RuneScape:Yew Grove

The Yew Grove is a page where community members can discuss larger changes to the wiki, such as policy proposal. As this page is viewed by a diverse number of editors, you can expect a fair and centralized discussion. Broadly construed, if the community would be interested in your topic, start it here.

Other
 * For promoting or beginning a project, use RuneScape:WikiGuild
 * For discussion of RuneScape itself, use the forums.
 * To list an ongoing discussion, use the RuneScape:Requests for comment directory.
 * To make a special request or comment to the administrators of this wiki, add to the discussion on RuneScape:Administrator requests.

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

.OGG readers, and what to do with Adventurers' Tales
As a wiki, we stride strive 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.
 * The OggHandler extension has been installed in RuneScape Wiki. The extension allows Ogg audio and video files to be played in wiki pages, using the same syntax as for image files.


 * To embed an Ogg file, use:
 * [[Image:Dtmf0.ogg]]
 * which gives:
 * [[Image:Dtmf0.ogg]]


 * To upload an Ogg file, just use the Special:Upload. It may seem weird that audio files are stored in the Image namespace.  But soon (hopefully in MediaWiki 1.14 update), the Image namespace will be replaced with the File namespace.  Wikipedia now has been updated to MediaWiki 1.14, and Wikia would be doing it sooner rather than later.  19:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

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 Nice idea. But how do you convert media to .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)
 * Lol I can also use my dad's headphones. 19:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - It's a very good idea. Only difficulty is the large amount of articles, and we'd need to recreate oggs every time someone makes an edit. -- 01:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Support One good thing about this is Firefox 3.1 will have built-in .ogg support. A lot of words from RS are pronounced a lot of different ways,it would be great to know the proper way. - TehKittyCat 17:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Support per Chia. Also, if you want to pronounce RS words correctly, use the Postbags (they sometimes give pronunciations). 02:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

comment Rather than changing everything to ogg, which would mean that to keep it up to date you'd need mayby 50 people who are expert at doing it, can pronounce all the words correctly and have little in teh way of an unintelligible accent changing it continually, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week without break. Rather than that, why don't we have a page with all the hard to say/pronounce words on a certain page, which uses .ogg formatt, so that people can learn how to pronounce the words.-- 14:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Support I have a microphone by Logitech and I use it to talk on skype all the time. It has exceptional quality for what I paid for. Im willing to pronounce some words., 08:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - I've been waiting for the wiki to start using .ogg files. I will be happy to record stuff but not narrate articles or pronounce words. Lol, I can't wait until we have all these American voices narrating articles. It'll be hilarious!!! And a solution to recreating oggs when someone makes an edit: we just post a date and it can be updated another time. So if people see it is old they can just read it themselves. Also, new sound files might have to go through some kind of authorisation process because I can imagine the sound files we'll get from some people.... Cheers, 13:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose/Support - Look how often articles are updated. Every edit that is made to a page the OGG will have to be rerecorded. If you want entire pages to be read aloud, have a download link somewhere for a program that reads the text that is there, not once was. I think only the hard to pronounce words should have sound. That way we just get OGG files for all the words that are hard to pronounce, and they never have to be changed. -- 17:42, 1 January 2009 (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)
 * Yes, but there are some people at the FF wiki who are not here, and people at the RS wiki that are not there. 15:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Support discontinuation - Per myself. Not really deleting it, but maybe removing most of the content and replacing it with 'yadda yadda, this has been discontinued and stuff, please use the RuneScape Fan Fiction Wiki instead'. 19:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per Chia. And it's "strive", not "stride".

Same community? How do you know that? Just because you and a few other RS-Wikians go on, doesn't mean everyone does. What would we do with the old ones? Merge them into the other wiki? We're separate wikis! 16:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * RSFF is part of the RSW community because nine out of ten users there (Heck, we don't even have ten active users XD) edit here also. And I meant "discontinuation" as in 'accepting no new submissions', or something. For the stuff already in the respective userpages, it would stay there, per RS:DEU. Lastly, I know both are separate wikis, but that definitely hasn't stopped our 'crats (two at least, I'm pretty sure) and others from trying to dump articles into another wiki. Go talk to them on that matter ;). 03:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why we even half to discontinue it. Sure, we can let RSFFWiki have it. That doesn't mean we can't accept submissions. What's wrong with that? And why would we direct other users to a different wiki? 02:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Keeping

RSFF is for solely tales/fan fiction. the RSW is for All things runescape, including runescape tales. However, I think that Tales/stories should be created on the author/editor's page or subpage, otherwise we'd have to make a category for stories, so they didn't get mixed up with fact. Thanks.-- 14:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Deleting

I checked the page and the first five "stories" are pretty much only a title, with no actual writing. Therefore, I agree (in a way) with Zilenserz in that users can write stories on their own sub-pages, but the general page should either be removed, or replaced with a message notifying users that the page is no longer active and that they can post stories on their own sub-pages.

The Yew Grove - Ground rules & censorship on the Wiki Guide to the Yew Grove
OK, from the recent spate of b****ing going on in the Yew Grove about other editors questioning the value of contributions, accusations of sockpuppeting, and polls about blocks, I think we need to lay down some ground rules. These will (if approved) be located at the top of this page under the "What this page should/should not..." section. So here goes...


 * Do not use language which others may find offensive - swearing, [I find B****ing offensive] blonde jokes, racial slurs etc.
 * Follow all behavioural guidelines, especially RS:AEAE, RS:DDD and RS:UTP.
 * Resolve disputes peacefully. That means no cheap shots and no come-backs.
 * Do not use this page to discuss other editor's blocks or bans, accuse others of breaking guidelines or criticising their editing styles. Use their talk page instead.

the list is obviously not complete, feel free to add to it. Thanks, 15:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This can be summed up as be respectful and considerate of others. Keep the same mature, professional attitude you would have at work (or school for those of you who don't work.) This is a community of responsible, knowledgeable people who share the same interest of providing accurate information to those who desire it. While people may have disputes, it does not belong on this page. This page is for discussion of community events, something that affects nearly everyone in the community. However witty and cool somebody may feel by talking back on the internet, it's really not as impressive as the originator may think it is. If it doesn't help better the encyclopedia, don't put it on this page. I understand that there are many younger users on this wiki who might not share the same sense of respect and equality as others, but now is the perfect time to start learning. Being a "badass" in the real world won't get you anywhere, and it won't get you anywhere here either. It takes a lot less effort, time, and energy to just be helpful and do the right thing. If you have a personal issue with somebody, use the wiki's e-mail, keep it off the talk pages. This will keep others from flaming and start even more problems. But please, respect other people, it will help everybody in the end. 16:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "This will keep others from flaming and start even more problems." - Did you mean "This will keep others from flaming and starting even more problems." or "This will keep others from flaming and stop even more problems."?
 * Heh, thanks stinko. It will keep others from flaming and starting even more problems. Meaning if it is kept personal between two people, nobody else will be tempted to add their two cents. 16:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Why do people that have been sysopped get to swear? They act like they have every right in the world to and they own the Wiki. It really bothers me. Just because you have a position of authority in the Wiki community doesn't mean you should get to say offensive things like cuss. [[Image:Prayer.gif]]Jediadam4 [[Image:Abyssal Whip.gif]] 18:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused on this previous statement. The only two sysops who have commented on this are myself and stinko, and I found all of our comments to be clean. I will look again though. 18:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Im not sure I entirely understand your concern Jedi. If the policies are the same as the of the beginning of my hiatus then swearing can be used on the wiki provided it's not being used to direct an attack on another user. Generally most people don't swear every second line as it dosen't look very proffesional. But certainly provided you are keeping your comments neutral and constructive I really don't have a problem with "cuss". --Whiplash 18:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see: Do not use language which others may find offensive - swearing. All I have to say to that is that this is NOT kindergarten. We had a debate on this awhile back and I rembember that the consencus of it was that swearing is allowed on the wiki provided it's not being directed at a user. As far as Im concerned the swearing thing should be removed. --Whiplash 18:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And to think this was supposed to solve problems... Anyway, I think RS:AGF should be added to the list. All too often people jump to the conclusion that someone is up to no good. 19:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As a policy or two may inhibit discussion, RS:IAR in particular should be added.
 * Adding on to the rules on "wittiness", what we need to avoid is active moderating. One-line comments like "Xpkerpure, please use proper grammar" and "lolonoob, remember that RS:AEAE" aren't helping anyone and can turn the Yew Grove into a uncomfortable or even hostile environment.  20:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to side with Whiplash on this. Swearing is part of daily life, and 99% of the time it is not directed at anybody. This is generally accepted as okay, as it is not intended to offend or upset anybody. If somebody takes offense to every "swear" or "curse/cuss word" thrown around, they're in for a lifetime of disappointment. Certain words carry with them a highly offensive meaning, and should not be used, imo, but for the most part, provided it isn't aimed at anybody, it is fine. 20:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In response to the unregistered users comment above. Most behavioural policies on the wiki are not seriously enforced, perhaps with the exception of the user treatment policy. --Whiplash 20:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I really think we should keep the "no swearing" rule ONLY on the YG, because I can guarantee that nobody will have legitimate cause to "cuss" about a subject of discussion posted here. (If you wish to debate this, please provide an example where swearing would be acceptable in a communal discussion). 07:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you ask me, swearing should be prohibited/limited to talk pages and userpages only. I know of young kids who frequent this Wiki looking for information on RS and whatnot.  Although "99% of swearing" is not directed at anybody, this gives the impression that swearing is cool and okay.  We do not want to instill this perception that swearing is acceptable, especially among younger kids.  I don't think swearing is offensive, but I flinch every time I see a swear word in this wiki, knowing that some kid might see it and start using it at school the next day.  Imagine when the teacher asks "Where did you learn that word?" and the kid replies: "The RuneScape Wiki - the wiki for all things RuneScape."  LOL.  07:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You do have a point az, but at some time people need to come to the realization that we're not living a sheltered life, and the real world exists. I agree that swearing should not be allowed in articles, but on discussion pages such as this one, talk pages and such, certain non-offensive words that are considered "swear words" are acceptable, imo. If the concern is about young children seeing "bad words" and using them the next day, then the Player Dictionary article needs to be deleted. In all honesty, television is far more vulgar than pretty much anything kids will see here. 16:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the edit conflict Karlis =P, here was my original message... Azliq: I completely agree with you. How about limiting swearing to user talk pages and the player dictionary, because according to RS:DEU, we're not allowed to have swearing on user pages. Since this discussion is tipping over to a debate about the censorship on the RuneScape Wiki, I've changed the title to observe the views of others concerning the oppression of vulgar language amongst the younger people who may visit our Wiki. Karlis: the player dictionary has a language warning at the top of the page. Now regarding your comparison between the Wiki and TV. Television censorship (where I live) is much harsher than the Wiki's, there are content warnings, ratings and restricted time periods when shows and movies can be shown. Although I do not want our Wiki to end up like this, I do propose some protection. Moving on... "...certain non-offensive words that are considered "swear words" are acceptable..." I think that no swear word is acceptable, but some are tolerated more than others. The word "crap" would be more socially acceptable than "f***", right? 16:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Gonna reset this back to the left. I understand the difference in censorship based on countries, but I find some things trivial to censor. And yeah, I know about the language warning on the top of the page, but if a child is going to "learn curse words" from the wiki, a warning is not going to stop them. Now back to my opinions of trivial censorship. Words such as "damn", "hell" and "crap" are generally accepted by younger kids as borderline "bad words" yet are acceptable pretty much everywhere. I agree that certain four letter words are too far, but we need to have a more realistic stand. OK, from the recent spate of b****ing going on in the Yew Grove... ..work has been a pain in the a** this week...  ...I have had a lot of sh** going on this week... These all have "curse" words in them, by traditional standards, yet are not offensive. I want to know why something like this should be censored, when all that these words are doing are simply adding emotion to the sentence. Not that I am arguing that I display anything like this on my page, nor would I put it on anybody elses page, but I don't believe people should be shunned for it, or it should be looked down upon because the user is a little bit more mature than others. 16:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Seconded. 01:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, so I agree with you on the point that some words should be acceptable. Now going back to what you said, I really don't see that adding emotion to one's opinions stated here in the Yew Grove is a necessity. I proposed these guidelines because I have observed experienced editors drop the "s" bomb in discussions and use it excessively. THAT sort of language is what I want to control in the YG. And BTW, "b****ing" is a verb. 08:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure "some" words may be acceptable, but which ones should be accepted? How do we decide which ones are acceptable, and which ones are not? I feel that since this Wiki is about RuneScape, I propose that we follow the censorship based on the RuneScape game itself, i.e. the Chat filter. Jagex had introduced the Chat filter to filter out profanities and swear words from the game because they knew who the game was catered to: for people of all ages; played by people from different origins (countries) and ethnicities. Being a Wiki dedicated to RuneScape, our audience/visitors will be the same people playing RuneScape. I wouldn't mind if swearing is allowed in a Wiki dedicated to "GTA: San Andreas" where the game itself is rated Mature (17+), but on RSWiki...? What I would like to see among editors (especially admins) is self-censorship: in Project pages (like this one), article talkpages, "edit summaries", etc. See this page: So What's Wrong with Cussing?  12:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I keep a sense of professionalism on the wiki, so I do whatever I can to keep my language clean and civil. What people type on talk pages and user pages is their own thing. Let me try to summarize... On pages with community discussions or where the general public of the wiki is going to view, I agree that language should be kept clean. On userpages, actually maybe just user pages and subpages, we should be a little bit more lax. I disagree with people posting profanity on others' talk pages, so I guess just your own userpage, really. I stick with my initial post in this discussion, I feel it sums up well how I feel. Where that was more directed at overall attitude, it could apply to language as well. Be respectful and mindful of others. 12:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, this discussion has turned into whether or not profanity is okay, and it has been drawn away from guidelines and overall "appropriate attitude" when discussing on the yew grove. Lets recap for those who don't feel like scrolling up, and highlight other areas that need to be discussed...

*Do not use language which others may find offensive - swearing, blonde jokes, racial slurs etc.
 * Follow all behavioural guidelines, especially RS:AEAE, RS:DDD and RS:UTP.
 * Resolve disputes peacefully. That means no cheap shots and no come-backs.
 * Do not use this page to discuss other editor's blocks or bans, accuse others of breaking guidelines or criticising their editing styles. Use their talk page instead.
 * I will finish this when I get to work, time to go! 12:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, let me just provide some background information about the proposed additions. ...blonde jokes, racial slurs etc. This is based on the guidelines which many users of the official RuneScape Forums may be familiar about, this was taken from the Forum Code of Conduct. ...'''Resolve disputes peacefully. That means no cheap shots and no come-backs.''' This is based on Wikipedia's dispute resolution and civility policies and the negotiation essay. Our Wiki is based on consensus, and it will only keep going is if we can make decisions peacefully without contributors getting angry. Sure, a debate is healthy and is what brings up brighter and more efficient ideas, but don't go overboard. Use their talk page instead. OK, the main thinking behind this was the debate over a certain editor's recent indefinite block. I thought that an argument regarding an editor or the status of their account would be better suited to a user talk page, rather than the YG. I agree with Az on the censoring of words according to RuneScape. 13:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Az. This wiki already is enforced according to most RuneScape rules, I can't really see why, with a few exceptions, this shouldn't be the case here. Now, my question is about euphemisms... For example, crud over crap, for instance. I don't see why these would be any problem, though I'm open to discussion on that. --Pikaandpi 13:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My argument is that language of an offensive nature should be removed because there is no reasonable cause to use it in the first place. When are we going to use the word "crud" when talking about our Wiki? 13:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll have to admit I'm not sure how to respond in terms to the first sectence, as it kinda renders what I was going to say obslete <_< Buto for example "I'm sick and tired with all this crap" could easily be replaced with "I'm sick and tired with all this crud." Not so much talking "about" the Wiki, but within the Wiki about, say, RuneScape itself or whats happening in the real world. --Pikaandpi 13:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Language of an offensive nature, yes. If you are offended by the word crap, it's time to grow up a little bit. 14:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * When you put it that way... obviously the word is not offensive, "You're a piece of crap", "You're full of crap" can rub off as an attack. 14:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing personal, Karlis. But, "Crap" by definition is excrement and the act of defecating. See The Free Dictionary's first two definitions. The dictionary also mentions it as a "vulgar slang".  Although I'm not offended by euphemism use of the word, the word itself is disgusting, and similar words may be used instead.
 * Lets just put it this way. RuneScape requires their users to be age 13 or over. We can follow similar guidelines. Children 13 years old are mature enough to deal with some words. From what it seems, there is going to be no way to settle this as non-offensive words can be used in an attack. I think we are going to have to deal with this on a case-by-case basis. If I see something like "All I got form my slayer mission was a bunch of crap" or "I didn't get a damn thing from barrows" I'm not going to take any action, as it would be rediculous. If it is an attack at another player, then obviously the circumstances are different. I really think we need to get off the topic of offensive language and more on the topic of offensive content. There is a huge difference between the two. 14:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Guide to the Yew Grove
OK, since the current discussion seems to be going nowhere, I have another proposal. Instead of having the "rules" section as stated above, I think we should have a link to a Yew Grove Guide essay. It would state the rules (remember, ESSAY, which means you don't have to follow them) and much more stuff, like how to make a proposal, giving feedback, etc. I'll start drafting. What do you think? 04:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a interesting idea, where would you put it on the wiki to make sure everyone who needs to view it can view it? -- Rune ldr 88  03:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was thinking probably at the top of this page... 04:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, that sounds good. The essay looks fine so far. 02:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There should be no cursing at all for a few very simple reasons: -- 17:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We attempt to follow the same fifteen rules that Jagex established in game and rule number one is no swearing.
 * RuneScape:User treatment policy states: If you have a disagreement do not try to solve the issue with verbal insults or by using profanities. The use of profanity, even if not directly used to berate someone else violates this policy in any argument.
 * We are primarily an encyclopedia. I can't see any reason why even on the article talk pages someone would use cursing unless they have a limited vocabulary or are trying to be "edgy".
 * RuneScape is skewed primarily towards children. Though this place is not a "shelter" as has been noted above, it is even less a place to be exposed to such things.
 * Would you use epithets when talking to someone you just met or in front of a large crowd? This is essentially what it is like writing on the Internet and often people forget that there are other human beings on the other side.  There is no chance that you can offend someone by not swearing but there is a chance that you could offend them by swearing so to me, the choice between the two is obvious.
 * It's just basic common decency to curb the language.

Sounds good, I think that that'd help the newer people, or even oldish people who know their way around, but have never requested/voiced their opinion on the Yew Grove before...-- 18:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

RS:IMP
What is the process to move a proposed policy into actual policy? My guess, "Consensus", as such I'm asking for a quick vote on the Image and Media Policy.


 * Support - naturally since I am the one wanting to finalise this. 04:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Looks great, though I'm not sure about one item, that is videos not to be used in articles. We have many, many videos in articles, and I'm sure we don't want to be deleting them all. I support apart from that. Hurston 17:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The term 'video' seems unclear as of your posting, so along with other proposed policies these should be reviewed imo. 01:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - Everything seems to be in order.-- 18:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Do project-related images include images used in the Yew Grove or in the Talk namespace (besides in signatures)? For example, if someone uploaded an image to show an example for a talk page, but the image isn't used anywhere else. 12:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - I do not see any problematic areas in the policy and the policy makes sense. - 03:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed policies
There are other Proposed policies that need to be revisited, and some of them are really, really old.
 * RS:IMP
 * RS:DSA
 * RS:RFAP
 * RS:SCOPE

On another note, I'd like to "nominate" the Quest style guide written by Endasil to be included in our official Style guide. It needs some modifications, but I think it is well written and should be made "official". 03:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If Endasil's quest style guide is ready, why not go ahead and move it over to RS:QSG? 01:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. I've expanded the RuneScape:Quest style guide to include the layout for a quest page.  Feel free to tinker with it.   17:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

RFAP needs to be deleted. It's almost completely wrong (anyone can participate in RfAs and there are no prerequisites that need to be fulfilled to be nominated), the page is still under construction and its creator has left the wiki. Speedy D it.-- 17:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

RS:DSA
This particular proposed policy seems to be nothing more than a specific instance of the ownership and bias section of the style guide. As such I believe it would be best to redirect RS:DSA to that section of the style guide, and possibly incorporate it into the style guide as opposed to having it as it's own policy. 01:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * RS:DSA gives much more information than the small bullet point in the Ownership and bias section in the Style Guide. If we decide to delete the page, I think that we should give it its own subsection in the Style Guide. 13:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree ~ 17:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with C Teng. 17:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * On second thought I'm thinking maybe the subsection and the DSA policy should cross reference each other. Regardless I am not advocating the removal of any content of DSA, regardless of whether it stays in place or migrates. 07:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

RS:S
I'd really like to see this one brought to life (along with RS:IMP) 17:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - I agree, that's why I undeleted it.-- 17:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

RfA Questions
I was taking a look at the Wikipedia RfAs and I noticed that all nominees are automatically asked three questions:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

Users are then allowed to ask additional question, and then comes the commenting/supporting/opposing.

I just thought this might be a useful add-on to the RfAs as the community would be able to look at how sysops/b'crats would handle certain situations and how they have contributed to this wiki without having to go on just the comments/supports/opposes and the nomination to form their own opinion.

What do you all think? 21:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Support - First, I would want world piece, lol. I support this. In self-nominations, this should be part of a new mandate that is discussed and followed. As a person being nominated, candidates should be allowed to extend to the nomination and fill in this information in addition. Nice research soldier. 03:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree more with that, Bonzii. :) 15:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Support Although I do believe that the questions asked for a request to be an admin should be a bit more rigorous (For example, one question that could be asked is "Are you capable of handling extra responsibility with the powers that may be given to you?"), I do believe adding these questions will be a great start in improving our requests for adminship.--Pkthis 21:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Those don't have to be the questions used, those were just the questions I copied and pasted from Wikipedia to use as an example. 21:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Support - Good idea 08:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Also, if you have any suggestions for questions we could use then feel free to put them on the table. 04:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Support - Great add-on to RFAs. Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 19:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - Good idea. It would also put pressure on those people who join up the straight away request adminship. But it doesn't concern me because I'm already an Admeanie :P 09:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - As per Chicken. I've seen way too many people with barely 50 edits want to jump on the admin wagon, I on the other hand actually avoided it for awhile until I can't remember who pointed out ways it made sense for me. 15:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Didn't it take like 3 people telling you it would be good for you? And not out of any "I told you so" but have you found it to be very helpful?--Degenret01 10:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

On another note: I suppose that anybody that is worthy to be an admin will know what to say because they have done great things to be nominated.-- 18:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support I think that'd be a good idea, although just reading those questions made me feel nervous. Many people think differently about what is a big achievement. I spend most of my time on the wiki either making signatures, userboxes, adding my contribution/formatting advice to discussions, or just immersing myself in wiki-formatting, so I can understand it better. So for me a huge achievement would be to create 200 sigs ( not including different versions of sigs, otherwise I'd be over 50 sigs by now ) Or mayby designing a new and more friendly version of a template, but to other users, my accomlishments mean very little. Other people edit this wiki to edit, so 5000 edits, or massivly revamping 2 pages, and them then being seperately given article of the month, would be their best achievement. Other people spend their entire time tagging and transparentizing images, others updating the grand exchange prices. Because of this, others may well look down on somebody because they've only made 6 mainspace edits (yep thats me, the guy who'll never be admin.)Because of this, I think we be very careful of how we do this.


 * Support This is a idea that would be great to have. Those questions even make me question my own actions, even though I do not plan on requesting, at least yet. This should help the community reach more of a consensus about whether someone should accepted into the honor of adminship and make a would be requester think before requesting without thought. - 03:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

RuneScape:Administrator requests
I've created a new page that is intended to help provide a central location for general and hopefully trivial requests that require administrator tools, but can be dealt with by any administrator and not somebody in particular. I've had some requests of this nature on my talk page, and it was something noted in the discussion about User:Stinkowing.

Frankly, I think is message on User:Stinkowing/Main Page/A message to EVERYONE! has some validity in terms of having one person get bombarded with requests for this, that and the other thing, where some admins can get overwhelmed trying to please everybody on everything. There are enough administrators here that we can certainly help share some of this work, and I'd hate to see requests for administrator actions not get accomplished just because a particular admin is overwhelmed at the moment with stuff that happens in life.

At the moment, this is just a proposal of an idea, but I would like to add a link to this page on the side bar and at the top of the Yew Grove... and elsewhere on this wiki as appropriate. I would also strongly encourage administrators to put this page on their watch list. It is not intended to be a substitute for the Yew Grove, but I am hoping that some of the more mundane requests that do show up on the Yew Grove can be moved to this page instead. --Robert Horning 18:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I like it. It seems useful and would make it easier for all admins as well as saving a lot of time. Full support. 19:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Great Idea- This is a great idea. As per the perfect example of Stinkowing, this would benefit both the needs of users and it's active administrators. 20:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Support - Good one 10:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes - I've already added this to my watch list. 11:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Support - excellent idea. It's proved useful so far. ^_^ 06:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Animations
First I have to say; Yes I tried to get GIF. files from WMV. but it just doesn't work. WMV is movie sorted and GIF is signature short clips in low quality.

Why not just let me upload WMV. files and increase the HD animations in the wiki? -- 00:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Whats going on? [[Image:Gnomegoggleswithcap.png|25px]]TEbuddy 08:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with the WMV file format is that it is a proprietary file format that requires special permissions just to be able to write some software that uses that file format. It requires signing contracts with Microsoft, payment of royalties, and several other legal hassles that simply make it unreasonable for a free-software (remember, MediaWiki is a GPL'd "open source" application) developers to support.  This isn't a decision made here by local administrators, but a much bigger problem than you are suggesting here.


 * Animated GIF images are something that is supported within most major web browsers... in fact for nearly the whole history of the web browsers. While clunky and awkward to use, at least these images load on nearly every graphical web browser on nearly ever operating system that can read this website.  That certainly isn't the case with WMV files as well.


 * Essentially, unless you are willing to negotiate a contract with Microsoft and can also simultaneously get all of the major web browser developers to offer native support of the MWV file, there isn't going to be an easy way to add this file type onto these web pages. Yes, there are some "media converters", but that requires even more software and licenses and other problems.


 * If you need help and guidance with making animated GIF images, depending on what exactly you are trying to achieve, I and others here on this wiki can suggest some software packages to help you out here. I'm sorry this isn't easier to do, and I would agree, in a perfect world you shouldn't have to worry about file format conversion issues.  Unfortunately, real world politics intrude even on this rather mundane level.  --Robert Horning 13:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Requests
I am requesting an admin to un-delete the article 24 December, as per the conversation below:

24 December
I am interested in why you deleted the content on this page. Yes, the information is about a specific character but that was not the intent of the article, it is Runescape History that a player has received 200M experience in 4 skills, and as an encyclopedia dedicated to RuneScape, we should cover more content then just in game information. Perhaps a revision to dis-include the name, but not the deletion. If you read on other articles, such as 200 million experience you will find information about specific players. Why is this information not removed cause it is player specific. Please un-delete the article and if necessary remove the player's name, and if this is not the case, I will request it from other administrators or complete a vote for un-deletion. Thanks.

P.S. If you are going to delete an article, please complete the task and remove all links to this article as leaving behind Red Links is very unprofessional.

22:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: 24 December
Firstly, it'd be rather hard to prove. Secondly, there was a discussion in the Yew Grove a while back about whether or not players need their own pages. Thirdly...I get lazy sometimes. ...I think that's all. WWTDD? 22:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion
Lazy in not an excuse to not preform your administrative duties. Why would you delete an article and not continue to remove all other pages that contains this article as a link? Please un-delete this article and change what is necessary. It is encyclopedic to RuneScape as history has been made on this day.

22:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is the content from there, we can discuss the relevance of its undeletion or not on a more appropriate forum...

200M in 4 Skills
On 24 December, Gertjaars became the first player to achieve 200M experience in 4 skills. These skills are Cooking, Fletching, Firemaking and Crafting. He also surpassed previous number 1 player, Zezima, for the most experience for a player.


 * Frankly, I think the deletion was appropriate and the content needed to go, although it certainly isn't "confidential" or anything radical. There just isn't any need for stuff like this on the wiki.  Copy this if you want it, as it will be removed from this page soon enough.  --Robert Horning 23:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * From the content, the article qualified as a player article and therefore is subject to speedy deletion.-- 23:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - But it's not the fact it is a specific player, it's the fact RuneScape History was made. Can't we re-word it the say On 24 December, the first player in history attained 200M experience is 4 skills, being Cooking, Fletching, Firemaking and Crafting. They also attained the highest experience points on a single account. or something like that? It's not about identifying the user, it' about the history of RuneScape that was made.

23:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Take this discussion to the RS:YG if you want to get some wider input on it. This is not the appropriate forum for discussing this issue.  --Robert Horning 04:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As has been done 05:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The delete seems quite right to me. I have stated before that any mentioning of players in articles could open a door to all sorts of "so what" type information, and here is a great example. Good for Gertjaars, but it is highly irrelevant. It has absolutely no impact on the game, the community, or anything else. --Degenret01 06:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm gonna have to agree with Degenret. It's basically a player article. 06:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, so let me get this right. Even if I change the article to say On 24 December, the first player in history attained 200M experience is 4 skills, being Cooking, Fletching, Firemaking and Crafting. They also attained the highest experience points on a single account. you don't agree that this is in encyclopedic information about RuneScape. HISTORY was made this day! If we are not going to discuss the importance of RuneScape's history, I propose deleting the Andrew Gower page etc. It has no significance to the game, but it does it's history. Come on people, it's not a player's article. It's all about good intention, and that's what I have. If you guys really don't want it in, fine, I'll drop it, but I think it is important. Honor the history!!!!!!!!

07:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Lets compare what I said to what you responded to. I said "It has absolutely no impact on the game, the community, or anything else". Your saying we can delete Andrew Gower on the same premise? Really? I think your getting a little worked up man. And yes, even without his name in the article, I do not see it as worth anything.--Degenret01 07:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a major difference between a player achieving a lot of experience in their skills and the man who created the game.-- 07:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* I was honestly hoping more from you guys and am extremely disappointed. This wikia is about information, not censoring the facts. Okay, if it what you guys want then that is okay with me. You are both trusted editors, respectable sysops and whom intent is and always will be for this wikia. If you feel it is not suitable I will not push it any longer. Note though: RuneScape's history is as important to players, users and fellow editors. Censoring the content of made history just limits this wikia. It's against the policies and procedures to create a player article (though I was trying to make it so it was not one) but in those policies and procedures it states that some things can be hindered to benefit. Prime example being the slang dictionary right. It is not directly related to the game, just an extra for the convenience of the user. RuneScape history is made and charted in the article 200 million experience, and players are mentioned in this article without censorship. Why are some articles allowed this privilege to document but not other when the intent is the same? Please don't respond to this but just think about irony and how consistent this is to the policies and procedures. It's really confusing.

I am going to end my involvement with this Yew Grove discussion. Thanks for your input and look forward to serving this wikia with you in the future.

P.S. I'm looking forward to future discrepancies. They are fun aren't they? :)

07:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I guess this discussion is over but I'd like to point out that a lot of other date articles have information about players achieving 99 in certain skills or experience. [[Image:Rollbackcrown.PNG‎]] Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 10:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Thanks Kudos!! Some being Level 99 skills, Hiscores, 200 million experience and more. 10:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Actually, what I meant even more was an article such as 14 June, which mentions Zezima getting 1 billion experience. [[Image:Rollbackcrown.PNG‎]] Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 10:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have seen such information vandalised with people putting their own names in rather, than the person who actually did get first to 99 or whatever, and how are we supposed to know unless they are very well known? I'm not sure why this player related stuff is in these articles at all. Most of it has only survived because it is embedded in larger articles, not that it should, but creating an article purely about one person should rightly have been deleted. 11:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment on user info - The toughest problem I find with information about individual user accomplishments is mainly one of verifiability. Yes, I know you can look at the high scores page for top users and find what their skill levels are right now, but it is difficult to "go back in time" and find who was the "first" to reach a certain accomplishment like the first to get level 99 in Summoning. I admit that this particular accomplishment by Gertjaars is something of a singular accomplishment in the annals of players in the game, and that getting to max experience points is something of a game itself.

I still think, in spite of what is a remarkable accomplishment, it still isn't remotely notable in that this particular user did nothing that has any sort of long-term impact on the game. If this player suddenly stopped playing, would anything in the game be different? Besides besting high scores, what else has been accomplished? To me, that is just a rather empty accomplishment, even if it is something of note between one player and another. Then again, I consider people who compare combat levels and skill levels to a bunch of kids trying to compare various parts of their anatomy to each other trying to suggest who is bigger or not. With few exceptions, it really doesn't matter a whole lot. --Robert Horning 09:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Bonziibob. 4 skills to 200mil is History, as he said, and this wiki is "The Encyclopedia for all things Runescape" Including the History of Runescape. However, I think we create a page called something such as "Runescape History" or "Runescape Timeline", which has all dates of note from the first person to get a 99 (If we could ever prove that...) to first 99's in skills or 200mils in skills, or even clan related incidents that the community has decided is worth to be noted in Runescape's History.Before long, we are never goin g to be able to verify any piece of high level achievements, so I think that screenshots should be taken of the name etc, as well as the date.Runescape and its community is always changing, and records need to be kept.-- 19:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Request to review Puremexican's use of admin tools
This is a request for the community to review Puremexican's use of his admin tools, as I have some concerns about his actions.

First of all, I do not think that Puremexican left the wiki in good standing, and do not understand why he was resysopped. When saying he was leaving for good, he made personal attacks on other users on his userpage, and apparently blocked Christine for fun.

Now that he has his powers back, he has made several, in my opinion, inappropriate actions. For example,


 * Thinking it is okay to block before reviewing, a clear violation of RS:AGF
 * Insulting those he has blocked, feeding the trolls, violating the User treatment policy
 * Blocking users without assuming good faith, such as when a user accidentally forgot a "0" at the end of a Grand Exchange price ,
 * Using other users for what seems like his own testing purposes
 * Blocking an IP with absolutely no contributions (unless they were deleted, which is not stated in his block summary), in which he made a comment that the said IP was homosexual, again violating RS:UTP.
 * Blocking a user who only made this good-faith contribution, allegedly "for being retarded", again UTP.

...and these are just a few.

We cannot create an environment that is this hostile to newcomers. They are our most valuable source, and without them, the wiki would not be as good as it is today, because we were all newcomers once. In addition, our policies are here to help maintain a good atmosphere and help the encyclopedia flourish. If someone violates them, it degrades those goals.

When Puremexican became an admin, he signed this contract:

''I, Puremexican, accept this nomination for adminship. I have read the policies concerning administrators. I realize that this nomination may fail. If I do get community consensus, I promise not to abuse my powers because I realize that this is a serious offence and if the community finds that I have done so, my powers will be revoked and in extreme cases I could be given a community ban.''

Personally, I think he has failed to live up to this contract. I am trying to assume good faith of him. However, his actions are harming the development of our users and the wiki, and he either needs to stop these actions or have his admin powers removed. Butterman62 (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment 24.31.187.36 - Heres what the I.P. did. Check the deleted user contributions. He created a page called Tip.It. and put (content was: ' PWNS!* *Deletion of this article is an admission of flamboyant homosexuality.') The comment on "Homosexuality" was mere irony. As for blocking that I.P./User that made a mistake forgetting to put a 0 or something, I am only human, and being such, I made a mistake. , 23:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As for the rest of it I leave it for community discretion., 23:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Support Demotion to Rollback - Sysops are entrusted with a lot of power over the wiki. Misuse of this trust is not very great in means of providing a very community based setting for our users. Puremexican also stated that on Soldier 1033's RfA that he Opposed for specific reasons, then supported because he felt his oppose was cause he was having a bad day. Sysops need to be consistent with all there edits and beliefs. I too changed my supports in this RfA, but that is because I found additional information to persuade my edit, not because I was having an off day. I wish for Puremexican to continue to support and edit this wikia, but as a Rollback. 23:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Stay a sysop - He's not the only admin who has ever assumed bad faith. 00:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Another RFA All Sysops should be at least considerate, esp to other sysops. Calling everyone out when he quit is not the quality of an admin. ‎Atlandy 20:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Do another RfA - Sorry, but since the time you left and when you came back, the expectations for administrators grew. Not to mention you didn't leave the most honorably. You asked to have your powers removed over a year ago (I think), and I would imagine that you would have to complete another RfA, with expectation inflation and all. If X1011 were to come back (of whom I do not know at all), I wouldn't be suprised if he had to do another RfA himself. When he was sysopped, there was no expectation. The same applies here, but to a lesser extent. 01:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC) (Edit conflict)

Stay a sysop A few mistakes do not constitute removal of power. TEbuddy 02:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Desysop if one actually spends a few minute looking at the examples cited above, it is CLEAR he is abusing his powers. How did he even get those tools back when he rejoined? Assuming good faith is critical. I think very very hard every time I have to hit block on someone. I try to imagine how the edit could be an accident before I pull the trigger. I may have made a few mistakes but I really hope not. It's what all sysops should be doing, and he does not. He can contribute for a month or two then do another RFA.--Degenret01 08:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Stay a sysop Really torn about this one as while I am trying to assume he's not abusing his powers because his normal edits are constructive, it is clear that he's left some personal attacks and may have abused his rights, however, I am inclined to trust him and I think that he will do much more good than bad if he remains a sysop as he is on a lot and blocks true vandals most of the time, with only a few instances of uncertain use of blocks. Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 10:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Neutral/Do another RfA - Although he's made his share of errors, he is only human. As for the "for being homosexual" summary when he blocked an IP, I don't think that was a good choice of words for the summary but if you saw the article that IP created you'd agree that the block was fair. I was the one that tagged that page for deletion. As for the other mistakes, he definitely isn't the first admin to make mistakes like that. If he absolutely must then another RfA might need to be started, but I believe in giving people second chances and overall I see that Puremexican has done a lot more good than harm. In my opinion he should either do another RfA or retain his admin privileges. 04:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't call him a homosexual, look at the content that was on the page he created. "Deleting this page is a flamboyant sign of homosexuality". Then look at my block summary., 14:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Pending - I'm not too sure about this one, I'm particularly confused about the circumstances under which his powers were reinstated. Dtm resysoped him with the comment 'Requested sysop powers - as he had left on good terms, he can be given adminship'. Was Dtm unaware of some of the leaving presents left by PureMexican? If the above revelations concerning PureMaxican would have meant that Dtm would not have given him his powers back had he known, then Desysop/RFA would be appropriate. 15:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

RFA Request - I saw some of the posts made, and honestly felt like it was not something an Admin should say or do... Eternalseed

Comment - At this point I could care less what happens to my powers. As I have seen in past RfA's (not mine) my opinion/attempt to "fend" for myself does not matter. Whats done is done and I can't change that no matter how much i regret doing so. In the end, if you want to reap my powers because of a couple misjudged mistakes fine. If not thats great too., 20:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Puremexican, my goal is not to get you desysopped. My goal is to get these things to stop (sorry I didn't make that clear earlier). If you just want to go "Okay, I won't do it anymore", I'll drop the whole thing now. Butterman62 (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If thats the case you could have taken this up with me on my talk page before going through all this trouble. It would have made me see my errors and taught me to be more careful..., 00:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was my mistake. I've had bad experiences before doing that (not on this wiki, but elsewhere), with a message along the lines of "Go away, or else", and further rage ensuing of said people I talk to. I've got to remember that things are different here. So, it's over? :) Butterman62 (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess so? :)?, 03:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep admin rights So what? He made some mistakes, big deal. Everyone is human and there is always the chance of mistakes in one's life. I'm certain he has learned from his mistakes. For the last couple of weeks since his return, I have seen many positive edits, many good things he has done. There is no reason to demote him for something that was done over 7 months ago. I feel that he will do a lot of great edits staying a sysop. --http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk119/spencemac724/thheadshot-1.png  Spencer   TalkundefinedContribsundefinedEdits  21:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All the edits are from about one week ago to now, except for the ones concerning his resysopping. That's what concerns me. Had they been from that long ago, I wouldn't be as concerned. Butterman62 (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

New RfA - I don't care what anyone thinks of ME when I write this, it is about Puremexican. I don't understand why his powers were just given back to him either. But regardless, if he seems unfit, then they should be removed. If people think that he is fine, then he should not have to worry about completing another RfA successfully. Clearly blocking me for fun was stupid. What's worse what making a video of it and posting it on youtube. Adding the "flamboyant sign of homosexuality" to the block reason cannot be justified by "he did it first" because doing what Puremexican did was just feeding the trolls (along with the other edits and blocks that Butterman mentioned above), and this is something an admin should not do. I don't care if people don't like me, but it cannot be argued that I ever blocked anyone for fun, nor left in a huff and insulted people on my userpage. So no mentions of hypocrisy or any comments about MY behaviour here, this isn't about me. I don't see why a new RfA would be a big deal. Christine 02:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahaha. I knew that he would remove that video if I posted the link here. For anyone who would like to see it, I've saved a version. You can download it here. Chia has seen it, he should vouch for the authenticity. Someone tell me if the file and/or link doesn't work properly. Christine 19:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I closed the account and the warning said the videos and channel would remain on there..., 19:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * =/ 19:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How convenient, it's funny, I saved & converted the video just last night. I have such -amazing- timing, no, grabbing a copy before you close the account? Check the date. Christine 19:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Its hilarious. So hilarious i decided to log out of rs wiki and never log on ever again :D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bye everyone do to my powers as you wish. Im gonna archive my talk page and never log on again. Byes!!, 19:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus for new RfA then? Butterman62 (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Blogging option for RS Wiki
The following message was posted on my user talk page today:

Newspaper - random thought

 * I saw the discussion on the Runescape newspaper - very exciting!
 * I don't know if this would help or not, but Wikia recently launched a collaborative blog tool, that lets many people write their own blog posts in one place (think more magazine than newspaper) but maybe it would help. If you're interested, you can see it here: http://gaming.wikia.com/wiki/Blog:Recent_posts   If the group wants one, we're happy to turn it on.  If not, sorry for the bother color="Blue">Gil (color="Blue" size="1">talk) 07:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like something that would be rather interesting, and I certainly would like the larger community to be aware of it. No, I don't know why my user talk page was singled out, other than that I am one of several admins here and I guess I've been pretty active lately.

As a part of the editorial section of the RS newspaper, perhaps this would be an interesting part to add. I'm certain that some rather interesting editorials could be developed that discuss various parts of the game (PKing, mods, new game features, Mechscape, etc.) and how they would affect the player community. It is at least something that deserves discussion here, and is another tool we can use in terms of discussing and promoting this game and wiki. --Robert Horning 16:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - looks interesting and useful. I see no reason not to support this. 18:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Oppose - Per below. I wasn't aware of the archived discussion. 03:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Absolutely not. We have already had this discussion here. Read the whole post before commenting. Christine 02:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not strictly the same issue here, and some of the problems that caused all of the grief for Halopedia would not, I believe, be an issue here, but it is useful to bring up the previous discussion. I would have to agree with you, the point system is simply silly and a complete waste of time or effort and can be highly counter-productive, but this isn't about the "personal profile" feature that Halopedia is using.  I also agree with some of the points below about Wikia trying to turn into a social networking site that seems contrary to the goal of developing a site full of information about how to play the game of Runescape.  I am not sure why the issue was raised on my user talk page instead of here at the Yew Grove, and that is what really causing me to scratch my head.  The only real reason I'm bringing this forward is due to the fact that this tool was suggested to me by Wikia staff.  --Robert Horning 10:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Christine is right; this idea has not only been shot down, but the passengers killed and the remains burning. I opposed then, as well.

Strong Oppose as well - That is something I hate on Halopedia, and I don't want this wiki to have to put up with that nonsense. --http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk119/spencemac724/thheadshot-1.png  Spencer   TalkundefinedContribsundefinedEdits  03:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Per myself in that archive, Christine, and everything. Halopedia practically got ruined community-wise after that was introduced. We don't want any part of it. Not to mention the potential newspaper project is in the opposite direction of the blog feature. Newspaper = informative. Blogs and all the other stuff = ...Must I say? 03:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * After what was introduced? I just want to make sure we are on the same page here and talking about the same thing.  This is not the same thing that ruined Halopedia, even though the blogging aspect is something to be concerned about.  This is strictly a blogging feature where a user can add some content that can only be edited by that particular user, nothing more.  Essentially, this is another variant of the forums and could even be a replacement of the forum feature we currently have.  I don't know all of the issues here in terms of what this sort of blogging would do to us as a community, and I would agree that it is something very un-wiki like in nature.  If the concern is an eventual creep into what has been happening on Halopedia (including the "personal images" issue... no wonder there is nearly religious opposition to any personal images), I can buy that argument as well.  --Robert Horning 10:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - As per everyone else. 05:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Isn't there a policy against blogging anyways, right here? 11:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This policy comes from Wikipedia (i.e. mostly copied from Wikipedia), where the concern on Wikipedia was over objectivity with the development of the content. There were several issues for this policy:


 * When the policy was originally implemented, there were huge concerns about flooding the early Wikipedia database with blogging content, that the server database would be nothing but blogs if it were permitted. Data storage costs were at the time huge, and those involved with Wikipedia didn't think they could sustain a website like some of the other blogging sites that were then brand-new.  Mind you, there are essay articles that are essentially blogs anyway on Wikipedia, but those tend to be about policies and politics internal to the wiki than something regarding external issues like Iraq, 9/11, and Israel (to note some hot-button issues).  Long-term data storage costs have substantially dropped over the years so this is not nearly as huge of a problem as it once was, and data storage costs for textual information is now incredibly cheap, so concerns about storage costs are now largely irrelevant.
 * Concerns (which I think are just as valid here with the RS Wiki) about maintaining a neutral point of view and objectivity for creating an encyclopedia. Opinions can't be challenged for validity as one person's opinion is just as good and the next person's.  While this wiki isn't strictly an encyclopedia, I do think some sort of scholarly standards should apply here as well.
 * Limits to the scope of the project are ignored by adding features like this. I know that I have encouraged and fought for expansion of different features on this project (like the GEMW), but at the same time there does reach a point that you have to ask if adding blogging is going to change the community in a more destructive nature.  Certainly on Wikipedia there were concerns about blogging bringing in an aspect to the community of a group of individuals that would be there for the blogging and not for trying to develop the content.


 * There is no reason this policy couldn't be changed via community consensus (which is precisely what is happening here... at least trying to see if the community is ready for this), so I don't buy the argument that we shouldn't do this strictly because there is a policy against it. All that means is you shouldn't start a blog here without at least trying to change the current policy.  Policies are never immutable once set, and from time to time it is healthy to question why the policy exists in the first place, even if the ultimate decision is one to keep the policy in place.  --Robert Horning 12:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I agree. This an old policy that clearly needs re-looked at. I was not using the policy as an argument per say, just bringing it to user's attention. 12:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Should this discussion really take place here? The wiki newspaper has not yet achieved consensus at all. This issue should be brought to attention RuneScape:WikiGuild/Proposals/RS Newspaper here to see if the users who are going to work on the newspaper want this. If they do, this feature can be added to the wiki if the newspaper project reaches consensus. Dtm142 19:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In fairness to this discussion, I think it is appropriate to raise the issue here on the Yew Grove as opposed to the part of the community which is developing the guidelines and content for the newspaper. This feature, while it certainly has applications within the RS Newspaper, is something that could have an impact far beyond even that feature and requires a basic change to the software configuration that is running this wiki.  There is nothing in this software that would restrict this to be used only with the newspaper, although admittedly we could establish a policy to make it restricted only to guidelines developed by the newspaper working group.


 * Since there seems to be nearly universal opposition to this idea (no, I still don't think the comparison to Halopedia is appropriate, but that is irrelevant regarding the support for this change to the wiki), I'm not going to be pushing the idea any further. If there seems to be a group that really wants this, go ahead and start another thread on this topic, but I don't see it happening until well after this particular thread is archived and a part of a misty past that most people have forgotten about.  --Robert Horning 04:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

RuneScape Records
I was thinking about a new page called: RuneScape Records. All of the records are written down in this page like:


 * Closest Furnace to a bank
 * P2P: Edgeville
 * F2P: Falador

For example, and ofcourse, player records, like Zezima:


 * First player to achieve 1,000,000,000 total experience
 * Zezima

And even more! How about that? 17:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am neutral on this idea, but leaning more towards oppose (I know this isn't a vote or anything, but I'm unsure how to describe my position). But I don't think "Records" fits for your first examples. And how will you judge the closest of anything? What about shortcuts and such? But anyways, I don't think distances are really records. And I don't know how I feel about the player page records, because first, how do you cite it, and second, how do you determine what is notable enough to be written about? This is pretty much why we don't allow player pages to begin with. Christine 19:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per Christine. Player records are not notable nor verifable. The closest furnace to a bank could be noted in the furnace article, but we do not need a page listing miscellaneous records. Dtm142 19:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Semi-support - I would be supportive of an Almanac of various features in the game, which could include some listing of notable features like the longest river, largest city (in terms of NPC population or buildings), highest & lowest points you can access, or other similar kinds of features that can be verified in-game. These don't have to be necessarily in articles strictly about the features (like the Furnace article) and could be better organized in a whole bunch of ways that would also be very useful for players. Articles about individual players (even groups of players), however, would be difficult due to verifiability.  Who might have been the first player to defeat the King Black Dragon?  Who has the longest continuous run in the Brimhaven Agility Arena?  I don't know how this sort of information could be remotely verified.  Even though Zezima's accomplishment of 1 billion exp is documented in a number of places (and can be verified that he is indeed above that number of experience points on the high scores pages), verifying when that happened is rather difficult.  Jagex doesn't let web crawlers go through the high score pages (at least ones that follow ROBOTS.TXT guidelines).  --Robert Horning 19:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I am really liking the Almanac idea, but it would be really very hard to document and require many hours of research, insight and depth into conversation, etc. How would we determine what is suitable to enter and what is not. Most facts are already in the article they are about anyways, so the point in summing them up is really pointless when it's already in the wikia. A disambig page set-up linking pages which support almanac material, but that is also pointless. I don't like the idea of records, as per DTM. 22:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - per Christine and Dtm. 05:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - per Christine, Dtm, and Soldier. Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 05:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, but most of that information is already in other articles. Level 99 skills has records of who was the first to get all 99s for each skill and total level, and as Dtm said, the 'closest furnace award' could be in the furnace article. I'm not sure exactly what this page would look like, either. If it's just a list, it sounds kinda' boring. Though if it could be useful, it could act as a hub somehow. 01:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Per DTM‎Atlandy 14:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-opposition This would be a good idea if not for the player records part; players can always look at the Highscores list on the RuneScape website for this. And it shouldn't be called records - is a close furnace really a record? Call it the Almanac like Robert Horning suggests. Mythomagic5 03:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Support of 2 different articles.I reckon an almanac would be really good, especially if it was categoriesd into segmennts such as smithing-->f2p--> closest furnace to bank: Falador or Al karid. Also, This wiki REALLY needs a Runescape Player history, which has all information from the world 111 massacre to Zezima getting 1bil xp and gertjaars gettin 4 200mil's (see 24th December, above). Runescape needs a History of events, not lots of different articles such as the level 99 one and other vague articles. We need one article/subarticles which has all the runescape player history in chhronological order to the best of our ability, with as much evidence as can be hoarded. Eg: pic of the highscores or of the world 111 massacre. Soon there'll be hordes of people with 4 200mils, so no one will know, unless we have this article.-- 14:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue here is still one of verifiability. In terms of specific users, it is quite difficult to note who exactly did what to start any major riot or protest.  The World 111 massacre is at least documented how it started, as there were a great many people who were there and it is mentioned in several fan website forums.  Certainly there are events that happen in the game which are not "officially" referenced in the "weekly" (more or less) updates posted by Jagex regarding the game.  Several riots and other similar kinds of events have been brought up for a VfD on the grounds of verifiability and notability... and how far do we draw the line here?  Is a Castle Wars encounter between two major clans sufficient for noting and writing up an article here?  What about a player completing Legends Quest?  BTW, I put players earning 1 billion exp to be more or less in the same category as those who have completed the Legends Quest, just on a slightly different scale.  More than worthy to put on your user page if you want to brag about it, but not worth more than a footnote anywhere else, certainly not about anybody who is not a regular participant on this wiki.  Zezima perhaps a special mention by having a few player firsts, but otherwise even he isn't really all that special.  --Robert Horning 22:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that: If it wasn't done by Jagex, it isn't worth having? wow, that's...strange... Oh, and about the legend quest thing: One user completing the legend's quest isn't History, unless he/she was noteably the first to compleat it (which, compared to the others, which are easy to prove, is impossible to prove.) it isn't relevant. The importance of the 200mil in 4 skills is: IT'S NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE... (and, to my knowledge) HAS NEVER BEEN DONE SINCE. Don't get me wrong, it is highly unlikely I ever even start the Legend's Quest, I don't even want to start it. But about 1/3 of the people that have any skill cape have the quest cape. Quite possibly, a 1/5th of level 100+'s will have done legends for the ability to wield the Dragon sq. someone being first to 4 200mils is ONE name, not thousands. If and when someone gets 5 200mils, it should be noted down on the page.-- 18:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It isn't like this particular accomplishment, achieving 200 million exp in 4 skills, has gone unnoticed on this wiki anyway, nor unmentioned. BTW, I was the user who restored the information about what users achieved level 99 for each skill on Level 99 skills and demanded that at least some sort of consensus happen there before information like this was removed from that and similar articles.  That information was previously removed by somebody (you can look it up in the history log if you care... it is irrelevant to bring him up in this discussion) who thought it was site-wide policy to remove all references to any and all individual players in main-space articles.  There is no firm policy, but there are several schools of thought and certainly several participants here who have a wide range of opinions on this topic.


