybe we should move this discussion somewhere more visible to all users? 05:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I think they should be merged, if only because they are relatively small in and of themselves. Whether to merge them into the familiar or scroll pages, I don't know... Hurston 00:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Should we Merge?
With my understanding that this is just a special attack from the familiar, does it deserve it's own page? If so, does every special attack from weapons deserve their own page too? Maybe our best solution is to include the section in the article, and then create a Familiar special attack page to compile the listings of all of them, similar to the Special_attack article? 17:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Idk, personally I think if all spells get their own page, then the special attacks for familiars should too. <Font face=Sylfaen><font color=RoyalBlue>Christine <Font face=Sylfaen><font color=LimeGreen>TalkFlickr 01:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * On the other hand though, there are already a bunch of weapon special attacks that don't have their own pages, and each of the pages would be ridiculously short. I think that perhaps there should be several articles that list special attacks, so as the special attacks page doesn't get too long. For example, maybe there could be a page for low-level familiar special attacks, mid-level, etc. Skill 03:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind multiple articles, or maybe even ones grouped by effect. Something like Familiar_Effects/Attacks or Familiar_Effects/General. But take a look at the length of these articles. Cheese_Feast is probably at the length it will get to at a maximum, and it's one sentence. There's not much to expand on either. 03:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What I think is that it should merge as then it would be convenient to people to read! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.154.112 (talk).
 * Indeed... the reason why spells have their own pages is because you can't bind one spell to another thing. In the case of special attacks, you can bind one special attack to one weapon, so the special attack is developped on the weapon's page, like a part of it. For Summoning, it's quite the same : you can bind one special to one familiar, so it's logical to have it on the same page, as long as it doesn't make too big a page. The granularity stuff is okay, but when it splits things that go together into tiny little bits that requires you to open 10 pages to get a comprehensive info about one single item/whatevern, it does hurt readibility, particularly when the Wiki is hosted on such a slow server, where loading a new page is so long that I usually make my edits while doing something else at the same time... 05:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Result
It seems the result is pretty much consensus to merge. If that's the case, I'm going to start this. 18:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Purpose of Nq2h Bot
Nq2h Bot was designed to help accomplish some of the boring, repetitive edits normally done by wiki users. I have been testing Nq2h Bot all day, and it's currently at a stage where it is running without any problems. Some of the early features will include:


 * Categorizing jpeg images with the template
 * Categorizing the GEMH images with the Category:GEMH Images category.

Here's a list of other features planned for the future:
 * Update infoboxes on all pages when the infobox itself is changed.
 * Automatically welcome new users
 * Update all items price to the proper template.

If anyone has ideas, or needs something to be done, feel free to ask that it be added to Nq2h Bot.

Why Bot status?

 * Bot status removes bot edits from Recent changes, unless you specifically show them.
 * Bot status allows Nq2h Bot to access links from the API for 5,000 pages at a time, rather than 500 for non-bot accounts.
 * Bot status would allow Nq2h Bot to edit faster, without causing problems. That would reduce the current wait-time from 8 hours (30 edits/hour), to under 40 minutes (6 edits/minute). Imagine how much more work it would get done going at 10 times the speed!

How to start Nq2h Bot
Currently, I am the only user allowed to run Nq2h Bot, however, I am working on a feature to allow sysops on the wiki access to him. He is run entirely from a web browser, with no downloads. The only catch is that the web browser must be left open the entire time he is running. I'll get this set up as soon as I feel Nq2h Bot is secure enough.

Consensus Needed
According to Wikia policy, community consensus is needed to update a user to a bot. That's why I need your help: please vote for support/oppose of Nq2h Bot receiving bot status, and give your reasoning behind it. Thanks! 01:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Votes
Support:


 * 1)  02:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 2)  03:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) [[Image:Kandarincrest.gif|33px]] <font color=#FF0000> C <font color=#B22222> hicken <font color=#DC143C> 7 [[Image:Kandarincrest.gif|33px]] 08:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

Neutral: