RuneScape:Yew Grove

The Yew Grove is a page where community members can discuss larger changes to the wiki, such as policy proposals. It serves as a way for anyone to get involved without having to find the relevant discussion page. Messages should be left on this page, not on the talk page.

What this page should be used for:
 * Policy proposals or changes
 * Discussion of community processes (such as RS:AOTM)
 * Changes to significant wiki features.
 * In general, anything that the community at large would be interested in.

What this page should not be used for:
 * Discussions about deleting a page. Use RS:VFD
 * Requests for adminship. Use RS:RFA
 * Discussions about the Wiki's theme. Use RuneScape:Theme
 * Discussions that belong on an article's talk page.
 * Discussion that is not related to the wiki but rather to the game itself. Use the forums.
 * Anything that does not have a wide impact.

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

< --- resetting tabs for ease of discussion

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

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

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

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

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

There has been no discussion on this topic for a while now, and still personal images are being deleted on a regular basis (yes in accordance with current policy). It seems that most who have discussed this see no no harm in allowing a few personal pics that are rs based. Does anyone have a valid argument against? (Besides "cuz we shouldn't") And if no one does, does some sysop then just come along and add it to our policy? Oh, and maybe add that the pics should be named after the outfit worn, so we don't get multiple identical pic uploads? Is this agreeable?--Degenret01 06:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a wiki, not a social blog spot. We have user pages, forums, and talk pages. Chia encouraged me to type this up just because I brought it up in game, so that's what I think. 22:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the rule is to generic, what we need is no personal immages of people of their personal life. For Example if you want you should be able to upload a funny picture from Runescape like i have on my page. However, PERSONAL pictures like family, pictures around town and such should not be uploaded. --Scaredsox
 * I'm definitely FOR this new policy on images, I think that we users should be able to upload our images, but of course there should be some kinda rule preventing silly people from spamming on pics of their favorite pets. Until just recently, I was trying up upload and reupload a personal image of my character. I didn't even know until I read the image policy that I had to use ImageShack! Suggestion: there should be a limit on the # of pictures a single user can upload. Maybe those images can only be used by that single user, so there are not people creating accounts for the sole purpose of image-ing? Check out my new sig!

I see no need for the rule against personal images to be changed, this wouldn't benefit the wiki in any way conceivable to myself. This is a wiki, our goal is to build a comprehensive guide of the runescape universe, we're not a social networking site and should not be treated as such. 21:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm completely for this new policy. From what I read, personal RS images are proposed to be allowed, but with a per-user limit? Correct me if I'm wrong. That's what I like the sound of, though. 01:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Azaz and Ilyas missed it. Personal images in this context means Runescape personal images. Of your character and such. Not you the person.--Degenret01 01:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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


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


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

RfA policy?
See this

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


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


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


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


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

I think that the content should be added to RuneScape:Guide to requests for adminship and RuneScape:Requests for adminship. The proposed standards should be discussed here. I don't think that three separate pages are necessary to describe one community process. The main RFA page can include policies and the list of current RFAs (like it already does) while the guide to requests for adminship can include advice to nominators, nominees, and RFA contributors about how to get the most out of an RFA. Dtm142 22:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Although the outcome of an RFA or RFB is up to the community to decide, I see no reason to deprive IPs of the right to input their opinion. If an unregistered user has a link to an edit that the nominee made why should they not be allowed to post it? It would only hurt the wiki, and you have to remember, this isn't voting, it's consensus. 13:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Ownership of Wiki Material
I want to open up a discussion about something that really, REALLY scares me in this Wiki. It's about people thinking that they own the material they add to this site.

Let me first say that this site is a collaborative effort. Any time that you assert that "that's my material" or "this is my image," you're absolutely full of crap and don't understand our community at all. Attitudes like this are absolutely detrimental to the spirit that this community tries to foster.

There are a number of things that I have taken note of, and don't have any really good way of articulating it, so I'll just list what has pissed me off. I want you all to know that I am not trying to be accusatory to any one person; it's a general community attitude that has me worried. So if you're quoted here, forgive me, but I'm just trying to show examples:
 * 1) "The character in the animation should look as the animation taker wants them to look. It's their animation, not our's." - Chiafriend12, on YG
 * 2) " Fifthly, as Chia has said - the animations are directly contributed by the makers, they should have the right to design anything inside the animation frame. " - Xdragonaite, in response to #1
 * Category:Tarikochi Animations
 * 1) User:Tarikochi/Image Contract
 * 2) The entire RS:UOTM process

All of the things I've mentioned above just go to glorify the editor, not the content. The category I mentioned there really set me off; I could not BELIEVE that we had a MAINSPACE category target solely on giving someone recognition for work they did for a COLLABORATIVE wiki.

Now, I've admitted in the past that I hate the animations on this site; I think they're tacky and they require way too much bandwidth. Not too many people cared, so I'm past that. But can't we all agree that claiming such ownership over Wiki material fosters an attitude of competition and selfishness, when we're trying to strive for collaboration and selflessness? I mean, I don't even want to know where some people get off thinking they have the legal copyright to screenshots or animations of Jagex' material...sorry to tell you Tarikochi, but I have just as much right to redistribute your caps of Jagex' art as you do.

I suggest the following action steps:
 * 1) Immediately remove any categories used to consolidate "ownership" of animations.
 * 2) Immediately dereference the author from any image whose copyright legally belongs to Jagex.
 * 3) If someone else truly does own the copyright to an image, and it is legally used here, the owner's name can be included solely as a copyright notice.
 * 4) This includes moving any image that contains a username (unless only used for a userspace) to a username-free name.
 * 5) Make editing about editing again!  Not about fame and glory.  Oh, this includes obliterating UOTM.

Whatever the result of this discussion, I will likely perform step 1, unless people can convince me otherwise. 03:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I should note that when I said listed the things that "pissed me off," they didn't all piss me off...some of them just supported what I was trying to say. 03:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems to me like something that is being blown way of proportion. All the editors I have seen making gifs wholesomely realize the content is property of Jagex and that whatever they upload to this wiki can be used anywhere. As a common courtesy, I ask for a credit to my userpage if you decide to use an image I created off the wiki. As for Tarikochi, she (he?) uses the same copyright for Jagex in all of the images she uploads and also gives permission for use off the wiki with a credit to her userpage. There is nothing wrong with requesting that someone else not take credit for your work, or that they link to you when they use your images. Tebuddy 04:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Whats "wrong" with it is, it means someone is trying to take credit. Period. The wiki is not about who can do what, but rather what we can achieve together by each contributing. It is about the project, not what each person individually puts in. With you wanting credit, and Plazarocker naming his uploads with his name it, and the other examples listed, I totally agree with Endasil. If someone wants it to be about them, they can go make their own site. Because that is not what a wiki is about.--Degenret01 04:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your making it seem to black and white. For example, is the community going to reimburse an editor for leveling a skill to 99, earning 99k ingame to buy the skillcape, reimburse them for the money spent on the program they use to record and edit the images, the time that person spends recording and re-recording the image to make sure the lighting, coloring, and framing are perfect, and the cost of the internet used to upload it to the wiki? No. The way I see it, with a community project that no one is being paid to maintain, you should count your blessings and thank each person who spends more than a minute making sure something is correct. That doesnt mean because you contribute, that you have the right to ignore rules and policies. All it should mean is that you should not punish creativity and effort by pasting a "by the community" sticker on it. Another point I want to make that you all seem to be missing is that the editors are not demanding credit or watermarking everything that goes through the wiki, its that they have messages asking for credit if you decide to use it. Why you choose to create a problem where there isn't one will always be beyond me. Tebuddy 04:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you don't think that, by virtue of the fact that we are a WIKI, we should be pasting a "by the community" sticker on everything that gets posted here, I honestly think you belong at a private site. I would much rather have worse content and everybody being part of a community than random people only wishing to receive credit for their edits posting here.  And as for the stuff you said before--I tried to post a reply, but apparently it didn't submit.  I never said anything about what you wear for animations.  That's a different discussion that I've played no part in.  I don't particularly mind that a lot of the animations are of the same user (I like the special attack ones being consistent), but I don't mind variety either.  I'm also not saying people shouldn't be proud of their work.  If they want to link to their contributions, that's fine--in the context of their user space.  I don't like putting a big stamp on contributions saying "I DID THIS," which is essentially what using a category, or adding your name to the comments, is doing.

My two cents... Does Tarikochi, Tebuddy, or any user at all, have a right to limit how their images are used or what is done with them? No. It says right there on the Special:Upload page: Please note that you have no exclusive rights over images you upload here. The way I see it, if you are uploading an image here, you are essentially releasing it to the public domain (of course, it's not really public domain because all images here are technically copyrighted by Jagex... I'm just giving an example that nobody here has any right to govern how their images are used once uploaded). However... Do these users have a right to get credited or do they deserve notation for playing/recording/editting/uploading the animations that are used here? Absolutely. I agree that a wiki should be a community effort, but the fact is, these are individual people with individual names, and there's nothing wrong with users getting a little pat on the back and some notoriety for the work they do (as long as it doesn't scream it out right there on a main article)... But such small recognitions can offer as a motivator for people to do a good job and make good edits, because like it or not, for better or worse, if there's no motivation most people just won't bother. Even if you're just helping out of the goodness of your heart, it's still because there's an individual drive there that's motivating you. I think that's why the whole featured user of the month thing is in place, it's not to divide the community into ranks, it's actually the opposite... It's just a way to offer as a motivation to people, as well as a way to say "Hey, you're a great help and the community appreciates what you contribute". It doesn't harm the community, if you ask me it helps to make things less robotic. So yeah, basically: If a user wants to sign their name to the description of an image they upload, I'd say that's their right. If they wanna make a list of all images they've uploaded, they should be able to do that (on their userpage... I do think a main category for one user is over the top). They just don't have a right to then dictate how their image can/can't be displayed from then on... Once it's uploaded, it's out there. 05:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what I would have said if I had actually had the willingness to write all of that. No to categories and and ownership, but yes to a right to being credited. 05:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't care if someone creates a category for their images, or puts their name in the contribution box, but I do care if they try to assume control or violate RuneScape:All_editors_are_equal just because of what they have done. Tebuddy 06:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Category:Tarikochi Animations is just a place to organize any images Tarikoci uploaded, IMO. Is that owning any of the images? No, just a specific category. RS:UOTM? Keep. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with it. It is just recognition for a useer that deserves it. Tebuddy, I 100% agree with you. 12:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the reason Tarikochi keeps her image policy or whatever is because her animations are used across the internet. But then again, when users upload images, they are warned about the image entering public domain. Nobody owns these images. The wiki is a community effort to build (and perfect) an encyclopedia of all things RuneScape. That includes images. If people assume ownership of these images just because they took and uploaded them, that goes against the entire point of our project. We should be less about assuming credit and more about helping the project. 22:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Tarikochi's category may be an easy way to categorize images, but those images should be put into the category they are relevant to content-wise, not by who uploaded them. In addition, there really is no need to sign on the image page or say "I uploaded this" since it shows who uploaded it in the file history. As for UotM, there is currently a VfD going on for that, and I think opinions about it would fit best there. Like Ilyas said, wikis aren't about giving credit to users, but rather about striving to make a thorough and helpful encyclopedia. We know who the helpful users are in the community, and we don't need categories and UotM to recognize them. 23:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no need for a change if there is no problem. None of the image creators have fought with each other or had a competition for who could spread their name the fastest. None of the creators have tried to assume control of content or violate RuneScape:All_editors_are_equal. We have already established that the editors understand that when they upload something it is no longer theirs, and we have already established there is nothing wrong with someone being recognized for a large amount of effort they put into an image or an edit. Someone having an image policy or a request for credit is completely legitimate, the fact that someone may argue about it proves they don't understand that they have no obligation to fulfill such a request and can use the images that user provides under no terms with the creator. The way I see it is that its just a common courtesy. So again, I dont believe any change is necessary and that the users who are offended/angry should just get over it. Tebuddy 23:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do infact believe that users should be given credit for what they do, but like Sacre said, instead of signing your name on an image page or even going as far as to watermark your name onto an image (although I don't think anyone has done that), people can just look at the upload history. Signing your name on the description of an image is basically the same as signing your name on an article. People can just look on the page history if they want to know who edited it and when. 00:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The watermarking thing was an example as to when it would be appropriate to make changes. Since no one has broken any rules, ignored any policies, or caused any disruption there should not be any changes. Simple as that. People putting their names in the image name/description does not hurt anything as long as it still fits the criteria. Tarikochi putting "made by tarikochi" in an image description of a player performing the dance emote is perfectly legitmate as long as she also says "this image is of a player performing the dance emote" as she and every other image creator have done. Do I take the time to write my name on everything? No, because I dont care. Criticism of one users actions should be taken to their talk page, but trying to institute sweeping changes because you dont like how something is represented is as I have said again and again, pointless.[[Image:Gnomegoggleswithcap.png|25px]]TEbuddy 01:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if there have already been problems (like you mentioned, violating RS:AEAE) because, if it actually did, then the UOTM page wouldn't be up for deletion. This just goes against the spirit of the wiki, and although I hate to bring UOTM up here, UOTM is different. It's congratulating editors for their work and it motivates users to do the same great work. Signing an image description is different because nobody is motivated to do anything. Plus, if an animation Tarikochi (just an example, no offense) uploaded became out-of-date and someone else uploaded a new version of the animation, would Tarikochi's signature stay? No, it wouldn't, but her name would still be on the file history. Everyone deserves to be recognized for what they do, and they already are regardless of whether they sign their name on an image or not, because their name will always be on the file history or the page history (per articles). 01:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * For me, it still comes down to changing something that is not in need of changing. There are so many other articles in dire need of attention, and were stuck on 2 (I havent seen more than two) editors putting their names in the image credits. [[Image:Gnomegoggleswithcap.png|25px]]TEbuddy 02:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So you think because there is a war in Iraq the Supreme Court will reject all cases? Believe what you want, perhaps you're right, maybe it doesn't need changing, but it goes against the spirit of the wiki, and signing image descriptions is like signing an article after every edit, or having a "sign here if you edited" section at the bottom of articles. 02:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't exactly get your analogy, but anyway. Runescape:Nothing_Against_The_Spirit_Of_Wiki does not exist. Putting your name in a description does not hurt anything, does not cripple morale, does not violate any rules or policies, does not fight the definition of a contribution, and does not cause any problems. [[Image:Gnomegoggleswithcap.png|25px]]TEbuddy 02:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Except when someone hovers their mouse over the pic your name comes up. And if you want people to see your name, go somewhere else. Because all the editors who took who knows how long to write the actual article aren't getting their names shown when the mouse is hovered over the article. Its no harm, but it is awful conceited to think your special.--Degenret01 03:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If the image has been uploaded and correctly placed on a page using the frame option the description is of the frames description, not of the image. So to find out the real description you would need to view the images page. As I said above, even someone browsing with accessibility options would need to make an extra click to find out who actually made an image. And please dont confuse me with someone who places their name on everything as I do not. As seen by this picture:

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/4236/seesq8.jpg. An image will also only use hover text if assigned it, so that means if you name an image lolImadehtisandyoudidnthahahaha.gif, it would not actually say that, but instead it would list the name in the properties bar in Firefox and IE7/8. TEbuddy 03:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC) 
 * Nice quoting to bring this stuff up, Endasil. But I need to clarify that my emphasis of that sentence falls on the latter part.


 * Going back, I agree that categories of that kind (with username) should be broken and recategorised by the nature. For example, all spells animations and pictures should be put inside a catergory like "Category:Magic graphics".


 * Whether the animation maker's name should be put in the description of image page, it really doesnt matter to sign since everyone can see the name of the maker at the bottommost of the history list of the image page.


 * Contributing here would be difficult to be credited for each single article. There are too many updates, too many grammatical mistakes, too many not-so-correct information, too many opague information, too many users blah blah blah. Everyone would be able to contribute just simply changing a few words. Would having a long list of contributors a bit meaningless? How about if the Varrock page, for example, its contributors list would exactly be the active user list?  The worse of all is that there are countless articles that may have their contributors list look like the active user list! 


 * Contributing here would also be similar to a move of charity and kindness, just like helping those in need. You see the imperfection and misleading spot in the articles in Wikia, and you help contribute based on the heart of making it better. I would not expect all of us are having the attitude like the said one, but I believe most of us are having this. Under this stand, the need to be credited would not be necessary.

04:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)




 * None of the editors should own anything, period. This is Wiki, an encyclopedia geared towards RuneScape.  No one owns images, categories, articles, etc.  That's it! It's as simple as that.  If users want credit for their work they put in, they could see the edit history and upload history for the names of those who have contributed.    So.. what is the point of discussing this trivial issue?  (The discussion is so long my 5-year-old browser is struggling to download it.)  This issue is not related to RSWiki per se, and should be stopped immediately.  It involves a minority of users, and NOT the RSWiki as a whole.


 * I would like to point out something. Take a real encyclopedia for example.  I'm sure lots of people contribute to making it.  But, "strangely", I don't see any names in it: "Mr. XYZ took this picture", "Ms. ABC adjusted the colours.", "Mr. PQR removed the transparency.", "Ms. FGH editted this sentence here."  It's just there for people for read, see, and appreciate the article.  (Unless it's a copyright image..)  But here in Wiki, we actually show the persons who did these contributions through the upload history and edit history.  That, in itself, should be enough.


 * Regarding UOTM, I think it is not glorifying anyone. It acknowledges the effort of the person put in to develop RSWiki.  Take the Nobel prize for example.  It is the highest honour anyone can receive, and it acknowleges the person who contribute to the development of the field they're involved in (Peace, Physics, Mathematics, etc.) It may seem like glory to some people who are oblivious to work they've done, but to others, they have done a lot for the society.  Simply, it's recognition of work. "You've a  good job, buddy." *pats on the shoulder*