 * The issue of notability still is there, and what exactly makes somebody notable. Perhaps, just perhaps, I might accept some note for the first to certain skill capes and max exp.  I've even brought up the idea for a special cape when players hit MAXINT (aka 2^31, which is when high scores can no longer be calculated).  That hasn't happened yet, but it seems like there will eventually be a player with that many experience points.  Still, now that somebody getting max exp in four skills has happened, what about five skills, six skills, seven skills, etc?  What exactly is something notable for inclusion here?  I mention the Legend's Quest because it is a major accomplishment for an individual player, but it really isn't something I'd call notable beyond just a few close friends and perhaps throwing a party in your POH after doing that quest.  A major clan rumble might be perhaps a bit more notable (just to get something like that organized alone), and a major riot certainly fits the bill as something which has achieved notoriety in the game...  or a hugely embarrassing glitch like what caused the world 111 massacre.  But I don't see a clear line of notability here in this spectrum of notable accomplishments and mundane things like players who have completed the Restless ghost quest.  Where, exactly, should the line be drawn here for notability?  --Robert Horning 23:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Images Needing Transparency
As per the project, RuneScape:Image Maintenance, Category:Images needing transparency contains a large number of pictures that require transparency. Within this category are a vast amount of pictures that do not meet our wiki standards and it was here that I am trying to get feedback on how to clean this up. I would love to see it where zero images require transparency meaning that all these images have it however a vast of these pictures are low detail, have anti-aliasing, or are saved as a format other then PNG. I ponder why these images are in this category as they do not meet standard criteria anyways and the effort making them transparent is pointless. I'm looking for opinions on implicating a method to reduced these pictures within this category so I was thinking a new transparency policy is possible where pictures would have to meet these criteria before being eligible to be placed in the Category:Images needing transparency:


 * Must be in PNG File Format;
 * Files currently located here, must be retaken and saved as a PNG


 * Images must be High-Detail;
 * Files currently located here, must be retaken as HD


 * Must be taken with Anti-Aliasing turned off;
 * Files currently located here, must be retaken with AA off

Once all of these criteria are met, transparency should then be requested.

Looking for opinions, please let me know. Thanks!

01:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - Makes sense, as if an image is a jpg, non HD, or AA then it will have to be retaken. If all images in Category:Images needing transparency already met those criteria then it is simply a case of removing the background of the existing image. This would encourage those who know how to make images transparent to do so, and those who don't can take required images and tag them for someone to make them transparent. I also think the transparency template would have to be updated so people know not to use it on images that should be retaken. -- Mizon talk 04:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - nice idea and per Mizon's comments. 05:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Support+Comment - It's a good idea since it is pointless to add the transparency template to sd and non-png images that are going to be replaced with HD images sooner or later. But I have a query, is AA good or bad? Because this page seems to say that AA is good? And one of the criteria is "must be taken with AA off". 12:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - It depends on the situation in which Anti-Aliasing is used. For moving images, such as GIF's, and for images that do not require transparency anti-aliasing should be turned on, but for images that require transparency anti-aliasing should be turned on off. 21:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Bonzi i think you meant to say AA should be off for images that are transparency candidates (i discussed the difficulties of applying transparency to images that are anti-aliased on someone's talk page that i can't recall) . Anti-aliasing does make the images smoother for images that will not have transparency, so the general rule of thumb would be, animations and images that won't have transparency should have anti-aliasing turned on, and still images that are intended for transparency should be taken with anti-aliasing turned off. The main goal (in my opinion) of why to have clean transparency of images is the goal of re-skinning the RS Wiki, which will likely be something darkish and similar to www.runescape.com yet distinct at the same time. Currently most images that have transparency and anti-aliasing will look poor on dark backgrounds. Worse for some reason, most tables viewed under the Gaming skins have a light background that makes their text unreadable. At one point I was still of the opinion that this Wiki could be led forward to a re-skinning, but as far as i can see for now, it will take someone with more time and dedication than myself to lead the way. 23:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Kytti, but some users can't do this. I am one of those, I upload most of the animations here on the Wiki, but my computer is just too slow to play Runescape on AAx4. I DID try it with AAx4 in the beginning, see the examples right of here. But the results were laggy images. Mercifull CAN play on AAx4, without making laggy images. Personally, I think that this shouldn't be a big problem, as the images are clearly showing what must be showed.--. 15:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not worried more so about the AA on animations as I am for still images. 15:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Chat
If users would look at the way this wikia has setup its information in regards to RuneScape Chat, it is rather, well to be bland, sloppy. When one looks into the very important means of communication the first things they see is a disambig page, Chat. Following the links provided here they can be taken to several other pages of what contain articles to be merged, moved, cleaned up, etc. Following links on these pages will bring more articles requiring merging, clean up, etc.

In general in what I am trying to say is the interface we use to offer information about Chat needs to be cleaned up. I am proposing a short-term project dedicated to this clean up. This means that the page, Chat would be the host of this clean up. All pages linked to and about chat would be entered on to this page. This means that all articles, from Clan Chat, to Public chat, to All, and Assist, Clan (chat interface), Chat filter, Friends List, Message box, etc would be cleaned up and built/moved to be directly corresponded with this page. This would in turn lead to subpages being created however I feel that the information we have in regards to player communication is very unorganized. Moving these pages would also require a great deal of time, new redirects, deleting of redirects, changing links on hundreds on pages etc, but when complete would be a great advantage to the wikia in terms of consistent format.

Before I took the many hours required to plan a project, build a solid platform and began recruiting and making these changes I was looking for input from others to see if my opinion on this matter is mutual with others. If there is a genuine consensus made I would love to begin working on this.

Thanks!

P.S. As I am not an administrator this project would require a large amount of support and time from administration. To move and delete pages as well as protect, etc on others.

05:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I'll do my best to help but with my current unpredictable schedule I can't guarantee anything right now. 05:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Is anyone else willing? 18:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith policy (Requesting Revision)
This policy is by no means specific all it says is to assume good faith towards newcomers and to delete vandalism. You don't always know if they are a newcomer for one and two the only time you shouldn't assume good faith is towards vandalism? They are other cases such as self-promotion or pure ignorance that you shouldn't assume good faith towards because if you did it would spread like a disease.Please re-write this policy it desperately needs it.--Gamebox77
 * I'm confused, could you reword what you're trying to say/ask? As far as determining if a person is a newcomer, their contributions history is helpful in determining that. Most of the rest is more or less degrees of good faith. 22:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Protect site - policy?
I was browsing Special:SpecialPages last night and found an option only available to administrators called "Protect site" under the "Other special pages" section.

The following are the options that may be used to semi- or fully protect parts or all of this wiki for up to 24 hours.

Allow creation of new accounts by Allow creation of pages by Allow editing of pages by Allow moving of pages by Allow file uploads by
 * All users
 * Registered users and sysops
 * Sysops only
 * All users
 * Registered users and sysops
 * Sysops only
 * All users
 * Registered users and sysops
 * Sysops only
 * Registered users and sysops
 * Sysops only
 * Registered users and sysops
 * Sysops only

Timeout: (Maximum: 24 hours)

I'm guessing this has never been used for and it probably isn't a good idea to use it unless there is an extreme emergency, but I think that there should be a policy so this option is never misused and so admins know when to use it, how to use it, and for how long to enable it.

I don't think it's visible by non-sysops, but it can be accessed by going to Special:Protectsite. 23:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we already protected the site once now. I agree that we should have some sort of policy on it, like when it should be used. 01:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I take responsibility for anything that might have caused issues during the protect site. However, we had a persistent vandal that was continually making new accounts, and had both myself and Sir Revan working to block and delete the spam. I saw it a necessary step to ensure the safety of the encyclopedia and to allow central time to run a checkuser. My initial protect site was for 30 minutes, and when that expired, the vandal came back, and I had yet to hear anything from central. But back to discussing the policy. I agree that it's drastic, and a policy that includes this needs to be brought up quick in the event that something like today happens again. 01:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you did the right thing, Karlis. See my rough draft of the policy below. 02:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is the second time to the best of my knowledge that this feature has ever been used, the first was on the 23rd (the protection lasted 2 hours) after the wiki was attacked by multiple vandal bots, within a ten minute timeframe, before Uberfuzzy and Dechainex were able to block the bots and issue the site protection.-- 02:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Protectsite policy - Rough draft
Here's a watered down version of it. The full version can be accessed at RuneScape:Protectsite.

The ProtectSite feature may be used in the event of:

& A wiki-wide update (for example, if major changes were being made to templates that would affect 500 articles)
 * Extreme vandalism by one or more users that occurs at a fast enough pace that administrator(s) cannot keep up

The site should only be fully protected if the vandalism is caused by multiple autoconfirmed users. In other cases a site-wide semi-protection should be used instead. The length of the protection is generally decided at the discretion of the administrator enabling the protection. Abuse of this feature can lead to the revoking of sysop privileges and all site-wide protections, semi- or full, must be reviewed by the community on the Yew Grove to determine whether or not they were necessary and to decide whether or not any recourses should be taken against the administrator in question.

What do you all think? 02:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Support - as nominator for this policy. 02:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Site-wide protections may (and have) become necessary. As such, I think it's best that we put administrators' minds at rest.  They should know that they will be praised, not disciplined, for protecting the site under certain circumstances.  02:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Admins should also state which options they set when they post the protection notice. 02:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - I agree with this. If what Luckytoilet is saying is true, about this person creating a vandalbot, we're going to need to get something done, quick. I was going to set a Site Notice, but I was a bit more concerned, at the time, with ensuring that the vandal was stopped. 02:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - With the recent string of attacks and by the means necessary to address these issues our options are becoming more limited to address these mass vandals. This would help a lot. 03:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

incomplete armour and weapons categories
did anyone notice that most members weapons and armour are not included in the category designed for them? it took me a long time and i was wondering why stuff like the armour from the hazeel cult and stuff wern't in the category they belong  Btzkillerv has entered the building!   11:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploading RuneScape music
As some of you may know, the music that plays while playing RuneScape can usually be found in our computers in a cache folder in the form of MIDI files. These MIDI files can be uploaded into the wiki, and included/embedded in articles (quests, Music, etc.) The files can be set to play automatically, or on-demand.

I have 70-80% 65% of the MIDI files and the files are quite small in size (average 20-50kb per file). Embedding the MIDI files can be tricky, but I have found a way using a combination of templates and JS.

The thing that concerns me is: copyright. Can we upload these files...? We're already using content from the game (images/screen captures) and website under the conditions of "Fair use".. so why not upload the music too?

If anyone is interested in this, I'll work on it. Currently, I've tested the embedding script, and it works. All I need to do is to create a template (similar to the Listen template in Wikipedia) and we can start playing MIDI files in articles. 09:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with this, and providing demos for players in the music list and all, that would be great. I can't find the midi's though in my cache, any reason why? 09:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Prior to November 2007, the MIDI files used to be located at "c:/windows/.files_store32" or something like that. If you've been playing RS before November 2007, you'll notice some MIDI files there, otherwise I'm afraid you wouldn't have the files.  The MIDI files I have are from the game before Jagex updated engine in 2007.  For music released after that, you have to record the music manually using audio-recording softwares.  06:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If they're short, they can be used under fair use, I believe. Basically, we just can't upload the whole song; a 30 second clip or something should be fine though.--Richardtalk 16:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Support if they're clips less than thirty seconds long. Anything longer than that would be unnecessary and reaching the limits that fair use can stretch to. 02:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The tracks I have are full songs, some up to 4 mins long.. However, the playback time can be limited to 30 secs even if we upload full songs. If we cannot upload full songs, I'll have to cut the songs short, and this could be a time-consuming process. I'll see what I can do...
 * I also have other sound effects like "Quest completion", "Levelling up", "Magic carpet ride", etc. Some of these clips are less than 30 secs, and shouldn't be a "Fair use" problem.  06:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that courts have traditionally been much more harsh about their interpretation of fair use for musical compositions, as opposed to textual quotes and even images. In one really unusual case, a total of about 10 notes were copied and a successful copyright infringement suit resulted.  I kid you not here... it is that bad.  The tide seems to be turning the other way in terms of allowing slightly more latitude in fair-use, but what you are talking about here is really stretching the limits of fair-use.  I don't know where Jagex got this music, but I would have to assume they either got these midi files from some professional composers or from a music library company, and it is licensed by Jagex for use in their game alone.  In other words, I doubt that Jagex even owns this music for them to give permission for us to use it here... but I may be mistaken on this issue.  A sample of a couple of these songs might be acceptable, but a complete library of everything in the game may be (unfortunately) over the top and too much as well, from a strictly legal viewpoint.  For personal use (also covered under fair-use law), that is something different but we are talking publication and distribution when it comes to this wiki.  --Robert Horning 10:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to inform you, Jagex does own all rights to these songs. They are written specifically for the games by, I believe, only two individuals hired by Jagex. 18:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * While I'm not questioning the truth of this statement, it would be nice to get a citation that could be used with this little tidbit. At least to put it into the Runescape article on Wikipedia if nothing more.  I would like to know who composed some of this music in the game. --Robert Horning 20:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I was mistaken, it is three hired staff, as stated here: Music Team. 21:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup, there are three Mods in the Music team: Mod Ian, Mod Dan and Mod Bond. Some of the earlier MIDIs are credited to Ian and Dan, with the copyright belonging to Jagex Ltd.

Anyways, I haven't had the time to create samples out of the MIDI files yet (I've been quite busy with other projects), but I'll try to do it soon. Anyone would like to request particular tracks...? I'm planning to upload maybe three or four 30-sec sample tracks (2 from the Music Player, and 1-2 sound clips from the game). How does that sound? 21:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps some more popular tunes. I'm not sure of the titles for I am not online at the moment, but perhaps the ones heard in the Grand Exchange, Lumbridge, Varrock Square, and maybe some others. 23:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Armies of Gielinor
If you are not yet aware, FunOrb recently released a new game based on the RuneScape universe called "Armies of Gielinor".

