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__

Proposed editing guideline: game historical information
I propose a guideline that game historical information about an item, creature, NPC, etc., should be placed in its own separate section of an article rather than placed in the main part of the article. For example, the article on the Corrupt dragon scimitar begins with:


 * 'The Corrupt dragon scimitar was released on 15 October 2008 along with the PvP worlds. It is the strongest scimitar available to non-members, but it crumbles to dust after 30 minutes of wielding. It requires 60 Attack to wield.'

The first sentence is game historical information on the item and is likely to be of little interest to most players looking up this item. They more likely want to know its abilities and requirements. Placing the historical information in a separate section would be better. That way, the information is available for players interested in it but does not clutter the main part of the article.

This guideline would apply to any article except those who purpose is to cover changes, like articles on updates. It would also apply to displaying before images when graphics are changed. It would also apply to comparisons of RuneScape Classic with the current RuneScape.

I think this would make the articles more useful most readers. Inelcirc 14:59, 10 February 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)
 * Ah, I see. I have played Runescape prior to Nov. 2007, but not on this laptop, but on a public address, so I guess I don't have them. 06:00, 7 February 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)

I have found something that will tell us if the parser is on. Which parser is in use? . So we are still on the old parser. Using new pp would be nice, although I do wonder if there are any pages that will need fixing. - 02:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am fixing all of the pages that may/will have problems with the parser changes. The parser changes require a much stricter following of (x)html and wikitext. So no more un-terminated tags that need an end tag. I think we may need to bring up changing signature policies to make them (x)html compliant and standardized where possible. - 20:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, we are switching over on March 3rd, we are in the last group to switch. - 20:50, 7 February 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)

Comment - As supertech1, you can tag those images with the template. And i thought that private servers were illegal to use?? 22:25, 30 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 be 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)

Just an update for everyone who is interested.... Our conversation may be found here. If the vandal returns, please post something on her talk under the section I have already started, then proceed to IRC as she suggested. 17:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Round 2
As many may know, we were hit again today. I discussed this with sannse. This brings up an interesting point. If we stop everyone from editing, this kid wins. Nothing he can do cannot be reverted. I feel protectsite actually may not be the best of ideas after all. I was curious though, about this ability to limiting the speed of edits for new users, or for users without rollback..., and I believe we need to discuss implementing something like this. If somebody had taken the time to create a vandal bot (as they obviously have no other life) then they're obviously not going to stop soon. Limiting the amount of times they can vandalise will reduce the chances that we will need to lock-down the site again. For more information about this feature, I was instructed to contact Uberfuzzy. I have not done this yet, as I need to go to work. I feel though, that we're in for a new wave of vandalism, and we need to take all of the necessary steps to ensure that we're ready for it. 13:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 *  Not sure if you saw it, but the RSW was hit with that vandal bot today.
 *  I'm sure others were targeted as well.
 *  Other than Special:Protectsite, what can we do?
 * can you give me a contribs link please? I'll have a look at the IPs
 *  Yeah 1 sec
 *  There's 5
 *  http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/CS686
 *  http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/SoftBai123
 *  http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/BaiSoft123
 *  http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/USH423
 *  http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/GASH312
 * thanks, looking
 *  Yep. =D
 * <Karlis|away> I'm certain he uses a proxy.
 * <Karlis|away> Or she, don't want to be sexist. =\
 * actually only used one IP, which Uber has blocked
 * but yes, it is an open proxy
 * <Karlis|away> I have a feeling if somebody took the time to create a bot to do this, they aren't going to get bored anytime soon. =\
 * <Karlis|away> Do we need to have someone make an anti-vandal bot to counter this person?
 * well, there are posibilities such as limiting the speed of edits for new users, or for users without rollback... or we could help with more monitoring of the recent changes feed looking for problems...
 * certainly the protect site feature is a good one to use when needed...
 * but mostly it's the good old "block, revert, ignore" routine
 * <Karlis|away> Well, we'll have to discuss within the community the possibility of the limiting speed route.
 * *nod* Uber will be able to tell you more about the possibilities... but generally, I would be cautious about allowing this person to interfere with the editing of others
 * <Karlis|away> Yeah, that's kind of our issue with protect site.
 * better to get us to help with clean-up rather than get in the way of editing, imo :)
 * yeah
 * <Karlis|away> If he stops everyone from editing, he wins.


 * Please explain/expound more on what you were referring to when you said limit the number of posts made by new users or users without rollbacks. As it stands now, per our discussion with one of our projects...I see, and I could be seeing myself wrong, that if I revert vandalism...I'd then be limited in providing useful information to this wiki. 21:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I haven't talked to Uberfuzzy about it yet, but I'm assuming it would mean that we could limit the amount of edits made by unregistered (or certain right classes) of users to X per minute/hour, etc. This would mean that, for example, if we limited unregistered users to 2 edits per minute, that the bot would only be able to execute its vandalism script twice per minute, making it easier for sysops to clean up, rather than once every 5 seconds. Hope that makes a little more sense. Of course, that's my sepculation, as I haven't looked further into it. 21:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of limiting new and unregistered accounts to 2 edits per minute. This however leads way to a vandal setting up accounts, waiting for them to be no longer new (or even doing a few non-vandal edits with these puppet accounts), then implementing the bot all over. As such I would love to see something automated in the background that detects open-proxies and continues to enforce an edits per minute limitation on accounts accessing the wiki via open proxies. I would guess that pretty much most of us don't do many more than 2 edits per minute normally (especially now with SmackBot handling the automated task of price updates that many of us used to knock out). This way even established accounts that are coming through open proxies would continue to be regulated, perhaps with the limit per minute increased a bit. Yes?  00:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Our R S Wikia Clan Chat should be 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.

Again, I do understand there can only be 100-200 people on C Teng's Friends List. An alternative may be making a lot more people able to kick, so if anyone starts making trouble, they are booted off.

I would really like this changed,  <font color="Blue">Jediadam4  <font color="Green">(Talk)   07:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

To visit the forums thread, click here.

Comments?

weak-support-I think the clan chat does require some limitation and further monotering. But there are some users non wikians who deserve a chance. Yet on the other hand there has been a lot of vandal attacks both on the wikia and on the clan chat. I think we just need a list off users with there wiki name and rs name and give them a number. When a mod request their number because of a suspision we could look that up. This is just a suggestion... God Of War 07:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Support -But it would be tricky to find such a method -- 12:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - as I've said before, we've already tried this and R S Wikia ran out of friends space within hours. A clan chat for only 200 friends is frankly not an option because there would be a lot of editors left out. I'm open to alternatives but this isn't one of them. 13:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - as per Solier 1033. I do support allowing more users to kick, but there should be very strict limits on what they can and cannot kick for. 21:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - We have over 226+ active users with Wikia accounts (I'm not even going to link...), and anywhere from 100% to 500% of that in active non-registered users. If we were to make it exclusive, only 200 people would get to use the chat, right? Wrong. R_S_Wikia is F2P, so it only has 100 slots on its friends list. That's unfair to the other 55% of our active users who won't be able to get in.

Also, new users are joining at a rate of around 10+ a day with many also going inactive every day. We would constantly have to maintain who does and doesn't get on the list.

And how are we to know if someone is active on our site? Many people use the forums mainly, thus getting perhaps one edit every few days. Some people have an account but only use the wiki to look up things.

All in all, it's unfair and far too much of a hassle. I say if they know about the Clan Chat, they should be allowed in. Though, I say anyone with a rank should be allowed to kick, but if anyone abuses their kick powers they'd get de-ranked. 21:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I oppose limiting the clan chat. It is just likelimiting the users who can edit, and the point of the wikia is that any user can edit. I feel that we need to come up with some kind of chat restrictions (ex. speaking about the war should be directed to another chat, as this is often a heated discussion) that can be implemented where a kick can be supported. I also feel that "Kicking games", and ranking people to play "Kicking games" should not be allowed. 22:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - As Chiafriend12. R S Wikia is F2P and capable of holding 100 friends. When having over 250 active users... Even when we make R S Wikia member. It's just impossible. 22:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - per everyone else who opposed so far. I'd say we still need to admins/b'crats with kick powers, but other than that, its should be open to everyone. What if someone finds out about the wiki via the clan chat? Its reasonable to say someone would do so. If they couldn't get in the chat, they may well be put off editing the wiki, and they could turn out to be a very valuble editor. So leave it open! 22:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Even if R S Wikia was a member, 200 would not be enough to hold all the active users. A actually have not seen any problem with opening the channel to all people, because hardly anyone else knows about it. There has never been "chaos" in the channel. 03:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Almost every rank can have kicking powers, except for the ranks that are only used in Wikifests. Those are the Costume Contest ranks, and I don't think we need anyone less than a Lieutenant to kick. 03:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - There has been "chaos" in the CC numerous times. You, C Teng, just wasn't on it at the time...

<font color="Blue">Jediadam4 <font color="Green">(Talk)   04:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. There has been a lot of problems and this is one way to fix themPatronusMongoose 23:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - How? It is impossible to recruit all the active users. And you have no idea how much work it would take to do that, even if we could. 01:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Rankings and Kicking powers
We can't recruit everyone. It's impossible. Event if R S Wikia were a member, 200 would not be able to hold every single user, especially since we are getting more users all the time. It would be way too much work to get the right recruits in. So we can't do that. However, Jedi suggested giving more people kicking powers, and I agree. A lot of the time, no one with kicking powers is on the Clan Chat. Currently, only Fest Mods (Lieutenants), Sysops (Captains), and Bureaucrats (Generals) can kick. I think we should give all rollbackers kicking powers. Rollbackers are not ranked right now, but I think ranking them would be a good idea. See below I think we should get rid of the corporal and sergeant ranks, because they are only used to mark people who are judges or contestants in Wikifest Costume Contests. This doesn't work, because Bureaucrats, Admins, and Fest Mods would not be marked because they are already marked as Generals, Captains, and Lieutenants. This is how I think we should make the Clan Chat system:
 * Rollbackers Trusted Players - Lieutenants
 * Administrators - Captains
 * Bureaucrats - Generals
 * Kicking Powers would be given to Lieutenants+

People who are currently corporals and sergeants would still be in the Costume Contest, but they would not be ranked for it. The "Fest Mod (Lieutentant)" rank would be replaced by Rollbackers certain trusted users, because nothing really defines what a Fest Mod is, and all Fest Mods right now are Rollbackers anyway.

So that's how I think we should rank people in the R S Wikia Clan Chat channel. Anyone agree? 17:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - Ya i can agree with this. 17:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support - That sounds good. Basically, to sum it up, I just want the people that are causing trouble to "go away", and this might fix it. There are a lot of rollbackers, so if they start abusing their powers on the CC, they can easily be punished on the Wikia. If there a sounds like a decent solution, though it still may not be perfect. However, I'm not sure whether we could achieve perfectinre only 2-3 people on the chat, and no rollbackers, I guess we can just get off the chat and ignore the trouble maker. Thisg. =) Thanks C Teng. This will be like medicine, not a vaccination though.  <font color="Blue">Jediadam4  <font color="Green">(Talk)   18:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment - InstantWinston suggested that instead of giving Rollbackers kicking powers, we give it to frequent Clan Chat users. Some Rollbackers don't use the CC, and there are many trustworthy players that aren't Rollbackers on R S Wikia. 18:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Support It was partially my idea anyway, so I obviously support it. 18:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment C Teng, you wrote: "InstantWinston suggested that instead of giving Rollbackers kicking powers, we give it to frequent Clan Chat users. Some Rollbackers don't use the CC, and there are many trustworthy players that aren't Rollbackers on R S Wikia." Yes. Good idea. I feel I fall under this category even though I am not a rollbacker or anything higher. How about be give all rollbackers kicking power, and then also give it to trusted CC users? Edit: I became a rollbacker today, even though I still keep my views on this issue.''' <font color="Blue">Jediadam4 <font color="Green">(Talk)   19:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, most Rollbackers would fall under the category of Trusted Users, so we'll only rank those who go on the chat. 19:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - now that this chat is the "official" chat. Rollback can be granted very easily and is not done through a community process, and there are probably quite a few who would be eligible for rollback but not trustworthy yet for kicking. While we were using Ilyas' chat, there were some untrustworthy rollbackers (whose names I will not mention). From my experience, whenever I have gone on, there was always at least 1 admin. Also, we have an ignore list. So, basically, since there's no community process for this, I oppose. Butterman62 (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, we decided not to use Rollback, but trusted users who are not administrators. Look at the comments above. 21:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. But who defines "trusted"? Butterman62 (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the same way we do it with RfAs. The player could request it on the channel, and the captains would decide. Or we could make a subpage on RuneScape:Clan Chat for it, similar to RfAs. 23:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, but if and only if we do it with an RfA-like process. Conditional support. Butterman62 (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per above! 07:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please note: All users presently with rank should not have it revoked because of this change. When creating a new wikia, inexperienced sysops are common to help start it up. They are not required to complete an RfA afterwards to keep their rights. All existing Lieutenants should keep their rank, and future ones be appointed by community afterwards. 21:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - C-mods (chat mods), for the win! 19:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - Many times have we needed to kick a user, but theres no user with kicking rights around. This would prove useful. -- 01:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Here and on the discussion below, it looks like we've agreed to get rid of the Fest rankings and replace them with trusted users with kicking powers. Discuss how they will be chosen here. 03:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Archiving the Yew Grove
I've noticed that a lot of the time, discussions on the Yew Grove are archived just because they haven't been edited in two weeks or more. But a lot of the time those discussions weren't over yet. Just because there hasn't been any comments on it in a while, doesn't mean that it should be archived. I think we should make it a Yew Grove policy to archive discussions only when they are over. If a discussion hasn't been edited in a long time, then end the discussion and make it a policy before archiving it. 13:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -- 14:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - I was wondering why some of those discussions were archived. o_O 15:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC) Support - I agree with you 100%. <font color="Blue">Jediadam4 <font color="Green">(Talk)   22:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: You're probably referring to me recently archiving the page. The reason I did that is because it was colossal. It was big enough to cause serious laggage to my whole computer when I loaded the Yew Grove. As I stated in one of my summaries, I targeted the discussions that hadn't been posted in for a couple weeks. The implication with those discussions is that there is no longer anything worth discussing, and as such, they can be archived. If those discussions are still ongoing, and don't need archiving, then fine. But we can't have a 175-KB Yew Grove page. Maybe it needs to be broken up into subforums or something to keep that from happening. -- 06:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm also referring to other archives of the Yew Grove. But I just mean that before you archive something, make sure you put the consensus into effect. For example, the Wiki world is still on the sitenotice, and still marked as proposed. And we didn't put any .OGG files on the wiki. The Adventurers' Tales discussion did not reach consensus. And a lot of more recent discussions ended, but you deleted the old ones instead of the ones that were actaully finished. 15:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Abolish user of the month
I am sure many people are aware of some of the silliness that occured during january. For those that arent allow me to mention a little of it.
 * People were PMed in game and asked to vote
 * It was discussed on the RS Wiki chat
 * Some of the votes seemed as much to be about one user not getting rather than one getting it.

All of this leads to my main point. There was too much focus and attention on this rather than where it should have been. I am not saying "omg this is all anyone cared about" because a lot of good stuff got made and fixed in January. But even more could have been if there was no attention on User of the Month. It was a popularity contest for at least some of the participants. And thats just wrong. Not all, just some.

It has been suggested before that this should happen, and I really hope the community sees this as a distraction we can do without. We can and should replace it with a section for Articles that need help. This has been proposed and supported before but has always seemed to fade away. Well this would be a great time to put that up on the front page. An article in need of lots of work would then get more notice, and would stay listed until its as good as any article of the month. Some would only take a few days, others (Summoning?) would probably take a while. But its a much better community focus that we could all take pride in.

--Degenret01 02:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

In Addition - As a top candidate is last months UotM, I must say that all the above is true. It's sad when users are looking for recognition, and that is entirely not the point of this wikia. Now, let me justify my spot in this so that is does not come back to bite be in the rear later: To continue, I must admit that the user of the month is becoming more of a popularity contest. The point of the user of the month was to recognize the great contributions a user has made, and to say thank you from the community, but as time has progressed the meaning has change. Lets talk about this with a bit of reference:
 * I did myself speak about the UotM in the Clan Chat - I did not however solicit vote in any which way.
 * As other users began to promote the UotM in their signature, I did aswell as I felt this was an unfare advantage...I later that day removed the link as it conflicted with my beliefs, a user should not self promote their own UotM


 * Between a discussion with myself and other user here and here, we speak about users being solicited in game. This is an absolute disgust. Why are people asking for votes, it's arrogant and selfish.


 * As many might know, me and Degenret were hoping for a tie. When my nominee left and I voted for Degenret it gave him the upper hand at one point, offering him the lead over my nomination. This here is a suggestion I received. Why on earth would I want to pull my vote to simply win? How is that fair to the editor or anyone else that is voting? Again, selfish...


 * Cheating? - I'm not sure if this is true, but even if it is, who cares...It's not the point to gain recognition so if people need to cheat to win it's quite sad...and when it is getting to the point users thinks others are cheating it's time to stop.


 * It got to the point I was not even allowed to scratch unqualified voters without being ridiculed. Please note that since this discussion occurred we has resolved any misunderstandings. The point I am trying to point out with this and this just proves that the trust in users to simply recognize great users is gone. This trust needs to be built up again.


 * Users nominating themselves???


 * Users began to promote their own UotM in their signatures (see above in my admissions... :


 * If you would kindly scroll down on this page, to Degenret's section, you will also find a vote cast based on the influence of another user, not directly linked to anything about the User of the Month, or the user being voted for. The vote was simply cast as a revenge vote for something that was said to this user. THIS IS CRAZY! Since when do people vote because of something other then the great work and contributions of the user being nominated?

This is just to point out a few things I have experienced over the last month as being a candidate. Please note, that I do not support retiring this as it is a very affective means to recognize great contributors, I am simply saying that it needs to be thought over. This is a privileged, not a right. 03:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - As per above 03:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I uber support abolishing UOTM. 03:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Changed to Oppose - While I do support some of the things you said in the description, I still like having the UotM on the mainpage. It brings up morale and is a way of thanking users who have done a great job here on the wiki. I really don't think the featured user section would make other users feel demoted. Everyone is saying that "We need to focus more on the articles" when really, we already are doing that. The UotM isn't in anyway interfering with us making and bettering articles. This is what I am proposing. Is there anyway we could just add a new section to the mainpage concerning articles in need of help? That way we can have both the featured user section and the articles that need help section and there wouldn't be any problems. -- 03:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is to remove the UotM, not to substitute it. It would be cool to have something like that, but the point is people are getting to wrapped up in being recognized that they are asking for it, etc... UotM is not what it used to be, it's a popularity contest anymore. 06:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well how bout instead of getting rid of it completely, could we just do a major overhaul of all the rules and how it should work to avoid all of the "drama" and complaints and problems with it (like Andorin said)? -- 06:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - although you have very good points, a very small amount of users were affected by the "UOTM drama". In fact, I barely heard about UOTM both in the clan chat and on the wiki. Also, please don't take any offense to this, Degenret, but I do find it rather odd that you suggested this within an hour or so of becoming User of the Month. 03:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If I "hadn't won" then it may have looked like me being a sore loser. Too many people do too much work for one person to get recognized.--Degenret01 03:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, but you could have started this before voting had ended. Besides, that isn't why I'm opposing and didn't influence my opinion either. I have never heard of any problems with UOTM before January, so could it be that it is not the UOTM competition itself but certain nominees that caused the controversy? (not accusing anyone) If this is the case, which I believe it is, then I see no reason that UOTM cannot continue as it has since March 2007. 03:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think he means that now that you "have won" it is safe to try to abolish it, since you can already claim you got it. And I can't say I find that impossible to believe either.. Christine 03:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Im not going to be mentioning it on my user page or putting up a little user box about it, and if we can get the other project going then my name will be off the front page within a day and a real wikia project going.. Way to assume good faith. Also, I discussed it with Bonzii on his talk page a few days ago. --Degenret01 03:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is not right to put the spotlight on a single user. If UOTM is meant to give newbies someone to look up to, then they should check out the history for the featured article and find out who wrote the bulk of it. 03:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support - I have to agree that the original intention of this feature has been lost over time. I did not understand that fully in times past, however what i have seen it become is not healthy for encouraging new editors to join in this project. I would very much like to see this feature replaced with a Collaboration article, where new editors are invited to make something better. In regards to uotm, at the very least it should be removed from the main page. Any thing that goes on regarding uotm should likely be restricted to the User: space or at least outside of the main namespace, if people insist on maintaining this wiki-debilitating feature. This wiki is not about vanity or getting your name exposed to the masses, it is about documenting a game most of us enjoy. As such i would like to see this feature no longer present on the main page. 03:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Conditional oppose. If there are problems with UotM, I don't think just tossing it out the door is the way to go when approaching those problems. Establish stricter standards. Examples:


 * No self-nominations. You can vote for yourself, but you cannot nominate yourself.
 * Do not solicit your, or anyone else's, nomination anywhere on the wiki. Anyone caught soliciting any nomination will be disqualified and, if the situation warrants it, given a block.
 * Only a certain number of nominations per month. This would help control possible controversy.

Technically, the RS wiki is independent of the game itself and therefore the wiki can't interfere with in-game actions. However, if I'm understanding this correctly, the in-game chat channel for the wiki IS under the control of the admins of the wiki, as the admins tend to have rank there. As such, another standard should be to abolish discussion of UotM on either IRC or in the chat channel. As a matter of fact, perhaps banning UotM discussions from anywhere but the UotM page would be the way to go. -- 04:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I appreciate your input. In opinion, I feel this would greatly impact the method of how the UotM is handled and viewed, and should be implemented in the future if the UotM is to return, but for now I feel the focus and concept of the UotM is gone and it needs to be re-established and it's purpose thought about in mind, not in policy. Removing this will allow users to appreciate that it is a privilege, not a right, and besides the point of the wikia is for the content, not the users. Let's focus more on the articles and the impact they have on the community as a whole rather then looking at the contributions of one. 05:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless what additional rules and limitations are put on it, the mere fact that it denotes notoriety will be enough for many to find ways to needle around those rules in attempt at being noticed. Ever wonder how many sock puppets there are on any given wiki, or can be used outside of a wiki? If you're going to insist on keeping it, then you could at least support something more comprehensive in fixing the issue that has grown from this. By taking the feature off the main page the level of notoriety can be lessened and at least in that measure it would not be a major distraction from what this wiki's goals are, wouldn't you agree? 05:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well said, and I do agree that if it is not abolished it should be removed from the main page in the least. 05:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - Very good points, and there is no really reason it needs to exist. The Wikia can continue it's way on without it. <font color="Blue">Jediadam4 <font color="Green">(Talk)   05:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - We've had this discussion before. I never saw a good reason for deleting it. So, to fix some of the problems you stated, how about we make it so every user has to make a description on why they voted for the person (similar to RfAs). Then we wouldn't count the votes with bad descriptions, like for reasons you said. Yes this wiki can continue it's way on without it, but does keeping it really make it worse? 06:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - This is ridiculous. Two isolated incidents does not warrant instant abolition. That is complete insanity. I agree with Andorin on the restrictions, such as no self-nominations and no soliciting, and breaking said rules should result in a 1 day block, more for repeat infractions. Like a few above me said, it gives new users a person to look up to, and a general role model for the wiki. In short, I oppose this motion, and anyone who self-nominates of solicits votes should be reprimanded accordingly. Kevin-020 06:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Total Support - as per previous supports, notably kytti khat's "This wiki is not about vanity or getting your name exposed to the masses, it is about documenting a game most of us enjoy". Also: 1. We have more than one contributor per month who would deserve that. Giving this "reward" to only one (obviously quite random) of them is simply unfair - and giving it to two is getting ridiculous (I guess the next steps are to give it to 3, then to more?). 2. Voting in this is a waste of a time which could be used to contribute to articles instead. 3. Having the oppose vote prohibited is just ridiculous: a vote where you can't say no? Are we in China? 4. Some editor(s) leave because the lameness of this feature makes them sick. At least that's what made me stop after my previous return, and that's what makes me bounce today too, after a few other edits I need for my closure. 5. Finally, this page is simply breaking RuneScape:All editors are equal. 07:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Support UOTM is pointless. <font color="black" face="Tahoma" size="2">TEbuddy 07:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - While I agree that there was some silliness regarding the Uotm in January, I do not think that Uotm should be abolished because it is about thanking an active user for his/her contributions to the wiki. The person deserves mention and without the Uotm, there would be no way to do just that. I agree with C Teng's ideas on how to prevent such things from happening. To sum it up, a policy should be made to counter the problems instead of abolishing the Uotm. 07:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean a policy as clever as the one saying you can't vote no? Since I almost already earned my Godwin point, I won't insist on the China comparison nor germanize it, but as Tacitus used to say, "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws". 13:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * more commentary -- One thing I've already noticed in the past six months was the size of the so-called feature again outgrowing the size of the Article of the Month. This is just another indicator of the amount of vanity that goes into this feature, I was one to advocate taking it down a notch before and this is not an uncommon occurrence, this is a regular and ongoing happening. Regardless of how many rules are put on this "feature" it will continue to attract undue and needless attention, as it is already doing in this discussion thread, which in itself continues to move this Wiki away from it's reason for being. If we're only going to add more rules to this then first and foremost should be to move it off of the front page. 19:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(RS:NOT) January was just an uncommon occurance. That has happened, like, three times in the 20+ months that the UotM has been around. Though, there are things that could use changing. Killing something off because one month in particular was bad isn't the best way to do something. 08:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Voting for yourself. Seriously? That's pointless.
 * Nominating yourself. If you're such a good user, someone else will do the nominating for you.
 * Lengthy descriptions on the main page. A link to the userpage and a description is just assinine. If you want to know about the user, just click on the link to their userpage. Something like "Congratulations to Iamzezima9991234987 for being this month's User of the Month!" would work just as fine and use less space.
 * Hype. The whole UotM process is treated like it's an honor. All you do is you get your name on a list and glory on the main page.
 * Wait, are you Opposing this or not? -- 15:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What does it look like? "Killing something off because one month in particular was bad isn't the best way to do something.". So yes, I am against abolishing it so quickly without trying to fix it first. 00:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support: UOTM isn't really pointless, but it makes it look like, eg February, Degenret01 is the only user that deserves to be featured. But there are many more users that can be recognized (Bonzi). Like Degenret said, we could better replace it with Articles that need help, or a weekly Poll or something.--. 11:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose What is the point of the User of the Month? It's not to say "this user is the best", "everyone should try to get their name on this list", or anything like that. The User of the Month is meant to give one special user each month recognition. That's it. And I find it darn sad that we can find something wrong with a system that only allows compliments.

We're here to work together as a team. We spend our time documenting a game all (or most of) us love. We don't get paid, and we don't become famous. We're volunteers. But, once in a while, it's important to point out that someone has made a special impact on our community. Sometimes, we get so wrapped up in reverting vandalism and guiding users that we for get to point out when somebody does something right.

The point of the User of the Month is not to select one particular user as being the best. It's just a way for the community to point to someone and say, "Hey, thanks, you've really made a difference!" Yes, the User of the Month is most often just a thank you to a single contributor. But if it was given to more people, it wouldn't be as special.

Yes, I spend time thinking about who to vote for, and that time could be spent contributing to an article or reverting vandalism. But when I make that final edit—when I voice my support and say how someone really made a difference in my experience here, it feels like I am shaking someone's hand while wearing a huge smile and saying, "you're a special person". It's my way (and others') of saying thank you.

Nobody should feel left out. Nobody loses. Even if you think someone else is more deserving of recognition, remember the difference that the winner made. That contributor deserves a "hug" just as much as anyone else. Next month, maybe the person you voted for will get the most votes—but does it really matter? Just the fact that we take the time in our busy lives to simply say "thank you" is something to be proud of in and of itself.

To be honest, I don't care if people go around advertising their User of the Month nominations. Why? Because that's like walking up to someone and saying, "hey, you, say thank you to me NOW!" We all know that, and so we won't vote for such a nominee. Does someone who demands our thanks really deserve it? No.

There are flaws in every recognition system. There are always going to be people who feel left out or that they have been treated unfairly. But such people aren't grasping the true meaning of the User of the Month. Even if they had one, they wouldn't have felt it in the same way that the real winner might have. It's not a trophy, a badge, or a rank. It's a thank you card.

User of the Month is one of the few reminders on this wiki that it's important to thank our contributors for the differences they make. It forces us to take a step back from the reverting, banning, and nit-picking, giving us a chance to see all of the good in our community.

I look forward to giving my virtual handshake this month and for many months to come, both to nominees and winners. I'm not looking to get nominated myself; I would miss the opportunity I have to thank yet another hard-working volunteer. And, hopefully, the rest of our community also feels the same satisfaction each month, regardless of whom is voted the User of the Month.

22:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Degenret01, put the fact that you were chosen as a User of the Month on your user page. You deserve it; you have put a lot of time and effort into this wiki.  Think of it as my thank you—the community's thank you.  We appreciate every single edit you make, and this community wouldn't be the same without you.  That's what we were saying when we chose you.  22:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow. Now EVERYONE pay attention! This guy understands the true meaning of the User of the Month. He is exactly right. It's not about the recognition okay, it's about the thank you. It about commemorating the well efforts of another editor, someone who has dedicated their time to aiding this wikia and helping it to achieve it's full potential. If we could all understand this, the User of the Month would mean so much more, to everyone. Yield what Supertech has just said, because it is the true understanding and point. Please note: If we can work to make this UotM about not receiving recognition based on fame or popularity, or asking for votes, advertising yourself, etc, and actually about the recognition of a user`s contribution, then I hope this feature stays. It would be nice to create something however in addition to this to focus more on articles (as has been recently mentioned), but if we can understand the true purpose then their would be no reason to remove it. 03:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Back in the old days.... UotM was always about a thank you, not a popularity contest. Editors should be chosen for their time, effort, and dedication. There are similar characteristics that should be looked at during RFA's (which we have all witnessed people thanking others for support votes and asking about opposes). My vote was totally influenced against people who advertise for it in both instances‎[[Image:Cooked_chicken.PNG‎]]Atlandy 12:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Biggest oppose that anyone can oppose too. - Taking away UOTM is like taking away all the articles on the wiki. It's an essential part. It's a gift. A gift that let's the user who won, know that they have a done a good job. It's very important to the wiki. --   C  O  L O >  02:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

New Proposal
With permission from Degenret01, we have decided to close this proposal and re-open a new one which would fundamentally change some rules to the User of the Month. Please comment your support or oppose to this new policy addition.

New Rules to Add to the UotM:


 * Candidates may not self-promote their own nominations, be it in their signatures, talk page, userbox, etc.
 * Candidates may not vote for their own nomination
 * Absolutely no in-game advertising about UotM by candidates, be it in PM, Clan Chat, etc. If this occurs, screenshots of chat may be used to provide grounds to disqualify the candidate.
 * All votes must be directly related to the Candidate and their contributions. Voters must explain their vote.

Proposed Changes to the Set-up:


 * User of the Month template will only state: "Congratulations to Example as being month User of the Month"

or


 * User of the Month template will be removed from the mainpage. User of the Month will be displayed as a site notice and will state: "Congratulations to Example as being month User of the Month"

or


 * User of the Month template removed from mainpage. User of the Month will not be displayed on site notice. User of the Month will be moved to a separate page.

'''Please discuss these possible changes now. Move to abolish the UotM has been withdrawn. Please keep this open until 1 week prior to March UotM. Any changes will occur beginning of March.'''

07:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support I support these new rules, and move for Option 2: ''User of the Month template will be removed from the mainpage. User of the Month will be displayed as a site notice and will state: "Congratulations to Example as being month User of the Month"'' 07:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

100% Support - I have heard enough fighting, heated debates, and "no, me!"s in the CC to decide on this issue. <font color="Blue">Jediadam4 <font color="Green">(Talk)   08:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support as long as we keep UotM. I think we should have a link on the Main Page saying "Congratulations Example," and link it to the separate page you suggested, giving a longer congratulations, like what we have now. 12:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - per C Teng 19:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - If a user fails to abide by rules, then user's vote should be disqualified. 20:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - I'm glad the UotM is still on the mainpage. I would like the first option stating we keep the template and we just state "Congratulations to Example as being month User of the Month". Scratch that... I would want the option explained by C Teng. -- 22:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Very Strong Support - per C Teng. Link to a separate page with a longer description. 22:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support all except the last proposed change. The purpose of User of the Month should be to highlight users' contributions so that other editors can see some of the best our wiki has to offer. Simply saying "User X won" on the main page or sitenotice would defeat this purpose and reduce UOTM to a simple popularity contest, which seems to be what we are trying to avoid. Getting rid of the feature completely would be a much better option than turning it into a popularity contest. Dtm142 23:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose UTOM, support changes to current rules Get rid of UOTM, all it does is cause problems and take up space on the main page. <font color="black" face="Tahoma" size="2">TEbuddy 00:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Complete and total support Ah. Finally an end to that conflict. Kevin-020 03:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I am a bit disappointed that this feature will be kept, but I accept that this is what the community wants. One additional rule that would have stopped some of the nonsense should be "Voters must have 50 Mainspace edits". Really, 50 is not a hard number to achieve. It really isn't.--Degenret01 04:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Degenret, the old rules aren't being abolished, such as the 50-edit to vote rule. These are just additional rules. 21:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like the rule for voting to be 50 mainspace edits instead of 50 edits not including talk pages. 21:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I also think this should be implemented immediately. No reason not to, there is plenty of time left in the month for all voters to get their contrib count up.--Degenret01 04:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding explained votes, I would like anyone in favor of that feature to think about this for a minute. Ok, 20 seconds then. The nominator is already going to list positive attributes of the nominee, or they wouldn't be a nominee. Many/most of that persons supporters are most likely going to agree with those reasons. So really just a "support" and your sig should be sufficient. Or are you suggesting that we judge the reasons behind a vote? That could get so ugly so fast. Keep it simple. --Degenret01 04:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be like an election if we did it that way, which is completly unbiased. In personal opinion, if it is constructive support about the well contributions of another user however, I think it would be very rewarding to hear from another about what they have done good that deserves this vote. 17:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So are you going to "judge" their votes? What if you don't feel their opinion is good enough? DQ the vote? This is extremely unreasonable--Degenret01 07:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I Support the rule changes but I am Neutral about set-up changes. I find UOTM advertisements everywhere and I think it is something your earn, not campaign for. I find that even mentioning how a person is, sadly causes an entire "war". The changes to set-up to me make it seem to not give them the congratulations they deserve, but I see the changes as taking away the reason to go out and campaign instead of getting out there and doing what is right and earning it. I think the point of User of The Month is to showcase a wikian's contributions and to give them a pat on the back for their great work and our current system does not reflect it. - 05:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional Possible Rule:
 * 50 Mainspace edits replaces 50 Edits not including talk pages
 * Only 1 vote per voter per month

Anyone oppose? 17:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Mainspace edits as a rule can be troublesome, as it is only shows the number of edits a person has made. A user can easily make 50 minor edits (spelling, grammar, etc.) in a short span of time. Why don't we increase of amount of edits, so that only active users will be able to vote? Maybe 100 or 200 edits?

Anohter suggestion is to convert "User of the Month" to "List of Notable users" and just list the users who have contributed significantly to the wiki. (What is significant? I really don't know.) But, at least, this will eliminate the need to select brand a new UotM every single month. Personally, I'd prefer to see this feature removed... 21:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I Fully Support and Comment, I am tired of seeing people vote multiple times and having a main space requirement will be good for having informed voters. I personally, like 75 or 125 edits as the requirement for the number of edits. I think the point of User of The Month is to showcase a wikian's contributions and to give them a pat on the back for their great work. - 05:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose 1 vote per voter So the vote wont affect who wins, but it does let people know that the voter recognizes the work that they have done. As a feel good gesture. Lets not have rules rules for the sake of having rules, just make ones we need to keep it fair and from getting crazy.--Degenret01 05:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for UOTM Changes
Remove self-nom. If it's about a user getting thanked, the user themselves shouldn't be asking for thanks. That's rude.

If this means that we don't get a UOTM on some occasions, then so be it, clearly no-one put in the effort that deserves being thanked for.

King Runite1 14:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There's already a rule against it. 15:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is already a rule. Thanks for you contribution though ;) 19:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Trivia? More like "triviugh".
In all sorts of different talk pages, people have been saying that trivia should be banned from being listed in articles. From what I have seen, people have been passing just normal facts for trivia quite often. It gets annoying.

Time for a bit of a pop quiz. Of the following, which one(s) is trivia?


 * Trivia


 * 1) The Dragon chainbody is the strongest chainbody in the game.
 * 2) Mod Peter Pants said that it was his favorite item.
 * 3) In Betrayal at Falador, it was the only item released at the time of the book's release that was not mentioned anywhere in the book.
 * 4) The price has gone from 15M to 10M, then to 8M, down to 4.8M, and is currently at 5M.
 * 5) At the time of release, Dragon chainbodies were the most wanted item in RuneScape at the time.
 * 6) The first player ever to get one was I_Lyk_Pi_3point14159_L0L_I_Pkd_U.

And now, class, the answers:


 * 1) Not trivia. It should be listed in the either first or second sentence of the article.
 * 2) Not trivia. Heck, not even notable.
 * 3) Trivia. It wouldn't make much sense to list that in the main article, but it would probably be worth saying.
 * 4) Not trivia. If there is enough data for its own area, it would be included in a "Price history" subsection of the article.
 * 5) Not trivia. Most items are the most wanted item in RuneScape when they're released. Dragon claws, Dragon platebodies, Dark bows, and so on.
 * 6) Trivia. If this can even be proven, this would be trivia. It doesn't have a reasonable place anywhere else in the article.

In short, trivia is information that would not be reasonable to be put anywhere else in the article, yet is worthy of being mentioned. Now, of course, trivia would be an uncommon thing to find in articles. It's just that in most articles that have a trivia subsection it's clogged with non-trivia.

For this reason, a policy about trivia subsections should be put in place. Wikipedia's policy on trivia is that [if I remember correctly] if it can be used elsewhere in the article, place it there instead. 01:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral - Trivia I guess is just based on what is trivial to you. Where some might find something trivial, another may not. I don't think it's possible to limit it so drastically that rules need to be placed on what is trivia and what is not. If you find conflict with trivia, simply remove it or place it in an article where it can be useful and remove it from the list of trivia. 05:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - I believe we should define what's trivia and what isn't and then change the articles. If anyone suggests totally removing trivia from the Wikia, don't. There is no reason to totally abolish it from the Wikia. I personally love reading trivia, even though some of it isn't really... trivia. <font color="Blue">Jediadam4 <font color="Green">(Talk)   08:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral per Bonzii. 02:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Weak Support - I came from Wikipedia, so I'm partially more inclined to the Wikipedia standards; after all, this is also an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. However, we may find it hard to incorporate trivia into the main contents since, well, it's about a MMORPG game, and there may be facts that cannot be put into the main contents without having its own section. So banning the entire trivia section per Wikipedia standards may not be the best idea. I'm not sure if I make any sense there, but that's just what I felt. Red X 226 08:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

New Article Spot on Mainpage
In light of recent discussion about the User of the Month, it has been brought forth to create a new mainpage spot which would advertise articles needing cleaned up, or worked on/enhanced. With this said, I move for the creation of a new mainpage template that would allow this to occur. Please offer all ideas on what this template would be about. A community will decide the overall theme of this new feature. 07:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of pretty or well detailed areas in Runescape. How about Image of the Month? -- 12:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - Perhaps we could create a template that displays three stubs and three articles needing cleanup? 19:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - I would prefer Image of the month or something similar. With the recent graphics update, Runescape has some truly beautiful high resolution scenery. I think it would also help Runescape's long standing image as a "crappy low res browser game". <font color="black" face="Tahoma" size="2">TEbuddy 00:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've brought up the idea of an IotM (Image of the Month) multiple times already. Everyone hates it when I mention it. :S 01:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Support as I wanted this in the first place. -- 02:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Example - Here are a few example images that show off a few nicer looking areas that we could use for IOTM. I think it would be an excellent feature. <font color="black" face="Tahoma" size="2">TEbuddy 07:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Instead of showing off images, linking to stubs and things that need help would be of more benefit to the wiki. --Degenret01 07:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We should keep the front page aesthetically pleasing and useful to a public guest. Take a look at Guild wiki, Wowwiki, and Wikipedia for examples. They all have useful information, features, pictures, and not lists of articles/items needing attention. Stubs have their own category, and thats where they should stay.[[Image:Gnomegoggleswithcap.png|25px]]<font color="black" face="Tahoma" size="2">TEbuddy 08:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Amazing, your examples are all pics you took....what a coincidence...and that's another reason I don't like this idea, there would be arguing over how to select the pic...and a pic is just what one, or very rarely, two people worked on.--Degenret01 08:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, no high resolution pictures of any areas exist on this wiki. What other way could I upload them without manually taking them or requesting a friend to take them for me? Also, the process you describe as being violent and unnecessary could be as simple as a vote or a discussion on where an appropriate area would be. Similar to how UOTM and AOTM are chosen. Not to mention, the images I did indeed take were very easy to capture. I would say I have spent more time replying to your post than I did taking, editing, and uploading them. [[Image:Gnomegoggleswithcap.png|25px]]<font color="black" face="Tahoma" size="2">TEbuddy 09:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Upon further consideration I still think we do need the Article that Needs Work, but the idea of pic of the month has some merit. How about if we have Gallery of the Month? We can decide on say 4 or 6 or 8 images that really do justice to this project. And having a good number would alleviate arguing. For the process of selecting them, just as Tebuddy said, a nice easy vote. And everyone gets up to the same number of votes as we decide there will be pics in the gallery. --Degenret01 10:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Splitting up the Yew Grove
I don't know about you guys, but when I go to load the Yew Grove page nowadays, it lags my computer very badly. Even typing this right now is causing massive lag in RS because it has to add to 127 kb of data whenever I type something. I think the Yew Grove should be split up into subpages to combat lag. According to what I've been told recently, most discussions on this page are not usually ready to be archived. (This is ridiculous. Typing that sentence actually lagged me out.) Okay, no more typing for now lest my comp crash. -- 22:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 130kb of data, especially text, should not be a problem even on a standard dialup connection. If your computer is slow in the first place, the last thing you should be trying to do is multitask. Splitting up the yew grove would be a pain in the rear end. [[Image:Gnomegoggleswithcap.png|25px]]<font color="black" face="Tahoma" size="2">TEbuddy 22:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * How so? It'd be easy to create "RuneScape:Yew Grove/Policy discussion" and "RuneScape:Yew Grove/Site discussion" or something like that. (Those are just names I pulled from nowhere.) It would also be easy to put a template at the top of the Yew Grove page informing people about the different categories and where their posts should go. I don't see the change being a huge problem, and I know I'm not the only one with lag issues. (read:Karlis) -- 22:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My computer at work lags REALLY BAD in the Yew Grove. I think subpages for discussions would be a viable option. 22:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. My isn't as bad, but still lags a lot when I try to get on... -- 22:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess it would not be too bad, my only concern is discussions getting lost or being moved around for not being in the right place. If we did split it, we should just cut it into half or thirds, and not worry about putting each one into a category. [[Image:Gnomegoggleswithcap.png|25px]]<font color="black" face="Tahoma" size="2">TEbuddy 00:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I am neutral. I agree with Tebuddy; if you wanted to see every part of the Grove, you would have to load every page. 00:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

So how about like we did with Treasure Trails? Full version or Lag reduced version optional for each user. If this isn't feasible for some techie reason don't slam me, I don't know techie stuff.--Degenret01 04:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - As stated by Degenret01 08:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - I see no side effects, only good effects! =)  <font color="Blue">Jediadam4  <font color="Green">(Talk)   09:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Degenret's idea. 12:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered a wiki forum? A lot of wikis find that a good way of keeping track of conversations once they grow too big for one page. See the Central forums for an example -- sannse (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I edit from work, and am unable to view forums at work. This is actually one of the very few wiki's I can view at work. I'd hate to lose access to our community discussion. =( 19:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wiki forums are just wiki pages, like this one. The only difference is in the way they are organised. So if you can view and edit this page, you would be fine with wiki forums :) -- sannse (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh that's neat! I agree with sannse, wiki forum! =D 19:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Before we get a general consensus, I think we should see an example of a wiki forum so we can know if we really like it or not. [[Image:Gnomegoggleswithcap.png|25px]]<font color="black" face="Tahoma" size="2">TEbuddy 02:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It would require a lot of work. I think if we did this, we would have to move the archives to this forum as well as we would no longer be making them. Would take a lot of work and hours to set up, but I am willing to help if this is the census. I have a neutral opinion on the forum idea. 04:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * TEbuddy: here's some random examples: the Central Forums - quite a basic set up which shows how you might start.  Wookieepedia - which shows more customisation.  the Community Test wiki which has a starter set of forums, which you are welcome to play around with (CT is a test wiki for the whole Wikia community).
 * Bonziiznob: I would recommend not trying to move the archives, those can stay in place and just be linked to from the main forum page. Future topics would not need archiving (unless a thread got very long) you just allow them to fall off the bottom of the listing, and remain in the forum categories - although some wikis do have fancy ways of archiving topics.  The set up doesn't take long, although you would probably want to customise it over time.  I've done the basic set up many times, so could do that for you if you want.  Or there are instructions at Help:Wiki-style forum set up.
 * -- sannse (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see, well, then I support. 17:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support using the wiki-style forums. The wiki-style forums are more compatible, cleaner looking, and simpler to deal this. Although I wonder how we would setup having forum admins for them, I am sure that is easily possible. It is definitely ironic about how we are wanting back to the wiki style. Maybe now Wikia can hide them from Recent Changes. I would say that is the main requirement for us to switch back. :) - 20:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

We actually used to use wiki forums here, until about June 2007. There was a community consensus to move the forums to a phpBB style site. The reason was because they were clogging up the recent changes, among other things. I actually find it a little funny how these wiki-based forums are so new and fantastic to you guys, but they're so old-sk00l to me. I still support if the use of wiki forums is limited to discussion about the wiki. 22:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hah this is kind of funny, yeah I remember when we used to have wiki-style forums and the community decided to get rid of them, now seems like the community wants them back. Kind of funny that the community changed so quickly in such a (fairly) short time. Anyway I personally like wiki-style forums a lot better than PHP forums like the RSW has now.--Richardtalk 21:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support Sannse's idea. We should bring back the Forum: namespace, and make it the new Yew Grove. It would be used only for wiki discussion. We would keep the Beta forums for everything else. Having a wiki discussion forum would be a lot better than the long, complicated lagging Yew Grove we have now. This way, discussions wouldn't get lost on the whole page. 02:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Support The current yew grove lags horribly, and it is hard to navigate. Switching to using wiki-style forums would be a huge improvement. --Template:Signatures/ma44040 03:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Uploading images/videos
I'm not sure if the current 'personal image' policy covers this, but I think we oughta reword it to include videos. We might even consider putting it in the Site Notice for a while. WWTDD? 19:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed‎[[Image:Cooked_chicken.PNG‎]]Atlandy 19:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I second that. 19:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This needs to get a consensus soon, as people uploading silly videos is going to get out of hand, fast. 00:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Tertiary adjunct that. Update the policy already 00:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Faster the better and sooner the lag monster will be stopped and defeated before it is too late. - 03:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely stop any furter uploading of these things. After all, isn't a video (movie) a series of consecutive images (pictures)? So this is technically covered already.--Degenret01 03:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't even like the idea of uploading videos. If people want to display videos they can upload it to Youtube and link to it... 04:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You can embed Youtube videos right into the middle of an article anyway.... if it is appropriate. While I think the deletion of "personal images" has gone overboard on this wiki, I fail to see what real benefit is gained by uploading most videos onto this wiki that isn't already covered with animated GIF images.... many of which are overdone as well.


 * The main point of the "personal images" prohibition is mainly to keep this website from becoming a repository like Flicker and YouTube for other fan websites. In that spirit, I support a general prohibition against videos not used explicitly for content development or that is mostly a duplication of existing content.  This is in spite of my desire to permit a limited number of snapshots related to your character that may appear on the user page for active participants of this website.  --Robert Horning 09:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - I can see that a few people have been trying it out already, mostly with personal content. What makes it worse is that I can't see the videos on this computer, and the 'What links here' function doesn't seem to work for them. 10:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

A solution to Clan Chat problems.
Hi. This is coming from my thread in the forums, here.

There has been problems in the R S Wikia clan chats, and kicking has been needed. Often, no one is high enough ranked to kick. So this the proposed solution.


 * Give all trusted Clan Chat members kicking power to all unranked players, as defined by C Teng. if we can trust C Teng with the R S Wikia account, we can here. I'm pretty sure R S Wikia's Friend's list can handle this. This would be no more then 25, currently. This way we can get rid of trouble causing players, not fill up R S Wikia's friends list. If "trusted users" set out of bounds on their judgment, they can easily be kicked out themselves by higher-ups, or acted upon here, on the Wikia.


 * Once we have reached a consensus, I would like to put this into effect ASAP.

Thanks. This is a plausible solution to a serious problem. <font color="Blue">Jediadam4 <font color="Green">(Talk)   05:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment - If all sysops have kicking rights and crats and some users, we are already at 50+ with these kicking rights... 07:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I am talking all sysops, crats, and trusted users. This is well under 100 and manageable. I know we can't have a kicker on the CC all the time, but we can try to have one on most of the time. Why, just earlier I was on with 10+ people, none with kicking rights. <font color="Blue">Jediadam4 <font color="Green">(Talk)   08:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Hasn't this already been suggested here? 22:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Maybe we can come up with a team of trusted "moderators". They wouldn't have to do much, other than just sit in the channel while they're browsing the wiki, checking in every few minutes or so. Even if they aren't in the channel, we could have a chat CVU page where active channel users can report problems. I am in support of doing something, and I think we're definitely on the right track. However, I'd like to see a bit more detail in the specifications before we come to a consensus. I'll be eagerly watching this idea develop. 02:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - Sounds good, Jedi. :) By the way, you spelled "solution" incorrectly in your title, so I fixed it.   13:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - I support the proposal, there are plenty of times I have seen nobody with kicking powers on. 00:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Support per above. 03:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment - We have agreed to make the new ranking, but how will we decide to give it to people? Should we make "RfLs" (Requests for Lieutenantship), similar to RfAs? Or should players request the ranking online? 03:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This is Jediadam4. I was playing and got this image: [IMG]http://i640.photobucket.com/albums/uu128/Jediadam4/Proof.jpg[/IMG] Please see this page in the forums for more details.

Let's get this issue fixed,  <font color="Blue">Jediadam4  <font color="Green">(Talk)   04:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - I would just like to note that current persons with fest mod ranks, (God of War, and myself) should be allowed to keep these as we are actively planning the wikifest and are moderating the chat. Also, if we will be doing elections, I personally nominate Jediadam4. There are active on the chat often have a neutral point of view. Thanks! 05:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also much appreciate it if I could have these rights back...how do I do this...thanks! 05:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this needs to be complicated. How about any user that has been around for a while and uses the CC just ask C Teng on his talk page for kicking powers. Any one abuses and they get the boot. --Degenret01 05:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it does. This is a major issue and privileged. Plus, it shouldn't just be up to one person entirely. Also, if we grant it to a lot of people, people will start abusing it for certain, to an extent. This would cast havoc upon the Wikia and it's community, we don't want that.


 * [[Image:Prayer.gif]] <font color="Blue">Jediadam4  <font color="Green">(Talk)  [[Image:Bandosgodsword.gif|Bandosgodsword.gif]] 05:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, how about a "Request for Fest Mod(RFM)". Require the user to be active two months, have a history of fairness and good edits. History of reporting vandalism and handling vandalism well. Or something to that degree, since if a fest mod can kick then it is like being an admin on the wiki. It should be similar to how we now have forum admins. - 06:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * After speaking with some users in game, I Support this idea. I hope we can limit the amount of run time to perhaps 5 days, rather then the traditional 2 weeks though ;) 19:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support since I came up with it and having it less than 2 weeks works for me. - 20:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - But i think that 5 days is too short, make it 1 week. 20:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Support with conditions- I support as long as the new rank for trusted members does not interfere with the Fest mod, crat and admin ranks. I would like it as well if Doucher and Jediadam got these kicking powers as well. They have been around for a while and i think extreme kick action needs to be taken as not everyone can be on it at the time of a vandal attack. Also i would like to quickly add that my rank has disappeared maybe it was intentional maybe it wasnt so we should add a clan chat help page when it comes to problems. Also maybe we could give chat bans? Make a page here on the wiki and add any known vandal who fails to comply by our rules multiple times not to be allowed in the chat again or maybe just for a period of time. Im sorta typing quick so let me know if im hard to understand. God Of War 00:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Edit: Bonziiznob and I and the rest of the Fest Mods should still retain our rank. I see no reason why the Fest Mod rank was done away with. Not all rollbackers are prominent well known wiki users. It is much harder to organize and schedule a wikifest in some cases than gain the roll back feature. I think we need to put back all the ranks and add a few more. Take away the Judges and Contestants and lower the ability to kick. God Of War 02:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I Agree - 06:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * God of War, Lieutenants will become the new Fest Mod rank. Instead of just ranks for Wikifest workers, we'll have it for all trusted users. It's the same thing. And we've decided to not use rollbackers, but instead trusted users. We are definitely getting rid of the judge and contestant ranks (see my comments above). Kicking powers will be given to Sysops, and the Lieutenants. We just have to figure out how we will give these ranks (perhaps by using RfA-like voting). And also, you never were a Fest Mod, actually. 22:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think im trusted enough. I have had my fair share of arguments just like any user but in game there have been no arguments or complaints. I used to have the Lieutenant Ranking and the Orange Star which at the time was the Fest Mod Ranking. I did apply to it when the original rankings were made. So far in the last fest i included the Clan Wars section and dramatically increased the time spend on f2p servers during the wikifest. While i was unable to attend the fest i did contribute to it. This fest Bonzi and I have been working on it a lot as well. I was the user who proposed specific rules be set for the new clan chat and even without my rank i warn users whenever they are on the breaking point of flaming or talking about topics that arent for the clan chat... drugs sex adult content etc. If i have to get elected im ok with that. God Of War 03:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Anti-vandal bot O_o
The vandal bot is back, this time under the name "Anti-vandal bot". I protected the site for a half hour so we could clear up the vandalism. Just posting this as required by the policy so the community can make sure I wasn't abusing the tool. 04:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Anti-vandal" bot my ass. Good call on the new protect site policy, Soldier. -- 04:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

He keeps coming back and claims that his accounts are autoconfirmed. If this is the case than semi-protections will not help. 04:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Chia and Karlis reprotected so we're safe for the next 8 hours. 04:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Late for the game again. Sorry folks, looks like you took care of it pretty well so far. I was bouncing around talk pages to try and figure out what happened. Question: What happens when the Protect expires? Does he have more accounts? Is there a way to know? And can we keep all discussion on whats happening on one page? --Degenret01 06:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ugh...vandals. What is their purpose anyway? Do they just like frustrating us? 13:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Little kids will never grow up...Sigh.. Vandalism is forever, unfortunately. 13:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Protection of spam pages – Add Extension:Title Blacklist
I was noticing that we have been protecting the spam pages that have been created by the recent vandal bot. I would like to point out that these pages are very unlikely to be recreated under the same name, so protecting the pages is not serving its purpose, only wasting valuable administrator time. Instead, I suggest that we have Extension:Title Blacklist installed on the RuneScape Wiki. This extension, which is used on Wikipedia, prevents the creation of pages that match up with regular expressions. This extension could really cut down on the number of spam pages that are created by this bot and other vandals. 06:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikia does have this extension, but currently, its not setup for each wiki to have its own list. We maintain a global list here (http://www.wikia.com/wiki/MediaWiki:Blacklist_title_list). We are working on modifying it to allow each wiki keep their own list in addition and RuneScape will be one of the first wikis we notify when this is available. --Uberfuzzy 06:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Fighting Vandal-Bots
Hi all. When I was playing in-game, we were discussing what we can do about the recent vandal bot that keeps coming up. This idea comes from Legaking. He me permission to suggest it here.

The idea is... What if we used those boxes with pictures of numbers and letters that users would have to put in? This would not be in effect all the time, just when the bot is active. I'm not sure what they are called. Instead of fully-protecting the Wikia, we can add this in temporarily. This way normal users can edit, but not a software program. I have seen this used on other sites, such as YouTube and Yahoo answers. It is a very effective way to prevent spamming/vandalism.

Could this work? Can we add something like this?