 * My point is Wiki is like community service, and no one should take credit for the work they put in. PERIOD. However, one could be acknowledged by others if their work is tremendously helpful to RSWiki in general. 05:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, change is not necessary, it addresses 2 editors who may or may not be even active anymore, it would make sweeping changes that could give undue weight to some users, and it should be stopped this instant. Credit where credit is due, and leave it at that. No rules or policies are violated by putting image credits in your userpage, or within the image name or description. [[Image:Gnomegoggleswithcap.png|25px]]TEbuddy 06:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Quick Note - to "I didn't exactly get your analogy", it means "There are so many other articles in dire need of attention, and were stuck on 2 (I havent seen more than two) editors putting their names in the image credits.". Get it? 13:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Tebuddy, you honestly have the most circular reasoning possible. I come here, saying it's a problem and something should be done about it.  All you say again and again is "there's no problem, so it shouldn't be changed."  Obviously, if there was no problem, nothing should be changed. BUT WE'RE SAYING THERE IS A PROBLEM.  I mean, look at some of the bull**** stuff you've said.  You've said that stuff that is against the spirit of the Wiki is ok, as long as it doesn't break a policy.  You've said that it shouldn't be changed if it's a minor issue.  You've said that it shouldn't be changed if it would be a lot of work to change. And in all this, you keep saying that no rules or policies are being broken.  Well effing duh!  If rules or policies were being broken, I wouldn't have brought this to the YG, I would have made the freaking changes myself--I'm an admin.  The whole point of this discussion (and most YG discussions) is to see if policy needs changing.  17:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, the whole idea of the spirit of the wiki being more important than its rules is encapsulated in RS:IAR. While that guideline suggests ignoring rules that make sense, I think it also insists more generally that the rules are not the final source on what is good for the community.


 * It hurts me deeply that you would address me in such a manner, this certainly is not what I expect of an admin. You still have not proven to me that a change is required. Im surprised you quote RS:IAR. But as I brought up in my first post dear admin, this wiki does not become a less reliable source because I decide to name a helpful animation FLDFYGDFGNDGDGDJGDPIGIUGHDIUHG.Gif, or Tebuddydidthis.gif, or whatevertheheckIfeellike.gif. [[Image:Gnomegoggleswithcap.png|25px]]TEbuddy 22:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The wiki does not become less reliable, however the image itself becomes less reliable, as you might could imagine a well named animated image (example here) is much more helpful to any user of the wiki that decides the image is worth downloading for quick reference. If i were looking through a list of filenames and saw FLDFYGDFGNDGDGDJGDPIGIUGHDIUHG.Gif as opposed to how to dodge bullets.gif (or what have you) I would quickly know which image i would want to view only in the later case. Furthermore if i name an image well there is no need to even add a descriptor to the image tag in the article.  00:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thats a pretty circumstantial example. Not to mention it has not happened yet. [[Image:Gnomegoggleswithcap.png|25px]]TEbuddy 00:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And you can prove that it has not happened? Please enlighten me.  01:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I was speaking about the sdsakhdkhgdhadh.gif image title, especially on animations. I have yet to see a gibberish name while browsing any categories or random pages. This is not very accurate, but can you prove it is a problem? [[Image:Gnomegoggleswithcap.png|25px]]TEbuddy 02:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Proper naming is never a problem. To me you are definitely circular in your arguments, especially when you are being intentionally vague in your responses. Such ambiguity does not lead this conversation forward. I am of the belief that you like to argue simply for the sake of arguing. As such i will not address you any further unless you have made yourself 100% clear. 14:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is really starting to get annoying being targeted like this. I have not swore or insulted anyone, yet so far in your own reply you managed to call me circular and an instigator and said you would be ignoring me. Its funny to me the only source you could find of me being troublesome was a template page where I was confused about someone's change. Also, with my revert I left a post on the templates talk page here, Template_talk:NPOV. Way to manipulate the situation to make it seem like I was being immature. You even posted in my reply, whats up with that? In my previous response that you called vague and circular, my point was to show that there is not a widespread problem of animators intentionally making the filenames unreasonably long, and until you can prove that it is a problem your example for support holds no weight here. 18:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

My 2 cents; I have seen at least one case of watermarking in an image and it simply doesn't feel right in a wiki in my opinion. It would be nice if all editors/contributors were simply selfless but it seems that human nature leans away from that in some cases. 20:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Some things. Saying "Taken by so-and-so" in the image summary ≠ violation of RS:AEAE (If they want to say who's in the screenshot/who took the screenshot, that's that. If they don't want to, oh well.), saying that the listed person owns the image (Claiming ownership and listing name(s) are totally different things.), nor an actual problem (Give one legit reason it's bad...). Plus, just looking at the file history is not that accurate. If Tarikochi didn't list who was in each of the 99 cape emote animations, we would all assume that she had all the 99s. Not to mention that back in late '06/early '07 I uploaded several images from RuneHQ without listing any credit. By the file history you would assume that I made them, but I didn't. 06:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Chia, I don't think you understand what this is even about. When you copy an image from another fansite, you must first take into mind the copyright on the image. If you've read through their policies and it is legal to copy their images, you must still give them credit. Adding your name to an image and crediting a copyrighted image are two different things. 14:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Tarikochi is not the only one using a category to keep a list of their uploads. See Category:Buzz 9 1990's images and animations. I certainly do believe it's a bad thing. Categorise your uploads properly when you upload them, and then you don't need to keep an eye on them as if they are your babies. That's what I think, anyway. :-p  19:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggested New Logos
I've put together a pair of updated RS Wiki logos which are based on the prior logos, HD inspired, and ready for all skins (transparency tweaked). I could have just sneaked them over the existing logos but felt it would be more proper to present them here first.
 * http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/runescape/images/archive/1/1b/20080718013038%21Suggested_new_Wiki_logo.png
 * [[Image:Suggested new Wiki logo-wide.png]]
 * 01:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Much smoother. No reason not to, they are clearly better quality. [[Image:Gnomegoggleswithcap.png|25px]]<font color="black" face="Tahoma" size="2">TEbuddy 02:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. They are much more higher quality than the old logos, and we have been needing transparency. 02:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Neat. I'm for it. 02:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Me like. 05:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be a bit of perfectionist. I think that the runes should be backed with coloured (according to the rune type), blended shadows for both. If available, the "Runescape Wiki" should have that too for the second one. I cannot edit by myself since the runes and words are of weak, backing, fading pixels.