My question is whether we should or should not be updating this Wiki with information for and based on the game. I can understand that this game is part of FunOrb that has its own Wiki, however this game is directly related to the RuneScape universe itself. If we were to change the Wiki to include Armies of Gielinor information, some things we'd need to work on are:
 * Obviously making the article. I'd recommend making an Armies of Gielinor article that states information about the game in general
 * Including information across all necessary current articles if they relate to RuneScape. Each monster / God available in Armies of Gielinor would have it stated in their own respective articles with additional game information
 * Renderings of each monster on their specific article
 * In alternative to the above, a separate article could be made specifically for monsters in Armies of Gielinor. So, the King Black Dragon would have it's own article titled "King Black Dragon (Armies of Gielinor)" that states its information

If anyone supports / denies this idea, please say why. Thanks :) Setherex 01:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering that we have an article on the book that was just released pretty much argues that this is no different and therefore should have its' own article. Which is fine, it is related to Runescape. But I would be strongly opposed to mentioning it on each article that has monsters from the game as that is extremely trivial. Perhaps simply an Armies of Gielnor template or Funorb template could be added to those pages. Which should amply satisfy those that want the fact there is a Runescape game in Funorb to be mentioned.e article with non Runescape info.--Degenret01 02:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't see this new discussion until after I used the page to redirect to Jagex. I saw that the FunOrb game, Arcanists, redirected to Jagex. So I did the same for Armies of Gielinor. Should I undo what I did? In any case, isn't this game based on Runescape, but not Runescape? I used to play a game called AQ Battleon (long time ago) and DragonFable was a game based on it. But while they had similarities (in NPCs), they were still quite different. Likewise, while Armies of Gielinor might be based on Runescape, the gameplay would be quite different (most probably). Just a thought, but I feel that like Arcanists, this wiki does not really need an article about this game.  03:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The only way that Arcanists is related to RuneScape is that Saradomin and Zamorak appear in statue form on one map. That gets it a redirect and a mention in an article or two. Armies of Gielinor is related to RuneScape in that:
 * The name. It says "Gielinor" right there.
 * It's an official smaller game based off of RuneScape. There are plenty of flash games based off of RuneScape, but they usually stink and [of course] aren't official in the least.
 * The factions, regions and units are all exactly the same as those in RuneScape.
 * The same wireframes are used in both games in most cases.
 * Certain emotes are also used in AoG.
 * I am definite that an article should be made. Though, as for a guide on the game (e.g.: strategies, articles on each inidividual unit, tables of what units are good against what, etc.), that might be going a bit too far. It's an official FunOrb game based in Gielinor. For that, it gets documented. But because it is a FunOrb game, it doesn't get the guides that RuneScape mini-games get. 07:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

While I do think an article about the Amies of Gielinor is appropriate for this wiki, I'm not entirely sure if this is the appropriate spot for a complete game guide that includes all of the units and minute details which go into depth about the game is appropriate here. Instead, it really belongs on the FunOrb wiki if you want to go into that sort of depth. This isn't to say that the article here couldn't be quite extensive and include several screen shots and quite a bit of information about the game, but make it a single article... and go into details as to how it relates to the game of Runescape.

In addition, I wouldn't mind something similar to Template:wpalso that has a link from some of the individual content pages that has a link to the FunOrb content that is related to this game. Such inter-wiki links can be very useful (and perhaps even link back from the FunOrb Wiki to the RS Wiki!) This is mainly an issue of duplication of effort, and I think those on the FunOrb wiki will likely do a better job of going into depth on the topic than we could possibly do here. --Robert Horning 10:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm one of the active editors of the FunOrb wiki, and we do have an article about Armies of Gielinor that is making very good progress. I think that linking between the FunOrb and RuneScape wikis with regards to this update is quite a good idea, and have already started a discussion about this on the Armies of Gielinor talk page. Quartic ~ insanity is a virtue  |  Talk  15:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Upgrading MediaWiki parser
I put in a bug report on Wikia central about some unusual behavior I was encountering with a template I've been working on, and I got an interesting reply from User:Uberfuzzy

See:


 * w:Forum:Tag template "function" not working with wikia

The gist of this is that some of the behavior of the more complicated templates may be changing with a parser upgrade that is going to happen pretty soon (and should be happening even now). When the software upgrade happens to version 1.14 of MediaWiki, it is possible that some of the templates may be broken and require a bit of tweaking.

I'm giving this a bit of heads-up for those wanting to help out with maintaining some of the more complicated aspects of this wiki. To the best of my knowledge, this isn't going to impact the GEMW pages or any of the Calculators, but it may impact some of the more complicated formatting and navigation templates. If there are any templates or parts of this wiki that might be impacted, please indicated below, or certainly leave a note on RuneScape:Administrator requests if you see something that is broken. --Robert Horning 13:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hopefully this will fix the #ifexist/template bug... 14:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're talking about the issue I think you're talking about (the tnavbar problem), it wasn't a bug. It was just coded incorrectly, and I've already fixed it.  21:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * From what I am seeing neither of the last two attempts to correct this issue have worked. 07:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Kytti is right. I'm afraid your change (super) only made it change the wanted pages link from 'Template talk' to 'Talk', which was wrong anyway. My effort, whilst it fixed a problem, did not fix this problem. I'm not sure the new parser is on yet, so we will see what effect that has... 09:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Citing sources
I've noticed that the &lt;ref&gt; tag is very rarely used. In fact, the only time I've ever seen a source cited on this Wiki is when I'm doing the editing—and I haven't contributed that much content. Perhaps if we cited sources more often, such as the RuneScape knowledgebase, people would be more willing to accept our information as truth. Of course, there are always going to be wiki-haters who will never believe any of the facts here just because anybody can contribute.

I don't really see any cons to citing sources. It can only help, right? Even if players doubt the truthfulness in our articles (though they shouldn't), they will be able to click on a reference link and consult a source that they have more trust in. And, of course, it will make weeding out more subtle vandalism quite a bit easier.

I'm not proposing that we force contributors to cite sources, but I do think we should make an effort to cite as much as we possibly can. If a recent change isn't cited, perhaps another contributor could verify the information and add a source or two.

Of course, as RuneScape will always have its mysteries, not all information can be cited—especially if we're the first "fansite" (for lack of a better term) to release a new article after an update, which we often are. However, we might be able to come up with some method for referencing the game itself, since the &lt;ref&gt; tag isn't limited to URL's. For example, here's a reference that I made from a combination of APA's recommendation and MLA's recommendation: (Note: URI is not a typo; that's an I ["eye"], not an L ["ell"]). Perhaps we could stick that in a template that also adds a category, so we can reference knowledgebase articles at a later date?

What do you think: is it worth the little bit of extra effort? I'm not so much looking for a "support" or "oppose" as I am looking for comments and constructive feedback.

Discussion
Just thought of something... has this issue already been brought up? I didn't notice any related discussion in recent Yew Grove history, but I could have missed something. 22:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that at least some of the articles (hopefully a diminishing number of them) have been copied verbatim from some of the other fansites, such as tip.it, RuneHQ, and others. While the information can (usually) be independently verified simply by logging into the game and checking it out, I do think some of these other fan sites ought to be cited when information is gleaned from their pages. We are certainly not restricted to only citing information from Jagex websites.

On occasion Jagex has also been in the mainstream media or more often has appeared in more general news sites about games, where some interesting little tidbits of information have been discussed about Runescape as well. Some of this, including in particular controversial issues like the elimination of the wilderness (in terms of player vs. player combat there) and why Jagex needed to eliminate real-world trading, have been discussed extensively on non-Jagex websites. There certainly is some information that could be very useful to the wiki that can and should be cited properly.

All of this really is spit and polish in terms of making this a far better website. Any effort like this I certainly support. --Robert Horning 12:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I support this idea. Make a "needs more citations" tag template. I always thought the RuneScape Wiki needed more references. 11:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - This already exists, and I've done a bit of work on it. Template:Fact  18:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - No, I mean a big tag to go at the top of an article. I also think that the Fact template should be used more. 21:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Great idea. I'll get to work on it immediately.  22:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - I support the citation, but it should not be limited to just articles. Although perhaps the citation is not a relevant term in this case, I feel we should also reference any images taken directly from the Jagex website (this would not apply to other fansites as acquiring an image from them is a violation of policy). Although I am familiar with MLA Citation, It has been a few years, perhaps a new policy for citation format is required...especially directly to website MLA, vs. E-mail, vs. Forums, etc. 14:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Private Server Pictures.
I have noticed that one or two pictures of certain items must have been taken on a private server, this picture for example was clearly taken on a private server as Godswords were never wielded like this. You may remember that all 2hs were updated when godwars came out. Should this image and others be deleted as its not runescape and technically is false information? -- 02:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed it, as I'd said the same thing a few weeks back. WWTDD? 14:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I requested a speedy delete of this image, as per a GIF file of a player wielding a Godsword is provided and the I trust this source more. Anywho, I agree, images taken in private servers should not be uploaded, but in general this would be hard to determine if this is what has happened. How can it be proven this picture was taken on a private server. Note, I do not support a speedy delete of an image (even if taken on a private server) if it is the only image. A VfD should be completed at that time, or a new image(s) uploaded before removal. 14:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment- It isn't that hard if the player is doing something that never happened in runescape. private servers picture might look a little strange and would be low quailty.-- 22:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - If I'm not mistaken, there are no HD private servers--the new RuneScape protocol hasn't been deciphered yet. So, until HD private servers exist, all private server images will be in standard detail, meaning they will eventually be replaced anyway. I do agree that we should not allow images taken on private servers, but I don't think we need to start a witch hunt searching for such pictures; if you suspect an image as being taken on a private server (and it's not completely obvious), just add to the top of the page, and someone will take an HD screenshot soon enough. 22:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

articles on fan sites?
Should we include articles about fan sites, such as Tip.It and Zybez? Since Wikipedia has articles on major websites, I don't see any problem with including articles on fan sites, provided they are notable enough. --Ixfd64 07:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keeping in mind both notability (as you've mentioned) and avoiding those "fan sites" that are mainly dedicated to breaking rules, I don't have too much of a problem. RuneHQ, Sal's, Truthscape, and a couple of others should be considered as well.  There are some "hacking" websites like Moparscape that I would question, but I'd leave that on a case by case basis that could be decided by the community.  --Robert Horning 16:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There are far too many popular runescape fansites to begin listing even the popular ones. Then we might have to deal with people from one fansite who want inclusion in the wiki, but dont meet a specific requirement for inclusion. I also fear that eventually articles would become redundant listing features that fansites usually have no matter what (quest guides/calculators/skill guides/forums). It just seems like a mess. [[Image:Gnomegoggleswithcap.png|25px]]TEbuddy 15:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * How many is "far too many"? If there is a legitimate website that has an established community, has original content (in other words, not copied from other sites including this one), isn't a "one-man band", and doesn't encourage rule breaking (primarily about tips for macroing, real-world trade, etc.), why should we not encourage those sites to be written about here?  I think we can certainly come up with criteria to exclude some fan websites that don't meet basic criteria that most folks on this wiki want to avoid, but at the same time permit groups to "advertise" here so far as to let everybody know they are setting up a legitimate fan site.


 * I really don't expect more than a dozen or so fan sites pages to be created speaking from an optimistic viewpoint. This content isn't going to overwhelm this wiki into becoming mostly about fan websites or change the nature of this wiki with these pages.  We could certainly debate about clan websites as being different from websites that are of a more general nature about the game.  I would think the Clan website pages should instead be on the RS clan wiki, as that is a more appropriate forum for those kind of sites.  --Robert Horning 16:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The way I am seeing it, most Runescape fansites are vastly similar with a few minor variations. Not to mention far more than 12 have moderately large active communities (google)If we decide to go ahead and list information pages for a dozen fansites, what will we say on all of them besides blah blah was founded in 2001 and currently has a very active community with detailed information about Runescape. I have nothing against link exchanges, but if we are going to list fansites we might as well list all the popular IRC channels by page.


 * What about having a runescape fansite index where we could categorize all the fansites by name or something like that and provide a sentence or two for a summary.[[Image:Gnomegoggleswithcap.png|25px]]TEbuddy 22:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you are underestimating by a huge factor how much effort is required in order to set up and build a fan website. It isn't a trivial matter, and most of the poorer quality fan sites are just a single user who has copied stuff from elsewhere.  I certainly doubt that there are 128,000 fan websites about Runescape on the internet.  I stand by my assertion that there are only a dozen or so active fan sites with a thriving community, and perhaps a dozen or so others that are struggling at various stages and may have one or two people actively adding content.  The rest of them are blatant copies of other fan sites by internet link spammers, RWT advertising sites, and other sites of such awful quality that they certainly don't deserve a link or even a mention.  Some basic standards could be established to show that there is a community behind the group.  Clan sites, IRC channels, and other such trivial links that don't have substantial content can certainly be eliminated from any such list of legitimate fan sites.  Links to such trivial fan sites are in the first 10 links on that google search, and it only gets worse from there.  --Robert Horning 15:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally would like the wiki to educate users on private servers in a way that does not encourage the use of them. From what I hear, hosting private servers is illegal, but playing on one not hosted by you is not. I also support articles on the "big" fansites. 22:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It actually states very clearly in Jagex's terms and conditions that You must not use a modified/customised version of the client software or attempt to sub-license it. You must not create or provide any other means by which any Jagex Product may be played by others (including, without limitation, replacement or modified client/server software, server emulators). It is indeed in violation of these terms as well as Rule 7 to create or use fake servers.


 * I am against linking to or creating articles on other fansites. Everyone will try to create an article about their fansite, including account stealing/macroing/RWIT sites.  There is also very little notable material that could be included in a fansite article other than " [insert site name here].com is a RuneScape-related website that offers hints, guides, and forums."  For so little gain, there is really no point in including these articles.  Any reasonable person who wanted to know what RuneHQ is would do a simple Google search and find whatever it was that they needed.


 * It is also foolish to link to our competitors' websites. The RuneScape Wiki is indeed a fansite that is trying to compete for community members with the other major fansites.  If we are to link to another fansite, they had better link back to us. Dtm142 23:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Some things to consider if we were to actually make articles on other fansites: Yes, there are many RuneScape fansites, but how many are notable? Off the top of my head, I can think of... Of those, I would expect the first four to get articles if such a policy were to pass. But if it did pass, why don't we make an article about ourself? Halopedia has an article about Halopedia, for example. Or, why not just make a page about all of the notable ones with short descriptions, and maybe a screenshot of their main page? 04:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What is actually going to be put on the page? We don't want one-lined stubs.
 * [As Dtm said,] Do we really want to be linking to our competitors? If they were to link back (which such an agreement may be hard to be made) then I suppose it might be okay.
 * How moral are they? There are lots of hacking websites, rule breaking websites, etc.. One popular fansite (of which I shall not name) had two money making guide and RWIT adverts on most every page I went to. For us and RuneHQ (at least I think this applies to them too), whenever we see an RWIT ad, we get it taken off fast. That one site didn't care. We wouldn't want to be associated with such hooligans.
 * What do they feature? Most every fansite features quest guides, skill guides, an item and NPC database, their own forums, and sometimes calculators and signature makers. The sites should be special.
 * Are they a clan website? Clan websites can get large communities (up to 200 members, plus possibly 600+ non-clan members who use the forums), but I don't really think they deserve articles.
 * 1) RuneHQ
 * 2) Tip.It
 * 3) Zybez
 * 4) Sal's Realm
 * 5) Runegamer
 * 6) RuneScape Wiki (That's us :D)
 * 7) RSBandB ("RuneScape Bits and Bytes")
 * 8) Draynor.net
 * 9) TruthScape
 * 10) UbNub
 * 11) Rs-videos
 * 12) [That one that Skychi endorsed, I think...]
 * 13) [The one that Zezima ran]

We could use some sort of notability guideline like Wikipedia does. See w:WP:WEB, for example. Also, wikis should be neutral. Prohibiting articles on other fan sites just because they are "competitive" doesn't exactly seem neutral to me. --Ixfd64 09:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is, once again, something that I am totally against. First, there is no way that any other site is going to link back to us.  Those websites cost money from the maker to maintain.  They make their money by ad's and clicks.  Why would they ever want to divert traffic from their site to ours.  They all would love the idea of links going to their guides, their maps, their information.  Second, what do those sites have as far as information that we do not?  Nothing.  If they do, we can cover anything in a more timely manner (posting quests as soon as they come out for example).  They do not have any information that we do not have, and we also have numerous sources and input.  Third, who is to determine which site "get in" and which do not?  This opens the door to quite a bit of sites out there. Fourth is security.  Who is going to vouch for the sites that we add.  I personally know of a security breach at one of those fansites where passwords and user id's got compromised. To link to non-trusted website is a bad idea ‎[[Image:Cooked_chicken.PNG‎]]Atlandy 19:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm definitely getting the impression that articles on fan sites are discouraged. For example, the consensus on RuneScape:Votes for deletion/Fan site was to not include links to fan sites. However, I just checked the policies again and there is no mention of whether articles on fan sites are allowed. Nevertheless, I do not want to make any major changes against the consensus of the community. Therefore, I will create drafts of such articles but restrict them to my userspace for now. If the community decides that such articles are appropriate, I will move them into the main namespace; otherwise, it will remain in my userspace as unofficial "articles."

Personally, I don't think we should be competing with other fan sites. Rather, we should be working with them. --Ixfd64 00:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If we want to work with them, they had better work with us by linking back. Dtm142 00:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ...Which I think would be unlikely. 00:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See above for reason they will never link back to us ‎[[Image:Cooked_chicken.PNG‎]]Atlandy 15:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * True, true. 00:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I would support an article about fansites in general, but I do not think that we need an article on each one. 21:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we already have fan site, if you mean creating an article [which is already there]. 00:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not ask other websites to link back to it if it has an article about them, but then again, the RuneScape Wiki is not Wikipedia and our policies are somewhat different from that of the latter. Nevertheless, it does not seem very encyclopedic to exclude links to other websites just because they might be competing with us. However, some people consider the RuneScape Wiki to be more of a fan site than an encyclopedia. After all, our tagline is "The RuneScape fansite that anyone can edit!" and not "The RuneScape encyclopedia that anyone can edit!"

While some users here are opposed to articles about fan sites, the policies say nothing about such articles. Are such articles against the rules or merely discouraged? If it is the former case, it should probably be added to the policies. --Ixfd64 04:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It isn't that the writing of the fansite articles are generally discouraged and against policy here, but that there are some regular contributors who are voicing some opposition to the idea. You are correct that the policies in place on this website simply say nothing at all about articles covering information about fan websites.


 * As far as demanding "links back" for including information about fan websites... I don't get that either. What we can do here is to provide the information, and do such an outstanding job of making this website complete that to not link to the RS wiki is missing out of a huge repository of resources that can help out any Runescape fan community.


 * For myself, if you want to make a comprehensive website about the game of Runescape, I don't understand why pages about fan websites should be explicitly prohibited... or pages like SwiftKit (currently under VfD as we speak) should be deleted either. These are aspects of the player community that should be documented and only serve to make this a better website rather than becoming mindless puppets of Jagex.  --Robert Horning 12:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A resident of XXXX
There are literally hundreds of stub articles of various NPCs where there is little to be said about them, and often the only information available on them is what town they are found in. I think that all of these stub articles should be combined into articles such as Residents of Catherby. I would go ahead and do this now but I figured before doing something as big of this I could not only use some help, but also would probably do well to clear it with people who are more experienced with this than I.

There are also a number of NPCs that run shops, and that is their only distinguishable characteristic. I think that these shopkeepers could be put into the Residents of Town X articles, or possibly in a new article, Shopkeepers of Town X. The only problem with the latter is what do you do with towns that only have one shopkeeper?

I'd appreciate some feedback on this, because I won't start until I'm sure its ok, because I don't want to do all this work and then have it reverted!

Psycho Robot 02:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I like the idea, but as the RuneScape:Granularity policy says, "All items, NPCs, quests, whatever, are worthy of their own article, except in special cases where it is decided to combine or delete an article by consensus." I guess this could be one of those special cases where we combine articles and I'd be in support of it if others are. I guess you can consider this a neutral vote for now until there is more discussion on this topic. 02:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per Azliq and Robert Horning. 21:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As is is fine with me but changing it makes no difference, just make sure you close and change all the links and make redirects. 04:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As per Az 14:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - as per our Granularity policy. There are several issues I would like to highlight:
 * Shopkeeper articles are in the process of being expanded (see RuneScape:WikiGuild/Proposals/Store Survey).
 * Future expansion - As for non-trading NPCs, some may be expanded in the future once they become involved in quests, miniquest, Achievement diaries, etc. So, when someone needs to look-up info on a particular NPC, they wouldn't want to be searching in Residents in X, or Shopkeepers of Y.
 * Loss of information? - What happens to the information from the infobox, and the NPC image (if any) - If we decide to merge all the NPCs from a city/town, we would have to include the all kinds of images and information into a single article.... For example, the Catherby article should be about the town, not about the stuff the people in Catherby are selling.  The "Shops" section should be excluded as separate "Shop articles".
 * Size - For cities with a large number of NPCs (i.e. Varrock), we have a separate article, Personalities of Varrock, briefly describing each NPCs and provides a link to each NPC's article. For smaller cities, we should have a section called "NPCs" or "Personalities" listing the links to NPC pages (with no description).
 * "Non-city" NPCs - We also have many NPCs that do not belong to any city/town. Where would we list them? Some are found in dungeons, in other planes, in quest storylines, etc.
 * Combining information about NPCs would be a terrible idea, in my opinion. Personally, I feel that stubs should be expanded, not merged.  If they is enough information, the "stub" tag should be removed.
 * Here is an excerpt on how to decide whether stubs are really stubs (the "Croughton-London" rule)


 * We should be checking whether article marked as "stubs" are really stubs... 14:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose - at least so far as the deletion of even smaller or insignificant "residents". In addition to RS:GRAN, there is a tendency of the Jagex developers to expand the roles of seemingly insignificant persons through quests and other activities. I completely agree with what what written above, and will note that there is significant amounts of information missing on many NPCs as well.

As for the creation of an article like Residents of Varrock, I don't have a problem with that at all. A handy "census" that can be used as an index to people who live in Varrock may be a useful tool to have. I should note that there actually is a Varrock Census article, although that is based upon content that exists in-game on its own accord. Similar kinds of articles that have expanded information would be useful, but not at the expense of removing content from the wiki.

BTW, the role of a stub is to encourage you to dig into more research about a topic. You may be surprised to find out more information about somebody like Betty that is much more involved than just simply being a shopkeeper in Port Sarim. --Robert Horning 15:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I hadn't planned on deleting the info boxes or the images, just consolidating them into one article. Imagine all the current articles stacked on top of one another. If a character IS expanded upon, then obviously a main article solely about that character could be made and then linked to from the consolidation page. Maybe I'm just a neat freak, but one big comprehensive article seems much more preferable than having a zillion little articles that are LITERALLY one sentence long. I'm relatively new here and I'm not sure how things work (for instance I didn't know about the granularity policy) so if I'm completely off base then that's fine. I'm not exactly passionate about this idea, I just think its a good one. Psycho Robot 00:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Protect site
In light of our recent string of vandalism, I have protected the site (currently for 30 minutes) and left a message on Sannse's talk page. Hopefully this will allow her time to do what she needs to do. I know it's a drastic measure, but I feel this time called for it. 16:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I was not here to help, I'm sure many of you (especially my fellow admins) would like more information on this vandal. Please see the following links: here, here, and here.-- 21:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I recall the impersonator, though it seems after Kirkburn blocked the IP for a year, he went away. Maybe he got lazy and forgot to use a proxy. 21:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ugh. Poor Lucky...and he was annoying. Shame someone that immautre can do nothing better with their time than be..annoying. 21:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Not very likely Karlis, he tends to stick to a pattern of quickly vandalizing (increasingly) large amounts of pages, his IP is blocked, and then comes back about two weeks later to start the cycle again. We'll being seeing him again.-- 21:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, all we can do is wait. Protect site seemed to work, as you can disable account creation. 21:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Kudos to Karlis, it was a very good idea. Drastic, but necessary. 23:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Kudos per Bonzii. 02:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Time for an upgrade!
I have great news. With a little bit of effort, I was able to convince my company to donate a server to the RuneScape Wiki for an IRC network.

I'm sure most of you have either been on our IRC channel or at least seen it listed on the menu as "IRC chat". IRC is a versatile chat protocol and has the potential to aid the growth of our fabulous community. For some time now, we've been using a single channel on Freenode, a non-profit IRC network used by most smaller wikis. It has served us well, and thanks to ChristineV (Clv309), it has remained a peaceful location for chatting for quite some time now.

However, seeing as we are being given the opportunity, it would probably be beneficial for us to move up to the next level: our own network. Unfortunately, I can't go into all of the details of what a network is and how much more useful it can be than a single channel, but I'll do my best to point out the major differences and advantages.

First off, a network isn't run by somebody else. Freenode has the power to intervene with our channel at any point without reason. While Freenode in general might be respectful, there risk of abuse is always present.

We can run our network as we run our wiki: without ranks or pointless bans. I've spent quite a few days working with Soldier 1033 to design and program an IRC network that is capable of "running itself". The network will automatically check all incoming connections against known "blacklisted" IP's to prevent large botnets. If a user spams individually or starts flaming, the network will automatically warn the user first by kicking him/her, then eventually issuing a channel ban. Bans that are unnecessary are not made.

Of course, all computerised systems are fallible. Therefore, it will be necessary to elect several IRCops (the term for an IRC administrator/moderator). These IRCops will be capable of disconnecting users from the network and issuing server-wide bans. Such action will rarely be necessary, however, and all such activity will be logged. After action is taken, the IRCop must file a report on a CVU dedicated to IRC so that the community may review the ban on the Yew Grove if necessary. The goal in this is to provide a system of checks and balances similar to that of the wiki itself. While IRCops will have the power to ban, the community ultimately decides which consequences are necessary and which are not.

Every network is divided up into multiple channels. Our network will have a main lobby channel, #wikia-runescape, where most users will stay. However, should a user want to start his/her own channel, (s)he is welcome to do so without any approval—just as a wiki contributor is free to start any article. Users will be permitted to run their own channels as they please; think of them as user pages. By default, flood protection and censoring will be enabled on all new channels. IRCops will have the ability to step in if a channel gets out of control or a channel's owner is abusing his/her ability to create channels at will, but just like on the wiki, all actions will be logged and visible to the community. If the community decides that an IRCop is being abusive, that IRCop's power can easily be revoked or limited.

Remember, these are just the basic details of how the network will function. In reality, there are many, many more advantages. Also, the network is completely customisable: the community can change how it work however and whenever it pleases. We don't have this sort of Wiki-ness on Freenode.

Now, I have received some criticism regarding this idea that has been, to say the least, unhelpful. Downright no's are a little confusing, as they don't offer explanations as to what must be improved. My goal here is to give the wiki room to expand. There are no real disadvantages to having our own network, other than the fact that it is time consuming and difficult to set up—a task that has already been completed. I'd also like to address some common questions that I've received:


 * Won't we lose some of our IRC users that come here from other wikis? - Fortunately, we won't. The new network is no less accessible than Freenode, and it will/does have web clients that allow direct access.  Most clients allow connections to multiple networks, so Freenode/Swift users will be able to join our network without any difficulty.
 * What about our current channel ops—isn't it unfair to take away their power? - Don't worry, the goal is not to "derank" anybody. Just as anyone can be nominated for adminiship, anyone can be nominated to become an IRCop.  Our current IRC channel has some very loyal, trustworthy members: ChristineV (Clv309) and Otter-man (Stinkowing), to name just a few.  If the community agrees that they should be IRCops, then they will not only retain the access they have now, but they will gain even more.  However, there's no guarantee that a request will pass.  That's up to you, the community.
 * Do we really need a whole network? Our channel is sufficient. - No, we don't need a network, and yes, our channel is sufficient.  And if the prospect of a network seems too overwhelming, don't worry—you'll still be able to sit in a common channel and chat away.  However, being confined to a channel on Freenode does limit our options.  We are a very successful community, and there is no reason that we should limit ourselves in such a manner.  Having our own network opens up countless opportunities for both contributors and those who use our wiki as a resource for RuneScape, and is even likely to attract more contributors.  While individually channels on large networks rarely receive much attention, even the smallest networks often have people that sort of just "wander in".
 * What about all of the services that Freenode offers? - Freenode's services are minimal. I've already installed quite a few more services than Freenode has to offer, so we're more than set in that area.
 * Freenode maintains our privacy. How do we know you will, too? - Freenode doesn't maintain anyone's privacy; it's behind the eight-ball in that area, actually.  Everyone can see the IP addresses of others, a feature that doesn't line up with Wikia standards.  Our own network is already set up to encrypt all IP's many times over with MD5, so users who do not want to share their IP's aren't forced to do so.  Of course, all connections are logged for legal reasons, but just like on Wikia, the information will only be released in a court of law or if absolutely necessary (at the discretion of the community).
 * Freenode is secure. Won't the new network be less secure, as it has less staff members? - Just a few days ago, Freenode went down due to a (D)DoS attack.  As I've already mentioned, our network is as protected as it can be against botnets, so if anything, the dedicated network is more secure.

So, what do you think?

Discussion

 * Support - as the contributor. 02:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support since I have already looked over this before. -- 02:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - already discussed this and think it would be very beneficial to us all. 02:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Cool Idea -- [[Image:Rollbackcrown.PNG]]  C  O  L O [[Image:Dragondaggerp++.gif]]  02:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - There are many beneficial aspects to switching and from the majority of what I've seen the major argument against this seems to be based on sentimental feelings, which only limits future potential.-- 02:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. That's all I'll say, since my computer is lagging, due to the size of the Yew Grove.
 * Support - Sounds amazing. 02:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - OMG, you came up with this? You deserve some kind of trophy. I will donate any money to construct a wikia trophy and mail to you, lol. Very well done, an excellent contribution to our wikia. And congratulations to you. It appears very well done and flawless. Thanks. 03:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As little as my opinion counts, having experience with moving a channel to a new server before and someone who's owned her own network in the past, I can say that this would be a major pain for all parties. Sure, it may seem like a simple matter of pointing java/CGI:IRC to the new server, but there will ALWAYS be people out of the loop or who simply will resist change. It's just a very difficult thing in general, and Freenode is a very nice, STABLE network, and the other wikias seem to be there. Freenode's famous amongst IRCers; why move? I don't even see that many people IN IRC a lot of the time, and moving to a new server would certainly not improve the number. Moving will not stimulate or complement growth; if anything, it will merely impede it. Also, I believe that only active IRC users should be commenting on this issue. If it doesn't affect you strongly...well, yeah. :/ --KittyKis, too lazy to login.
 * Oppose - the "concerns" addressed here can all be argued.
 * Won't we lose some of our IRC users that come here from other wikis? - Absolutely we will. The process of connecting to another server is not as simple as Supertech tries to make it. It's a pain in real clients, but just a bit of extra work connecting with a command is not all that we need to think about. We have MANY, MANY users who can only access certain sites because of school or parental controls. There is absolutely no way that I will support any decision the restricts certain users from entering our channel.
 * What about our current channel ops—isn't it unfair to take away their power? - The answer given to this question did not even answer it. It still stated that the current ops could have their power taken away, or never instated, by the community. The community who barely even goes in the channel anyways - the place is always dead except for a few veterans.
 * Do we really need a whole network? Our channel is sufficient. - If this server is going to be a wiki server, then we are responsible for all that happens on the network. If people are allowed to create their own channels, this will be impossible, and the administrators will be responsible. If something should happen on the freenode network outside of the #wikia-runescape channel, then we will not be held responsible. It is not possible for us to know what is going on in all of the channels all of the time.
 * What about all of the services that Freenode offers? - Freenode has plenty of services. You also make no mention of what additional ones there will be.
 * Freenode maintains our privacy. How do we know you will, too? - It is extremely easy to get a cloak and have your IP hidden on freenode. Frankly, I do not trust any server that is not well-established. Hence, this one.
 * Freenode is secure. Won't the new network be less secure, as it has less staff members? - The DDoS attack did not harm anyone in any way, nor did it compromise anyone's security. The worst that happened was that everyone was disconnected for a few minutes, and netsplits happen on ALL servers. Do not try to make this seem like freenode's fault.


 * There is absolutely no reason for this switch. We have already changed channels once, on the same network, and that in itself was a pain in the ass. I don't understand why a certain two users feel that they are allowed to make such a radical change. I have zero doubt in my mind that the majority of users who will support this move have not been on IRC, and I have a sneaking suspicion that some only want to ensure they have some sort of power on the new server. Besides this being pointless, the biggest reason that I see for STAYING is that we are established where we are. Not all of our users come from the RuneScape Wiki. Not all of them play RuneScape. Those who never check the wiki are going to wonder what the hell happened to our channel, because we have many users who just pop in every few weeks from other channels such as #halopedia and #wikia. Those who cannot access anything other than the CGI wikia gateway to the freenode server will not be able to join the new server. And there are multiple users who are in this situation.


 * As a freaking amazing coincidence, Endasil happened to stop into the chat tonight, and I pointed him to this discussion. He did not want to post and become active for just one matter, he said, but allowed me to reiterate his comments here. First off, the benefit of freenode is that it is, surprise, free. There are hired staffers to do all of the work and upkeep for us. There is not begging required here to get a server. In addition, we won't all be left in the dust should the network provider decide to bail out once they stop wanting to carry our network. Another benefit of freenode is that there are many servers. If one should happen to go down, users are just redirected to another server. On a single server, we don't have this added feature.


 * Back to something else I oppose about this – the automated kicks and bans. Bots are not humans, bots are not all that intelligent. Bots will not assume good faith, and if a bot bans or kicks a user without an adequate reason, how are we to know what is right?


 * Also, have you lot read the RS:NOT policy? The wikia is NOT OFFSITE. What happens in IRC channels does not affect a user's status on the wiki, therefore the need to LOG every ban is not only too much work, but also going against our established and voted-upon policies.


 * My final reason for not moving does link back to wikia. When there are issues with the wiki, IRC is an INSTANT way to chat with staff members who can help us. In addition, it is not uncommon at all for uberfuzzy to come into the channel looking for an admin or a 'crat to try something out, or explain some problem on the wiki to him. If we change servers, we are going to be completely removed from the Wikia community. And then it's just not a community anymore. Christine 03:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose I'd definitely stop coming on. Switching is a pain in the ass to do and just wouldn't be worth it. There's also a reason Runescape wiki is on a network that supports wikis. Besides, is a whole network for this really, really necessary?  Ju st  in  e  03:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Christine and KittyKis, very good arguments. Nearly every problem you mentioned was in the back of my mind when I designed the network setup, though, so we shouldn't have much in the way of migration problems.  I'm on a mobile device, so I'm afraid I'll have to keep it short and elaborate later.


 * KittyKis, I've worked in the UnrealIrcd/Anope support channel for quite some time now, so I'm well aware of how difficult running a network can be. I've set up quite a few networks and know the Unreal source like the back of my hand, so we shouldn't have any trouble there.


 * Christine, your post was a bit of a read, but I'll do my best to respond with this tiny keyboard. First off, I'd like to point out that RS:NOT doesn't apply in the sense that you used it. This network will be owned and run by the wiki. As for the firewall, most school firewalls run one of several major firewall systems, all of which block this wiki entirely. (By the way, I love how you say MANY MANY only to go on to claim that the channel has few users, which is true.) http://www.youtube.com/I have already set up replacements for the IRC clients online designed to automate everything. A new or inactive user won't even notice the switch, as it will be seamless.


 * No, we should not just accept feedback from IRC users. Part of the goal is to make IRC a more usable feature.  If what you're looking for is a channel with just your five or so regular users, then by all means, keep the Freenode channel for that purpose.


 * No, I can't promise you will retain your position of power, as it's not my decision to make. I am not searching for power myself, but rather, I am moving the power of decision making from your hands to those of the community. If you have done your job well and the community supports you, I have no doubt you will become an IRCop.


 * The number of users we receive from other wikis is, as you correctly described it, minimal. Once every few weeks someone might wander in. The second we start a network, however, we open up our community to groups that have more relation to us, such as clans.  That means even more valuable contributors.


 * If I missed anything, I'll address it tomorrow. Kitty and Christine, thank you very much for your input. Insight is valuable, so I'm sure the entire community appreciates the time you spent together on IRC brainstorming a list of anything that could possibly go wrong. It's this sort of discussion that has earned this wiki its success. Thanks again. 04:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. That's too bad, Church; it won't be a different process to connect. I don't see how a "background" change would stop you, but that is your choice, and I won't argue against it. You're the halopedia user that drops in every few weeks, right? 04:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ........Do you even pay any attention when you are in the channel? First off, Justine is in the channel daily, more often than our RSwikia users. And she has consistently been in the channel everyday for well over a year. How can you comment that she only comes in every few weeks when you yourself have only been here for maybe 2 weeks? James is another user in the channel daily. Emosworld cannot access anything other than CGI. Nor can pantomimehorse. Nor Dtm or Stinko, nor a bunch of other users who are not able to use "real" clients.
 * In addition, way to say "oh don't worry, you'll still have op" to me in the channel, then completely change your stance when it comes to the wiki. I have NEVER had sole control over who gets power, nor am I the one to decide who gets it. All sysops, and only sysops get op. THAT was the community decision, THAT is how things function. We get new users to wander in daily, whether they remain is a different story, but also out of our control and NOT about to suddenly change if we change servers. Christine 05:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, CGI:IRC will still be available for access to the new network. Again, there will be no differences visible to the average user, at least at first.  And by the way, Stinko was able to use pjIRC earlier today.  And no, not all sysops have power; I checked the access list.  Even those that do have varying amounts based on what you decide.  My stance remains the same.  As for the halo users, you are welcome to hang out on Freenode and chat with them.  Just like Azaz said, tradition should not prevent us from moving forward. Other wikis use Freenode because it's easy to configure. We have the resources to do better. The community here is amazing and deserves the best; that is my only reason for this proposal. Christine, if your fear is of loss of community, I can assure you, our interests are identical: this can only help the wiki grow. If power is your concern, well... I suppose you'd be right to keep the Freenode channel.  Whatever your motives, I assure you, success of this community will be the result of a dedicated network.  And no matter what happens, I wish you and your IRC community the best of luck.  05:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop assuming that all I care about is the power! I gave you a one and a half page word document on why we should stay. This change is absolutely unnecessary. As for the access list - you do realize that you can't give access to a damn name that isn't registered, right? Not all of our sysops use IRC, therefore they do not all have access. There is only one active IRC user who is NOT on that list, and I've already spoken with him as to why. In addition, *I* did not set the current access list! When freenode changed their services over the summer to flags as opposed to access levels, all of the conversions were left up to Skill and Endasil. So again, don't fucking accuse me if they aren't all the same. I am NOT the only one who can change the access list so I am NOT the only one responsible. The fact that I am listed as the founder - and I am NOT the original founder, either - does not mean that everything you find wrong in the channel is my fault. You come in here and after three weeks want to change everything? This is insanely suspicious considering we have no need to change servers. Christine 05:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Suspicious, indeed. Why, we should ban me immediately! ;)


 * Christine, I don't know why you take my rebuttals so personally, as this was meant to be a constructive discussion. I apologise if you feel insulted, but I think it's time that we upgrade. You've done a great job as founder, I'm sure; you've made some very loyal friends.  But now it's times we put our emotions behind us and work towards bettering our community.  I do not blame you for the problems with the channel. But, as you did point out, there are problems.  06:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll forget about the edit conflict so this will still sound uber and dramatic >:D Ahem: I've been on wikia nearly two years, just as long on IRC everyday unless I'm away for the day. This is just something that's not mandatory that'd cause a pain in the ass. The channel already moved once which was a pain itself, but having to add a new network and have all this extra stuff open, seems like a complete disconnection from the wiki, wiki's community and the channel itself. This really isn't as simple as you're trying to make it seem, the move will still lose alot of regulars and cause a pain.  Ju st  in  e  05:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Justine; I must not have been on while you were active! I still fail to see how this will be a pain.  CG:IRC and pjIRC will be nearly identical.  If there were problems in the past they were caused by a disorganised or improper move.  At first, the switch will barely be noticeable.  For non-RS contributors, yeah, you will have to use our webclient to connect or

get an executable. However, the number of users that we will gain from this renders any "fly-by" user losses insignificant. Our actual community will still remain intact, including the non-RS portion. 06:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - hate to change the subject but there is something I'm curious about. Super, would you mind explaining how we will still be able to use CGI for the "technically challenged" folks like me? 05:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, Soldier. CGI:IRC is not controlled by freenode or wikia; it is a separate project. Anyone can set it up to connect to any network, so all I have to do is get it installed on the network's webserver, just as Freenode hosts pjirc on theirs.  06:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Our R S Wikia Clan Chat be limited to active Wiki users.
I believe our R S Wikia CC should be limited to active RuneScape Wiki users that have Wikia accounts. I know of people that users have invited, and they completely come in and ruin the environment and start causing trouble to a previously OK clan chat. After all, it is the R S Wikia CC right? This is just going to turn into a chaotic clan chat if we open it to the general user. It is better for the atomosphe of the CC if it is just Wiki people too, not random RuneScape players. All I request anyone that uses it is a registered user of the RuneScape Wiki and actively editing and/or participating in the community such as the forums. I understand that the owner of the account, C Teng, has limited space on his account R S Wikia friends list, but I strong feel we need to come up with a solution it so it isn't so public. This might include taking the notice of the site's homepage and possibly making the account R S Wikia a member for 200 friends.

I would really like this changed,  Jediadam4  (Talk)   07:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

To visit the forums thread, click here.

Comments?