Please discuss,  <font color="Blue">Jediadam4  <font color="Green">(Talk)   17:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is called CAPTCHA and we already have one in place, when users create accounts. It is useful to stop bots from creating accounts, but it only takes 10 seconds to create an account, which the user is doing manually, so unfortunately that helps us none. If you're referring to requiring CAPCHA to edit every page, you might want to discuss that with central to see if it's even possible. 17:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

i said we should have every page like so that this evil bot wont workLegaking 19:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well certainly it would need a community consensus as it drastically changes the rate users can edit. But before this is discussed, somebody needs to ensure that it can actually happen. You might want to ask a staff member on central wikia. 19:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I will do that. I am talking about just having it in effect when the site is fully protected. <font color="Blue">Jediadam4 <font color="Green">(Talk)   19:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As Special:Protectsite is an outdated feature, I doubt it. 19:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't go to your link, I'm only a rollbacker. Anyways, I asked Sannse on her talk page. <font color="Blue">Jediadam4 <font color="Green">(Talk)   19:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

So, basically an extension exactly like Special:Protectsite, except it makes the site need a captcha to edit for anyone who is not emailconfirmed and autoconfirmed and the account is not at least 2 months old). Sound good? - 20:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok a bit more in detail:
 * Like Special:Protectsite, except it makes editing require entering a captcha.
 * To not be affected by the captcha the user must be:
 * A bot, have rollback, be a sysop or bureaucrat. Edit: Removed rollback per below
 * Or be emailconfirmed and autoconfirmed and have an account active at least two months.
 * 20:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds pretty good. Just remove rollback from list of allowed to edit. Why? Because rollback is given to just about anyone that asks, and this vandal is persistent enough to prob make 3 or 9 or 99 accounts, and get rollback on some of them. --Degenret01 00:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I agree. I was thinking, well if the rollbacks are the ones reverting the vandals' damage then they should not be affected, but if they are here 2 months then they won't be affected anyway. But, thinking back seeing how someone could use the vandal bots and then revert the vandal's edits to seem like they are not a vandal and have a use for rollback. Then we would have mass vandalizing using rollback 0_o.(Now I feel like a conspirator, but it is the sad reality.) - 04:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wanteds
Looking over the wanted pages, there seems to be only two categories:Images and articles about conflicts (Runescape lore). Didn't we have a bot that gathered images? It would be nice to have the wanteds back down to a reasonable size‎Atlandy 15:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a bot run by Pointy, but the images are not being updated, and new one not being created. We either need to get it running regularly, or change the template so it doesn't link to the GEMH chart images any more. 15:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A dummy image can be uploaded for GEMH images that appear in the Wanted list. [[Image:GEMH not available.png|right|The dummy GEMH image.]] This would be a temporary solution until we have a bot to update the prices.  12:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As all of the current images are way out of date, and therefore misleading, how about we just change the template to point to this image for the time being? 12:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Done. 06:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Mailing list
Hi. I just discovered that the email address used to administrator the RuneScape Wiki mailing list was bouncing. Is there someone else who would like to look after the list? It isn't used very often, but it's there as a tool if you need it. If the settings are correct, the list admin shouldn't need to deal with spam, but only with held posts from registered users (held because they are too large, for example). There's a help page about this at Help:Mailing lists. Alternatively, the list could be closed if there are no current plans to use it. It can easily be reopened later by contacting staff. Angela (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not think we need the list, but if we decide to keep it, I will look after it. But, we have talk pages, IRC, the forums, and the Yew Grove so I think we are covered. Besides, I think most people do not know about the list(although I did). - 01:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

is anyone else having troubles with image uploads
uploads over existing files that is? I uploaded an HD of Morris Image:Morris.PNG and it still has yet to show up nearly 13 hours later. 22:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * yep, I uploaded this image yesterday, still no change =( Edit: Found this=> User_talk:Sannse -- 22:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * well Morris finally updated, wikia is being a little weird. 01:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * so did mine, everything seems to be in order now... -- 00:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Switching to the new parser
Hi,

We are currently making preparations for the next wiki software upgrade. While we expect this to have little or no effect on most wikis, it may cause some pages on this wiki to render poorly. To help reduce or eliminate these issues, please see the Central Forums for more details.

Thanks - sannse (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have been working on getting these pages fixed, but I am waiting for the update of the list of pages with problems, and you replied on the Central Wiki Forums that you put in a request already. - 01:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

R S Wikia Clan Chat Rules
It has come to my attention for a while that the clan chat lacks any sort of set of rules. The Clan Chat is in desperate need of clan Chat rules. Wile runescape has a set of rules and so does this wiki and its forum the chat lacks any rules and kicking is usually up to the criteria of the user online. Today a few minutes ago a flame war about religion nearly started. It isnt about tolerance or whose real life god is superior to whose. Its about unity and mutual respect in the chat. I propose that by the weekend we lay down some basic guidelines and incorporate them in to the clan chat.We could take rules from the wiki and forums as the basic runescape rules aren't enough to govern our clan chat and meet our needs as a community. I will add more to this as people "vote". God Of War 01:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - I was there, and I was offended. I did a good job IMO keeping my cool. EDIT: I do think that political discussion should be allowed though, as long as people are respectful to each other. Religion is just too serious for it to be possible to keep composed. 02:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Support to an extent - It was not really a flame war it was me asking questions and no1 responding and saying " stop -_-". I then asked where it said "no talking about religion", and no1 said there was a rule against it and that it was an "unspoken" rule. I dont think that there should be a restrain on religion because if people choose to be athiests thats their choice and they are gonna have to deal with the consequences. I do agree that there does need to be a seperate artice including for clan chat rules. Redalert800 02:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Listen up red. When you say people will have to deal with the consequences of being atheists, thats a backdoor way of saying they are wrong. And that is the type of BS that makes for arguements that will not be settled. So if you cant keep your snide comments to yourself (yea, that was snide of you) then leave off religious talk. if you want to menton your beliefs without trying to persuade others, I couldn't care less about that. But telling anyone they are wrong in any fashion is unacceptable. Period. Go do some door to door converting if you want, keep it off the wiki and the wiki cc.--Degenret01 03:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I was under the impression that all wiki rules as well as Jagex rules applied in the clan chat but I support setting specific guidelines. 02:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Red, the problem is you were (and still are) pushing your beliefs on me and Tien for saying we were atheists. You can say that you're a theist, but you can't tell people they're wrong like that. 02:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to explain the context so nobody thinks I just said randomly "I'm an atheist!!!!1111111111".


 * We were discussing whether religion should be allowed in the CC.
 * I tried to prove a point by telling Red about how I accidentally offended someone previously by saying I'm atheist, and that's an example of why you shouldn't talk about religion here.
 * He started telling me I'd suffer the consequences for my religion.
 * Jedi kicked him.

I said my religion to prove a point supporting this proposal. 02:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Redalert800 02:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. There is a God.
 * 2. I cant force you to believe, only influence.
 * 3. Reigion is a serious matter, I believe that we should be able to discuss it.

Support, to an extent also. - I was there. I tolerated RuneScape (Zammy vs. Sara, etc) religious talk, but not real world. This came to a talk about whether there is a god or not. While I am not offended over this kind of chatter, I know others are, so I asked for it to halt. I have a belief, but didn't state them there and will not here, for obvious reasons. What happened was people were asked to stop, before it got really serious. Redalert, in particular didn't stop. In the end, this resulted in Redalert being kicked from the channel temporarily. I believe there should be rules, but not too many. I also believe most of the rules are listed here, just these are specialized for the forums. We can apply them to the CC also. Religion is a serious matter, and can offed people. Therefore, we should not discuss it on the CC in full. <font color="Blue">Jediadam4 <font color="Green">(Talk)   02:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

At Red: *facepalm*. You're missing the point. The point is that everyone knows they're right about their religion. You can't tell others they're wrong because they won't believe you. 02:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Edit: Who said "Jedi kicked him"? I see Instant's sig below it, but that could be for something else. The fact is I pmed InstantWinston/Cashman about kicking him. He agreed, and said he wanted to do it. But I figured the sooner the better so I kicked him first. Don't get me wrong it was only my idea to kick him. Instant was going to kick him seconds after I did, if I hadn't. [[Image:Prayer.gif]] <font color="Blue">Jediadam4  <font color="Green">(Talk)  [[Image:Bandosgodsword.gif|Bandosgodsword.gif]] 02:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

That was me. I wasn't trying to say that in a malicious way, just stating what happened and who did it. I would have kicked him if he was in the CC when I checked it. 02:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as religion goes, I really don't think it should be discussed in there at all. If it must be, people must be tolerant, respectful and mature, otherwise it will lead to no good. Proselytizing, making derogatory jokes/comments, and putting down other's religious beliefs is going too far. 03:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

While the religion topic is very trivial that isnt 100% of what this is about. This is about making a set number of rules and enforcing them. We dont need to copy the wiki or forum rules; as the clan chat is a whole new different identity it self. What we need is a new or upgraded set of rules for the chat. I know religion talk wont be spoken off in the chat now but politics shouldnt either. Neither should sexuality or discussion of adult material. The chat should not discriminate or encourage others to force upon their beliefs on fellow wikians for whatever topic it is. I think religion and politics worldwide should not be discussed period. Also for very trivial rule breaching things a crat or admin on the wiki should be informed asap either by a picture taken or by confirmation by logging on. The people with powers to kick should be regulated at least a little God Of War 06:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, Red, you don't need to make a big deal about it. So what if we believe differently than you do? That's still no reason to allow religion talk in the clan chat.

We need some more non-chat users to contribute. 13:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Rules - I support a concrete foundation to establishing a meaningful and productive time on the wikia CC. Certain guidelines should not be a problem to many. In regards to Politics and religion, I feel they should be allowed, but at the discretion of the admins with kicking powers, they ultimately reserve the right to ask this chat to be moved/users kicked in the event it turns ugly. 01:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Support I think the rules should be similar to the forum rules. With the addition of: No spamming (as in @@@@.... etc.), No advertising. Also there was an incident a while ago with a guy reporting abuse on the cc owner, and was subsequently banned from the chat, I'm not sure what we should do with this as a rule. Warnings should be given and then a kick if rule breaking continues. First time bans I think should be temporary, and the duration determined by the offences. 02:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Basic Rules

As promised yesterday in the clan chat im going to add Douchers cc ideas:

We need a certain set of rules for our Clan chat. Something written down, something we can discuss modify and build upon.