Anyway, I am designing the shadow colour of the runes and text if it is for real. The design and preview (larger than the original size) are shown: http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee300/xdragonaite/runescape%20album/logo1.jpg http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee300/xdragonaite/runescape%20album/logo2.jpg

http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee300/xdragonaite/runescape%20album/logodesign.jpg Welcome to better that based on my "research" ! 15:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The first logo is too large; it has to be 135 by 150 pixels (more info), though the wide logo for the Quartz skin is good. They look really good and should be uploaded very soon. I guess someone should also update the favicon as well?--Richard 16:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * They seem to blurry.....I kind of like the first set better. [[Image:Gnomegoggleswithcap.png|25px]]<font color="black" face="Tahoma" size="2">TEbuddy 18:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The text is just duped from the old, I'll see if i can find what font it was or a similar font (might as well clean that too). Favicon seems like a good idea as well, i'll play with it see what can happen. I'm sort of favouring making a hybrid law/fire rune like this http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/runescape/images/archive/7/7c/20080718172142%21Example_Favicon.png for that but i'm open to suggestions. 03:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the favicon idea. I don't really like the current fire rune. The law/fire hybrid looks good.

Does anyone else like the coloured shadowing of the runes in the logo? So far by my count i have one favouring the effect and another not. Should i set up a poll to gather consensus? 00:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * nah, it grew on me. I like [[Image:Gnomegoggleswithcap.png|25px]]<font color="black" face="Tahoma" size="2">TEbuddy 00:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

now we have 2 in favour of, any one else? Bueller? 01:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I really don't like the shadow ones. It's a good idea, but it doesn't look very well all done out. I really really like kytti's logos. Christine 01:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Suggested new Wiki logo.png]] vs. http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/runescape/images/archive/1/1b/20080718013038%21Suggested_new_Wiki_logo.png  01:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think Kytti's logo. The shadows are okay, but I think it looks better without. 01:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like another tie. How about i throw a couple of gnu ones in the mix: Image:another suggestion for a new Wiki logo.png or maybe Image:yet another suggestion for a new Wiki logo.png ? 02:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh I loooooooooooooove that second one. Christine 02:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the one named "Yet another..." is pretty cool, that gets my vote.--Degenret01 03:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I love the second one and the one with no shadow (Bastard, are you messing Kytti Khat?) too! But if that one is to be chosen, some changes of shadow colour should be made, some of them are just too dark:


 * Law: #0066FF / #0088FF (depends on the appearance)
 * Air: #F0F0FF
 * Body: #A05E82
 * Water: #0044FF / nothing (depends on the colour of law)
 * Nature: #00C300
 * Death: #616161
 * And are there any opacity for those shadows too?


 * btw, should we try fire/cosmic hybrid?  03:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the "Yet another" logo Kytti did and the first one that Kytti at the start. But Maybe the "Yet another" one is a little crowded. And how would we do it with Wiki wide.png? Lol, and what is with "RoonScape"?? 07:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I already cast my vote but wanted to mention that, to me anyhow, the shadow one makes me think of a little kid that can't color in the lines. Sorry, I get weird at times.--Degenret01 08:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actuallly, in my opinion, those "yet another" logos look even worse. 12:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Xagonite, are you saying that death is too dark and that a brighter cheerier death would be more to the liking lol, couldn't resist. Seriously i'll play with the suggested changed ones, most of the colours are your original suggestion with about 4 tweaked to my liking. As for the program i'm using it's the opensource gpl freeware gimp. I'm still getting accustomed to it since i switched over from photoshop (which i used all the way back to v2.5 on the old 68k architecture mac systems, anyone remember those?  As for the "yet another..." image that is not a finished product, and zomg thank you Chicken for noticing the Roonscape, I was hoping we could all agree to change the name of the wiki at teh same time.  I'll tweak up the "yet another" which i'm thinking should be called "flies in the logo" but i haven't gotten the bugs out of the naming convention just yet.  14:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

okay this one: and a not quite ready for prime time player  comments etc.?... 16:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the shadow ones, and those first 2 you showed, but I think the "Flies in Logo" ones are alittle too much. Maybe if they are toned down abit it would look better. Personally, I like them all.-- 16:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So that's one vote in favour of the RoonScape version, ja non? 17:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * FavIcons based on suggestion here are two versions of potential favicons to replace the current darkish fire rune: http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/runescape/images/archive/7/7c/20080718172142%21Example_Favicon.png and [[Image:Example Favicon.png]]. Some one pick one and put it up, otherwise i'll go with a [[Image:Staff_of_Nature.png|13px]]  17:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the law/hybrid one better. 18:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with C Teng, the red-blue colour of the hybrid is better.
 * Spence, what do you mean by 'tone down', hue? darkness? opacity? You'd better be more specific to those pro graphics processors like Kytti. =]
 * Once again, I am messing Kytti: how if the tails of flies are in the inner ring?? (I would do it by myself if I know how to use that GIMP or could you teach me how to use XD)
 * Lets called that 'Roonscape' then!  03:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK! I like the first ever logo you submitted with no shadow or anything. And about the Favicons, ummm, I don't really like any of the favicons I've seen for this wiki. The law-fire one is just I can't notice that it is a rune. But if anything, I like that one. 03:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Main logo
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/runescape/images/archive/1/1b/20080718013038%21Suggested_new_Wiki_logo.png  and

From what i understand the originals are what most people are falling back to liking, I can do another pass at the icons flying into the logo look and leave the trails entirely contained within the whitespace. but fwiw all versions were designed to look good under the gaming, beach, slate, and brick skins as well  11:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I redid the versions of the runes flying into the wiki logos (see above) as per 2 or so suggestions that they no longer extend over the edge, however i find this less appealing than the versions that spread their wings (so to speak). Again i will be mostly offline as i settle into my new domicile. 23:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Fave icon
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/runescape/images/archive/7/7c/20080718172142%21Example_Favicon.png  http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/runescape/images/archive/7/7c/20080719110326%21Example_Favicon.png and now

So far the first two are rated "meh" at best one has become my favourite. There is only so much that can be done in a 16x16 grid. Luckily the latest i think seems to work rather nice as it it simply blood and water on the same rune and even looks a lot like what you might expect. The newest didn't work out the way i was hoping 11:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC) and again 21:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I still kind of prefer the first one. 12:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, my final vote is the shadow one or the first one Kytti posted. Doesn't matter to me. -- 21:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I like the second one most, but the third one is pretty cool too. Christine 19:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

