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__

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

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

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

Timeout: (Maximum: 24 hours)

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

I don't think it's visible by non-sysops, but it can be accessed by going to Special:Protectsite. 23:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we already protected the site once now. I agree that we should have some sort of policy on it, like when it should be used. 01:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I take responsibility for anything that might have caused issues during the protect site. However, we had a persistent vandal that was continually making new accounts, and had both myself and Sir Revan working to block and delete the spam. I saw it a necessary step to ensure the safety of the encyclopedia and to allow central time to run a checkuser. My initial protect site was for 30 minutes, and when that expired, the vandal came back, and I had yet to hear anything from central. But back to discussing the policy. I agree that it's drastic, and a policy that includes this needs to be brought up quick in the event that something like today happens again. 01:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you did the right thing, Karlis. See my rough draft of the policy below. 02:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, this is the second time to the best of my knowledge that this feature has ever been used, the first was on the 23rd of June '08 (the protection lasted 2 hours) after the wiki was attacked by multiple vandal bots, within a ten minute timeframe, before Uberfuzzy and Dechainex were able to block the bots and issue the site protection.-- 02:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

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

The ProtectSite feature may be used in the event of:

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

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

The protecting sysop must also notify the wiki of the protection and how long the protection will last via the MediaWiki:Sitenotice.

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

Discussion

 * Support - as nominator for this policy. 02:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Site-wide protections may (and have) become necessary. As such, I think it's best that we put administrators' minds at rest.  They should know that they will be praised, not disciplined, for protecting the site under certain circumstances.  02:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Admins should also state which options they set when they post the protection notice. 02:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - I agree with this. If what Luckytoilet is saying is true, about this person creating a vandalbot, we're going to need to get something done, quick. I was going to set a Site Notice, but I was a bit more concerned, at the time, with ensuring that the vandal was stopped. 02:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - With the recent string of attacks and by the means necessary to address these issues our options are becoming more limited to address these mass vandals. This would help a lot. 03:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - This guy is really starting to get on my nerves. It'd be nice if we had a way to deal with him. WWTDD? 13:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - With this mass vandalism, admins should know how to react to the situation and this policy will probably help a lot. No reason why the wiki shouldn't have this policy. 15:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Undecided- Well this seems like a nice way to go in the way of preventing vandalism, but then protecting the entire wiki would prevent honest users from editing and instead give my friend the satisfaction of doing so much damage to the wiki. Other vandals like him may come back time to time and force the wiki to be protected again. Plus if one wiki is protected there are still hundreds of others to vandalize, so no- I don't think this is a good solution. But the idea is good. 22:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We aren't saying this is a solution, we're saying that there needs to be a policy for this tool to ensure that there isn't any abuse. 22:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm maybe protect the wiki for autoconfirmed only for a short time? This may work as a temporary measure but more wikia-wide changes would have a greater effect against vandal-bots. 22:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, we're not talking about solutions for any problems. This is simply a policy to ensure that every admin knows when they are permitted to use the Protectsite tool. 22:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment We should add that the protecting sysop should update the sitenotice to the policy. From reading the forums, there were a few confused users who thought they were banned. 04:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I've added it. Thanks. :) 04:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

See:


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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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 being seeing him again.-- 21:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

So, what do you think?

Updates

 * 21:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC) - Clarification: The new network will have support for CGI:IRC. In fact, it will directly support CGI:IRC's webirc protocol, whereas Freenode does not.
 * 22:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC) - Well, seeing as the change has received a good deal of support, I've decided to go ahead and open up a trial run. CGI:IRC can be accessed at  and pjIRC at .  I understand that there is still opposition, but much of it is based on false assumptions.  As such, I figured letting everybody test it out would cure any false rumors once and for all. ;)

Discussion

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


 * CommentI too am wary of a newer wikian coming in and right away wanting to make a drastic change. I am not on IRC that frequently, but I have never had an issue.  Why change something that is not broken?‎[[Image:Cooked_chicken.PNG‎]]Atlandy 15:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Atlandy, you're caution is quite understandable. However, I can assure you, this change will be controlled by the community—not me.  I know that doesn't mean much coming from me, so I'd also like to mention that I've been working closely with Soldier 1033 to develop this change.  It is not just my idea: contributions have come from all over.  I simply got to be the lucky once to announce it. ;)  16:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And as I have said, just two single users is no better than one. And you continue to refuse to answer my question. WHY? You keep saying it will bring in new users, but this is not true at all! HOW? It's going to be exactly the same situation as before, with a link in the sidebar.
 * Only NOW, we're going to be on some server that no one has ever heard of! Not only will we lose some of our old regualars, we'll also lose all of the people who just happen to stop in when they see the name of our channel on the wikia gateway page!
 * And for the THIRD time, there are some users who, due to restrictions on websites they can access, can ONLY use CGI:IRC. No matter what you say, pjirc will not change this! Freenode is NOT broken, there is NO reason to move! Christine 19:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * CommentI understand that 2 people have been working on it, but it still does not answer why change? Christine has valid points especially about certain people not being able to access it. To me, it sounds like you want to move it to your server....when we have no issue with what we currently have. Kytti Kat also mentioned the host of issues we will encounter.  It makes zero sense to change.‎[[Image:Cooked_chicken.PNG‎]]Atlandy 21:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Christine, please, if you wish to constructively participate in this discussion, read and comprehend what the other side has to say. I have already stated (multiple times) that the new network will/does support CGI:IRC.  In fact, the new network has better support for CGI:IRC than Freenode does.
 * Our channel is marked as secret: it does not appear in the Freenode channel list. Even if we made it visible, we wouldn't gain that many users.  Freenode is huge, and our channel is quite, quite small.  Unlike with channels, new networks get bombarded with users from all over (provided they are properly configured).  We'll just register on SearchIRC and we're all set.
 * ChristineV, you're absolutely right: two users don't make the difference. It's the whole community that makes the difference.  Our goal is to put IRC, a very versatile resource, into the hands of the community.
 * And let me reiterate this one more time: the new network will/does support CGI:IRC even better than Freenode. I know CGI:IRC is a major concern for many contributors, so I've ensured not only that the new network will support CGI:IRC, but that it will directly integrate the webirc protocol.  21:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Now what the hell are you on about? I never said that two users don't make the difference, and it's more than two anyways! The issue isn't CGI:IRC in itself, either. It's the URL that is going to be blocked by certain schools and home firewalls. -.- Christine 23:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - >_>... I don't care who does the change, where the change is to, whether or not I still have op powers, or anything like that. I can only use CGI:IRC. Every other method IRC causes either insane lag, a complete freeze (thus making me have to manually turn off my comp, which damages it over time), or an infamous gray box. It's good as it is. The odds of Freenode abusing their powers to see our personal information is as likely as Blagojevich getting any political position in Illinois. 21:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, please, please, before posting, read the updates. CGI:IRC will still be available and will not change. It will still look the same, it will still work the same, but it will connect to a different network.  Freenode does not own, run, or even contribute to CGI:IRC; it's run by Blitzed, and the new network already runs several products from them, including the Blitzed Open Proxy Monitor.  CGI:IRC will remain the primary method of connection even with the new network.  Really, this is meant to be an informed discussion.  When everybody's misinformed, it's just a bunch of miscommunicated mumbo jumbo that doesn't get anybody anywhere.  21:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - While I still think Christine put it best, I'll simply put "Don't fix what's not broken." I don't get on the IRC much anymore, but when I do it works fine. While your intentions might be great, we already have a working solution, no need to change everything to another working solution. 22:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I've read the too and 'fro here, and on the IRC, and on talk pages, and I remain to be convinced of a pressing need for change, or that any benifits will outweigh the problems. I think the current system is fine as it is I'm afraid. 23:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreement
ChristineV and I spent some time discussing matters on IRC and finally came to a conclusion. After reviewing the new network, she agreed that it was suitable, but she did not want the link to the original channel to be removed. Rather, the new network's links will be added, and the CGI:IRC will remain for the old channel (it will no longer be the official channel, though). Links to both CGI:IRC and pjIRC will be added for the new network.

As some contributors are (rightfully) concerned about my intentions as I'm still rather new, we also agreed that ChristineV should be in charge of the new network. Any current admins that feel they would be able to contribute to the new network are welcome to receive IRCop permissions. From here on, though, IRCops must be chosen by the community.

Note: IRCops are different than channel operators. IRCops monitor all channels on the network, while channel operators only manage a single channel. All sysops will remain channel operators in #wikia-runescape on the new network.

Support - as contributor 00:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - per nom. -- 02:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - per Spence. 02:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - It's good to see the arguing end. 02:25, 31 January 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,  Jediadam4  (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...

Jediadam4 (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)

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%. Jediadam4 (Talk)   22:41, 31 January 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 gettng 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)

Current votes:
 * Support: 4 (this includes Degenret, the Nominator)
 * Oppose: 2
 * Neutral: 1

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

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

Neutral - While I do support some of the things you said in the description, I still like having the UotM on the mainpage. Is there anyway we could just add a new section to the mainpage concerning articles in need of help? (Its ironic you want the UotM abolished even though you are the featured user for February.) -- 03:04, 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)