RuneScape talk:Players don't deserve articles

If famous for a "highest single / total rank", then it's a bit of a moving target, as players may fall back, retire, or sadly pass away. Eg. Novalyfe (retired) or The Old Nite (Tip it times nr. 46). Ace of Risk 20:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

New section: Clans don't deserve articles?
Recently, there has been a string of articles about clans, which Vimescarrot has deleted, and I expect more clan articles to be made in the near future. So, should we add another section to this titled "Clans don't deserve articles" as well? It might stop users from creating clans that belong to Uloveme, Zezima, or even someone less notable.

Cheers, 22:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * RS:NOT already mentions clans in addition to players, but it wouldn't be a bad idea to mention them here as well. Skill 23:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Why?
Well, why don't they deserve articles? Players like Zezima, I can sort of see why, but why not important players like Durial321 or Sixfeetunder? The page doesn't explain. 21:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Players are not part of the game as it was created by Jagex. Sure, they're obviously intended to be there, but they're not part of the game like "official" parts are.
 * Who is "notable" and how can we confirm this notability for a given player?
 * How can we write an article for a well-known player that is not
 * Redundant with the article of the topic they are known for
 * Full of speculation and bias
 * Sort of goes with the first sub-point above, why not just keep the present redirect? Skill 22:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A lot of the things you mentioned- speculation, redundance- also happen in many other articles. Why keep the redirect? I can see how many non-needed player pages would be created, though. I was looking through the Dark RS Wiki and there were players I never heard of. But still, unimportant articles can be deleted, or something. 00:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The main difference in terms of speculation and redundancy between player articles and other articles is that it's (nearly) impossible to avoid in the former, while most other articles can be written otherwise. Skill 00:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait, what did "Sixfeetunder" do? (legit question, not trying to make a point or anything, if I am, purely coincidence) Christine 02:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe he discovered the phat duplication glitch., 03:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I still think that there should be a few exceptions:
 * Durial321
 * Sixfeetunder
 * Possibly:
 * Cursed You
 * Zezima (He should probably be added, as he is probably the most famous RuneScape player.)
 * Riots are also unofficial, but we note them. Same thing witht the Fletching guild (even if it is in VfD). Besides, they are recognized by Jagex, so they are official. Zezima was going to be quoted in Betrayal at Falador, and I'm pretty sure Durial321 was recognized by Jagex when a mod was explaining to everyone what had happened. Doesn't anyone agree? 22:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * C Teng, giving players articles would raise a number of issues - in addition to what Skill has said above...
 * it would cause confusion - how famous does one have to be to get their own article?
 * the page may turn into an eternal stub - what would you put on the article?
 * it may encourage other less experienced editors to start creating articles about their own characters
 * pages may be subject to spamming, flaming, and bias.
 * Yes, I do acknowledge that riots are unofficial, but they can be documented without the intentional inclusion of made up information. I would like to see RS:PDDA to stay the way it is now. Thanks, 03:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The RuneScape Wiki is not a tabloid, it is an encyclopedia.  There is no way we could get reliable information on any of these players listed, and as mentioned earlier it's all said in the articles that the players are known for.  Zezima has 99 in all skills.  Good for him.  That's all there is to say, besides vandals adding "zezima is a fat 56 year old virgin who ways 400+ kg and lives in his mother's basement with no jopb or lyph". Dtm142 19:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think players don't deserve their own articles, and here's why. Players such as Sixfeetunder, Cursed You and Durial321 are notable for abusing bugs in the game, either to gain an unfair advantage (like free party hats) or to go on a rampage against innocent players, which is quite rightly against the rules. If you immortalise these people with their own articles, it would encourage other players in the same situation to abuse the bugs in an effort to gain similar infamy. I think documenting what happened is enough - that's why we have article on riots, for example.

People who gain notoriety for something more positive (like Zezima) are already immortalised in the high scores. Since we already have the Hiscores article, it seems like this is enough. Anyone can check the up-to-date list if they want to find out which players have the highest scores. As DTM said above, there's very little reliable information we could get on players, unless it's written by the players themselves, and even then it would be hard to maintain a neutral point of view. Anything more detailed about a player belongs on a user page (if they are on this wiki) or their own webpages hosted elsewhere. 20:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're right, then we shouldn't have the World 111 glitch article. Or the Riot article, because they could encourage other players to break the rules. And why shouldn't we have more detailed information on the wiki about players, instead of just on other websites? This is the wiki for all things RuneScape. 23:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I would be all for allowing articles on players for a multitude of reasons. One reason being that having articles on them would be very interesting to read. But, as said above, there are many reasons why we can't have articles on them. If none of those things were problems, then I would be all for players having their own articles. Plus, that's kinda' what userpages are for. 05:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We all know about Zezima, Green098 and people like them, but what about lesser known people? Like Momeydragon, Luckybucket, Marg2003, and Aclaw? It would be hard to make a cut-off for who is and isn't worthy of their own article, and also hard to figure who does and doesn't fall into the said requirements.
 * Everyone would want articles about themselves.
 * We would have a lot of SDs on our hands.
 * Perhaps the player in question doesn't even want information posted about them.
 * The pages would have opinions all over them.
 * Some pages (like Zezima, Defil3d, or Tehnoobshow) would be vandalized often. "defil3d is a scamer n00b", "zezima is a no-lyf", "tehnoobshow maks borin vidz", etc..
 * There isn't anything more to say about Durial321 besides what is already contained in the World 111 Glitch article. The same goes for Zezima, etc.  He is already covered in the highscores article - he was the first to get 99 in all skills.  That's all there is to say.  There is no reason as to why he needs a whole page dedicated to him.  There is also no way we can get reliable information that goes beyond what is already written there.  I would also like to point out that biographies of living persons (BLP) articles are a huge issue on Wikipedia right now.  If we have a choice, I really would not like to get into these if we can.  I also don't want the community to become further polluted with 8 year old fanboys/playerhaters adding garbage to pages that we don't really need. Dtm142 21:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"It would be hard to make a cut-off for who is and isn't worthy of their own article, and also hard to figure who does and doesn't fall into the said requirements."

- Chiafriend12


 * Okay, then, who agrees with these requirements?
 * Players can only have articles if they have one of the following requirements:
 * Famous Glitch-abusing players or players related to the glitch
 * Very well known players
 * Any other players worth mentioning
 * For any player-article, we would have a discussion on if they are notable enough.

"Everyone would want articles about themselves."

- Chiafriend12


 * We could simply move it to their user page and send them a message on their talk page. People create articles about themselves now sometimes, too.

"Perhaps the player in question doesn't even want information posted about them."

- Chiafriend12


 * Aren't articles always posted about famous players? I see articles like those on other major fansites.

"Some pages&hellip;would be vandalized often."

- Chiafriend12


 * Revert. Don't we get vandalism often anyway? If you want, player-articles could be semi-protected.

"&hellip;That's kinda' what userpages are for."

- Chiafriend12


 * User pages are not content articles. They are used for users to put whatever they want on it. Famous players like Zezima or Durial321 don't use the wiki. User:Zezima isn't even Zezima.

"[Zezima] is already covered in the highscores article&hellip;"

- Dtm142

"&hellip;why not just keep the present redirect?"

- Skill


 * RuneScape:Granularity.
 * 00:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BLP, biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research.. There is no possible way we can create such articles that meet these requirements.  The glitch and riot articles are bad enough as it is.  This would only make it worse.
 * I don't agree with your requirements. Is it really worth creating a long discussion every time an article about a player is created?  I think it would be a waste of time, because no player is notable enough for their own article in my opinion.  If you really feel that it's necessary to document such material, why not request a sister project?
 * If some player articles were allowed, it would lead to more. Why would we create such a high maintenance project for something that adds next to nothing to the wiki?
 * If other fansites document them, that doesn't mean we have to. Some other fansites support macroing and RWIT - does that mean we should too?  Let players have their privacy.
 * The purpose of this wiki is to document actual canon created by Jagex, not to create two sentence vandalism magnets. Non interactive scenery is more notable than any player, but we don't have articles about those.  A few thousand 11 year olds knowing your name doesn't entitle you to an encyclopedia article. Dtm142 18:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh no, I'm too late! I know this is an old topic but this discussion didn't end. I don't know about major/well-known players that much like Durial321 and stuff. This wiki is for information. We need to have information about what people might want to know about. People might hear it ingame or see it mentioned somewhere and want to know. We're not gonna say go look at RuneHQ or something. So Wikipedia has articles about famous people from prime ministers, to cricket players to criminals. And from what Dtm said above in his last point, I though the wiki's purpose was to document everything that people might be interested in about RuneScape. Like our tagline: ("From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape"). Maybe a template/tag at the top of the article stating that player articles need discussion before being created. In Dtm's second dot point, he says something that documents "next to nothing" to the wiki. It would document a lot more than this article. Anyway that's my view. Probably no one is going to look at this :P 11:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2/3 cake is notable and it is actually possible to verify the information in the article. It was decided a long time ago that every item would get its own article.  I do not fully agree with this, but I do not feel the need to change it at this point.  On the other hand, I could add to the Zezima article that he is really Andrew Gower's cousin and you wouldn't be able to do anything about it.  The information would be almost purely speculative.  Other than that, it would never go beyond what we already have documented.  Player articles also will attract the wrong type of people to the project.  Overall, this would not be worth having to deal with BLP issues. Dtm142 02:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Then protect the page, or put a tag at the top of the page, like Chicken said. If something unverifiable is put on the page, revert it. 00:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)