What about a fire/water hybrid? Like, with the drop of water superimposed over the fire?Or a death/soul hybrid, with the wings behind the skull? Maybe we could come up with some other combos.--Hirushi 20:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I like flies in logo, but it's kind of hard to see the air rune aura. Also, I think if the auras didn't extend out of the box it might look better. Just a thought.--Hirushi 20:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I played with the death/soul combo and didn't find it worth uploading as for the fire/water see here. Personally I still prefer the law/fire hybrid, regardless i made this one on a whim, it doesn't feel very inspired however. BTW I'll be mostly offline as i settle into my new apartment, fyi... 22:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Entire Dialog for familiars
Is this really needed? To add all the dialog just opens up a can of worms. What is next adding all the dialog for all the quests or NPC's? Atlandy 15:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Now you're starting to read my mind, i was going to suggest we do just that... 00:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "What is next adding all the dialog for all the quests or NPC's?" Hahaha. Funny you should say that. People have already started. And I am with this discussion (No dialog) 07:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * While we are "everything Runescape" it can go a bit overboard. I think including all of the banter, and non informative dialog is not needed.  If it is part of a quest where you need to ask a certain question, or give a certain response, then it should be includied [[Image:Scythe.PNG‎]]Atlandy 14:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually i do agree, however, as a work around (for those editors that really want such) why not start a separate article called Humour or somesuch (category of culture or what have you), then migrate such verbosities to there and let that article go and grow. To me the excessive dialogue and animations are something i'm already getting plenty of as a player of the game, however for some new editors adding such things can be a way of testing the editing waters, thus my suggestion.  15:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep; I enjoy reading some of them. They are usually at the bottom of the articles, but a link to a separate dialogue article for each familiar would be an alternative if someone feels they are taking up too much room. It's nice to know what the dialogues are without having to create each familiar plus knowing the ones that are at a higher level than the player's summoning level. It makes our site that much more complete and comprehensive if someone is willing to do it. Chrislee33 17:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * zomg no i was not trying to imply making a zillion little articles just one as in the way trivia was in times past 18:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm actually for adding the dialog, for two reasons. First, I think it fits under our granularity policy, and if somebody finds it interesting, then great.  I think it should be under a standardized subpage though, like PageName/Dialog, and we should have some templated way of showing that there is a dialog page for that article.  The second reason is that with quest guides, etc, a lot of people race through the quest dialog, and are kind of curious afterward as to what was actually said.  An extreme example of this is the Ghostly robes miniquest, one of the most bonehead things Jagex has ever done.  Most of the talking in that miniquest is done in areas with aggressive monsters (mostly in the Wilderness), and the dialog is like 30 pages long for each NPC.  If you get interrupted by combat, you have to start the conversation over, making the whole conversation a pointless and completely ridiculous click-race.  Nobody could actually read those conversations, so it's nice to be able to come here and find out what the quest was all about, afterward. There's actually a third reason, too, and that's that it could improve our Google score significantly if we wikify the dialog with links to respective articles.   20:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I should add that part of my response was for Atlandy's "what's next" bit. I think NPC and quest dialog would be more appropriate than summoning familiars, but if the dialog pages are correctly categorized, linked to, and stylized, I see no reason not to allow all dialog to be added.  20:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a project to put on the map Enda, and if your projections are right the wiki will score with google, sweet. I think you're the person to lead the project, so i'm nominating you. Once the framework/policies are in place it should be a simple matter to expand/roll it out into the quests and miniquests ( lol @ jagex for putting a miniquest in the wilderness, what's next a real quest in the wildy? ) 00:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I would have to say that I enjoy reading the dialogue from familiars, as they tend to be humourous (Is that spelled right?), and being a free player I am unable to read them myself.--Hirushi 20:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't go and establish any policies without consensus here first, but I've created some templates to demonstrate what I'm saying. Here's what I've created: And an example of use: We would certainly beautify the templates (an image to catch the users' eye would be nice--I'm thinking an animation of someone's head in the chat box?) but that's the basic standardization I had in mind. Is this an acceptable compromise? I can't really think of anything bad about doing it this way--it doesn't clutter anything, it's consistent, etc. What are your thoughts specifically Atlandy? 23:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Template:hasdialogue
 * Template:dialogue
 * Category:Dialogue
 * User:Endasil/sandbox/Sample article
 * BTW, I stuck with the British spelling of dialogue (which is really just a transliteration of French if I recall correctly) for now. If it drives everyone nuts (I'm Canadian, which makes it easier, but I'm also a programmer, which means I use the word about 100 times as much as everyone else, so the "ue" drives me nuts too) we can move the relevant pages to "dialog."  23:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I should note that I've included a bunch of links in those templates/category to RuneScape:Granularity, which is where I would expect any policy changes to be noted (along with instructions for creating dialogue pages), but haven't created that section itself as of yet. 23:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Point well taken. If thy are moved to some sort of other page, that would def. free up the familiars page.  I guess the entire dialog was taking up so much space on the familiars page...it was annoying to me.  However, I can see the point of keeping it [[Image:Scythe.PNG‎]]Atlandy 14:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Watermarking
I propose a new template that combat watermarking images. The name is in the title, and its pretty straightforward. This also add images to Category:Watermarking images. So, whaddaya think? 02:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Is that the only image that is currently watermarked? If so why have a template? Who's going to replace the images? [[Image:Gnomegoggleswithcap.png|25px]]<font color="black" face="Tahoma" size="2">TEbuddy 02:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I know this is just semantics and the end result is the same, but we do give credit to people who upload images. What is discouraged here is to "watermark" or otherwise indicate who created the image on the image itself (aka, the "watermark").  It isn't really dealing with the "why" of the watermarking, which is being done due to gross copyright violations between various fan websites.


 * From a strictly legal viewpoint, I would also get rid of the "As always, images of RuneScape are a copyright of Jagex Ltd. (1999-2008)" This is noting that we are acknowledging that some of these images are being used in a flagrant violation of Jagex's copyright.  I've written about this issue before, and it isn't an easy one to resolve, but something like this can come back and haunt us.


 * Indeed, a great many of these images that are "watermarked" are hand drawn or generated by the person who uploaded the content, and for the most part have a much stronger copyright claim independent of Jagex than a great many other images that are mainly screen shots. Rather than discouraging this sort of effort, it ought to be encouraged (no so much the watermarking, but the independent creation of maps and player-submitted art).  The warning message IMHO should be quite a bit more friendly in that regard.  --Robert Horning 15:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you were referring to my comment then I think you misinterpreted, my main concern was having a template for a total of two images (now none). [[Image:Gnomegoggleswithcap.png|25px]]<font color="black" face="Tahoma" size="2">TEbuddy 16:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)