* Keep it appropriate - no drug references, excessive swearing, adult content, or offensive ASCII. * No "flammable" discussions - topics like politics, religion, and such are off-limits. * Only Users with userpages are allowed. This makes it easy to check for spies, and en-sures that no non-Wikians are on there. This is our Clan Chat, why should someone else be allowed to join? * Follow all 13 of Runescape's official Rules.

I modified to wording of his intro a bit. But i support Douchers' basic rules. These should be applied immediately, while we come up with better more fair rules to "govern" the cc. The religion and politics problem is huge! Constantly the cc is near the breaking point of flaming and anarchy because not many users or admin (kickers) know we are supposed or had agreed upon on using the wikia and forum rules. So i now say lets use D4ks rules for the time being and inform all cc users and admin that we will now implement these rules. God Of War 01:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

UnDark RuneScape
'''Hello! I would like to let everyone know that there is a new wiki, the w:c:UnDarkRunescape wiki, providing funny misinformation on content disallowed on the regular RuneScape wiki. It is still very, very young, so I would deeply appreciate any help what-so-ever. Thank you. Timeroot|undefinedTalk • Contribs • Edit count 18:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)'''


 * The regular RuneScape wiki is not the place to advertise this new wiki. If you would like to gather support, please ask around on the Dark RuneScape wiki. Thank you. Christine 19:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Never affiliate with is and get it deleted, if possible WTF? That's all you need to know.
 * 1) We already have UnRuneScape Wiki. What, this one covers not-funny parodies of scams? Because scams is what Dark RSW does, and UnDark just sounds like my example...in other words, this is a VERY redundant wiki idea, if it's an UnWiki concept. And it is.
 * 2) The site does not exist. I clicked the link; it led to an invalid address.
 * 3) There's no point in having ANOTHER sister site. We have Dark, we have Un, and we have Clans. I think that's enough to cover the spectrum of possible sister sites.
 * WTH? We have a UnDark RuneScape Wiki? That doesn't even make sense. -- 19:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it makes sense. It provides false, humourous information on scams, events, specific players, and some of JaGEx's rules. Timeroot|undefinedTalk • Contribs • Edit count 05:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol, OK. Good luck with your project. Unfortunately, I have a feeling it may become inactive seeing as the Dark RS Wiki is (i think). But if you stick to it and try your hardest, you can work wonders. Good luck. :D Cheers, 06:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Signature guidelines
Alright, I've been talking 'off the record' in IRC and such about this for a long time, and I think it's time to bring it up officially. Basically, my problem is the way some users enable their signatures. I'm not talking about people putting images, text, or anything IN their sig. I'm talking about the way people put their raw sig code in their "signature" box under the preferences page, as opposed to creating a template in the Signatures page and using that. Why is this a problem, you ask? Well, when I sign a page, this appears in the page code after my comment:

Notice that the above is very short and neat. But if I were to use the method I see others using, all pages I signed would have this added to their code:

Sir Andorin Kato  [This] [That]  [The baseball bat]

Look at all that text. Yuck. Now, this may not seem like an enormous deal, but consider the fact that a lot of people do this. This means we suddenly have hundreds, maybe thousands, of completely unnecessary characters on an active discussion page. This bloats up the page and increases loading time, both when initially loading the page and editing it. The biggest example of this, of course, is the Yew Grove itself.

There are some users, such as Dtm142 and Robert Horning, with whom this is not a problem because their signatures contain very little code to begin with. However, Colo is one example of a bloating sig. Colo, your signature, whose raw code is placed on every page you sign, contains 611 characters. If you used the template version, your sig would have 31 characters in its code. That's 580 less characters, per signing, on pages you visit. However, I'm not trying to pick on any individual people here. If you want more example of people with bloated sig code, go here, click edit, and scroll down through the list to see plenty of such examples.

What I'm proposing is that we make it site policy to make use of the Template:Signatures template. What does this mean, for those of you who aren't as versed in wikis as others? When you go to your Preferences page, linked at the top, you'll see a box called Signatures. What some people do is place the wiki code for their signature directly into that box and hit Save. However, anything that is put into that box is put directly onto a page when you sign it. If someone puts their signature code into this box, the raw code gets dumped onto every page they sign. To save space, many users create a page at Template:Signatures/Yournamehere, put their raw signature code in that, and then put this into their Preferences signature box:

Signatures/Yournamehere

This makes it so that, instead of several hundred lines of code being placed on a page when a user signs it, merely is added, which takes up far less space. There is also another advantage to doing this: If you ever change your signature code, then using the template method, every single page you've ever signed will suddenly be updated with the new sig code. However, if you don't use the template form, you would have to go back and re-edit the raw signature code in every page you've ever signed if you wanted your new signature to immediately show up.

Bleh. It's late, I'm tired, and I hope I've expressed myself clearly enough. -- 10:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, do it. Someone leaves you a 3 word message on your page and thier sig code is 15 times longer than the messgae. Ridiculous.--Degenret01 13:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Just changed mine over 01:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A quick note from the technical side... templates in signatures used to be a problem. Which is why the software doesn't let you do it directly and you have to use a workaround.  But that's no longer the case, and I've been told that the restriction will be taken out in a future version of MediaWiki.  So there is no problem from a technical point of view in using the template system now (although it's best not to go silly with and other complicated functions of course :) -- sannse (talk) 10:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 100% support- #1- its neater, #2- when people substring it, it messes with numbering in lists of usernames, #3- when someone changes their sig, all of their sig's change, making it easier to identify people. -- 23:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - Per above. Would rid a bunch of lag users experience on larger pages, including the yew grove. 03:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Big time Support - I've personally seen this countless times and I can safely say that I wish all user's sigs wouldn't be sub-stringed. -- 03:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Stupid comment- Would it be sub-stringed, or sub-strung? =D -- 05:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral - I really don't care one way or the other in terms of people having complicated sigs. I'm not really into custom signatures (I hope that should be obvious), but this is something more of a personal preference. The lag that might be reduced would be for those trying to edit a page, but it isn't really that much, and by shoving the sigs into templates it can make editing the page a little easier by being able to read the actual content. Whatever happens here, make it easy for new users to participate, and keep the rules simple. --Robert Horning 13:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Support Beyond Infinity - The parser changes coming March 3rd are a good wake up call for this, I would say that 75%(roughly) of code changes I have been doing have been related to signatures with bad markup. - 21:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - God, this would be fantastic. I hate 10 line sigs :D Cheers, 11:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - I've also noticed signatures with a huge amount of coding, and I'd love it if this was changed. 18:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - Fixed, YAY :), Thanks Karlis. -- 21:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - You're most certainly welcome! 22:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support - I just changed mine, I thought it was already changed to the compressed form. I also changed every place I signed on this page. If everyone changes how their siggy shows up it will save a significant amount of space. On this page alone it could reduce the size by half. 04:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Official Youtube channel for the Wiki
I'd just like to notify you if you haven't heard I recently created a channel that can be viewed HERE. Thank you, I hope you get sometime to view it. FO RU  M M A  N  "Click here!" "Sign here!" 14:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good, except we're the RuneScape Wiki, not the Runescape Wiki, and I don't think we need a "YT" at the end of our name. 17:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I would like to propose that we move the channel to RSWikiYT before it gets too popular. It is quicker to type in, and there is no RuneScape/Runescape capitalization issue. The password is the same as the other account's. I also registered the account with the birthday of April 8, 1995 (so it is the age of the wiki + 10 years). Support or Oppose this. 20:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - However I agree with C Teng, we don't really need the YT at the end. The account is on youtube, there's no need to add that to the end. -- 23:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Both RuneScapeWiki and RSWiki were taken, and I did not want it to be called a "wikia". 00:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's funny, I wonder who created those accounts. -- 00:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral -- I think its unneeded. The current one is just fine. However it does bother people that we have the YT at the end. --  FO  RU  M M A  N  "Click here!" "Sign here!" 01:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

What I don't like is the capitalization of RuneScape. 01:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? RuneScape is how it's supposed to be. Also, support less complicated names. --AK 05:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What Wilson is saying is that currently the channel name is capitalized Runescape, not RuneScape, like its supposed to be. -- 14:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I do not think it would be appropriate to name change. I don't know what we've done with all these channels but right now there are already 2 RSWIKI channels. I already have access to another Wiki's YT channel and we just named it by its name. If you reeaallly wanna name change and RuneScapeWiki is taken, i would recommend RSWiki, RS-Wiki, RuneScapeWikia, RSWikia, stuff like that. The YT is not needed (or wanted :D). Cheers, 11:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It is now "TheRuneScapeWikia" after an in-game consensus between the three owners of the original channel. 17:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed - :D 05:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Colour or Color?
It's spelled differently several times in the wiki. What spelling should it be? We don't need two different spellings.Dave Lopo 02:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We use the British version of English here, so it should be colour. If you see "color" anywhere in an article, feel free to change it. -- 04:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Check here for any other words you are unsure of. 04:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Since Jagex is British, we use British English, so it would be "colour". The reason both spellings are used is because as much as half of the editors here are used to spelling it as "color", and so type it as such out of habit. I'll admit, I tend to type it without the extra "u" unless I catch myself before submitting my edit. 04:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC) (Double edit conflict)


 * Seeing as how we have both American/Canadian and British editors here on the wiki and both spellings mean the same thing with a letter or two difference, why even bother. This is one of those things that we should not really put any effort into changing because its not really a problem. 04:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)