RuneScape:Yew Grove

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

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

What this page should not be used for:
 * Promoting or beginning a project. Use RuneScape:WikiGuild
 * Discussion that is not related to the wiki but rather to the game itself. Use the forums.
 * For anything that does not have a wide impact, use RuneScape:Requests for comment.

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

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


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


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


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


 * Keep; I enjoy reading some of them. They are usually at the bottom of the articles, but a link to a separate dialogue article for each familiar would be an alternative if someone feels they are taking up too much room. It's nice to know what the dialogues are without having to create each familiar plus knowing the ones that are at a higher level than the player's summoning level. It makes our site that much more complete and comprehensive if someone is willing to do it. Chrislee33 17:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * zomg no i was not trying to imply making a zillion little articles just one as in the way trivia was in times past 18:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm actually for adding the dialog, for two reasons. First, I think it fits under our granularity policy, and if somebody finds it interesting, then great.  I think it should be under a standardized subpage though, like PageName/Dialog, and we should have some templated way of showing that there is a dialog page for that article.  The second reason is that with quest guides, etc, a lot of people race through the quest dialog, and are kind of curious afterward as to what was actually said.  An extreme example of this is the Ghostly robes miniquest, one of the most bonehead things Jagex has ever done.  Most of the talking in that miniquest is done in areas with aggressive monsters (mostly in the Wilderness), and the dialog is like 30 pages long for each NPC.  If you get interrupted by combat, you have to start the conversation over, making the whole conversation a pointless and completely ridiculous click-race.  Nobody could actually read those conversations, so it's nice to be able to come here and find out what the quest was all about, afterward. There's actually a third reason, too, and that's that it could improve our Google score significantly if we wikify the dialog with links to respective articles.   20:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I should add that part of my response was for Atlandy's "what's next" bit. I think NPC and quest dialog would be more appropriate than summoning familiars, but if the dialog pages are correctly categorized, linked to, and stylized, I see no reason not to allow all dialog to be added.  20:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a project to put on the map Enda, and if your projections are right the wiki will score with google, sweet. I think you're the person to lead the project, so i'm nominating you. Once the framework/policies are in place it should be a simple matter to expand/roll it out into the quests and miniquests ( lol @ jagex for putting a miniquest in the wilderness, what's next a real quest in the wildy? ) 00:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * lol, Kytti is a prophet.Careful what u say next Kytti, it may also come true.--216.136.67.145 06:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

We should definitely keep the dialogue. I for one find it amusing, and it's not really worth summoning something just to hear its chat--the Giant Chinchompa, for example, has some very cute conversations, but I wouldn't want to have to go out and get a pouch just to find out what it talks about. troacctid 12:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hopefully keep, I enjoy reading them (I too don't want to bother buying a pouch just to see what it says) and I suspect people enjoy finding something they feel safe contributing.  Peacefulsage 03:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I vote we keep the dialogues. At level 71 summoning, I was quite curious what my Guthix Raptor was saying, but I would have needed 9 more levels to understand it. That's alot of charms and a lot of money. I was pleasantly surprised to find it on the wiki!! Kashibak 00:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

From going back over this discussion it seems all but possibly one are in favour of moving dialogues to sub-pages. I for one am completely for moving these dialogues (quest, familiar and otherwise). 04:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Moving the dialogue for the quests makes sense. Those pages are always long. The pages for the familiars are usually very short, I really think those are fine as is.

Proposed policies
We currently have proposed policies (RuneScape:Images and media policy, RuneScape:Deletion policy, and RuneScape:Scope) that need some work and consensus whether to instate them after some work. Anyone up for some policy working? 19:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. -- 06:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing the "User of the Month" feature
RuneScape:Votes_for_deletion

This is a heads up to people like me who don't check VfD as often as the Yew Grove that there is a discussion about removing the Requested Featured User section. Go to the above link to discuss the issue; don't comment here in the Yew Grove as your comment might not be noticed.-- 12:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The discussion should just be moved here; if we decide to stop using UotM, then we wouldn't delete the page, we'd just archive it. 12:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree that the discussion should be moved here instead of getting obfuscated with the discussion of deleting the UotM page. There are some individuals advocating (not consensus achieved, however) both the discontinuance of the feature *AND* the deletion of anything related to it, but unfortunately the discussion page is muddled with both ideas and it is even hard to decide what position any given individual has on the issue of discontinuance of the feature.  --Robert Horning 15:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Skill-related training
I think the Training section for each skill be transfered to a sub-page (i.e. Fishing/Training and Hunter/Training). This is to unclutter the article from facts about the skill from the guides to training that skill. And since training guides may be long, moving the training section will reduce the article size, making it clear and concise. 12:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is a great idea, as it would greatly decrease load times of some very large articles. Good idea! 12:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of the training section being on a separate article. It doesn't have to be a subsection, what about Free-to-play Ranged training? We could have 39 different skill guides like those. 13:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would prefer if it is still be linked to the main skill article. (Subpages have links to the main page.)  I guess we could move existing articles to the skill article as subpages.  But, that's just my opinion.  14:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a good idea to have some subpages to ease the burden of the main article. But I am thinking that moving the training parts do not sound that effective if we are based on the said aim.
 * And if we are moving out some large content, would there be a lot of subpages produced, like what Teng said?
 * (At least 1 page for each skill, that is ..... 24! )
 * Not only a large amount of subpages are to be produced, how about the original place for the moved content? Shall we briefly write something in point form to replace it or.... some other thing?
 * Taking Fishing as a example, the largest content is the Fishing. Meanwhile, the training part takes only a quarter of the total content. In my opinion, we could list the spots in point form and leave the description far behind those into subpages. This keeps the unity of the article and at the same time saving some space. 02:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I admit several skill pages is getting ridiculously long, and an old browser may take ages to load it. My main concern is load time, and information available in the skill page itself. Some detailed info should not be in the skill page, but rather be in the corresponding article dedicated to the detailed info. My first suggestion does not seem right at the moment, as discussed above. But, somehow, the articles need to be shrunk someway. So, here goes:
 * Information related directly to the skill but do not have an article should be moved to subpages (or appropriately-named articles).
 * Information with existing articles on their own should be moved there, with a summary provided in the skill page, and the used to link to the article.

08:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like it makes a lot of sense, and there is no one saying it's a bad idea.. As long as each subpage gets a 1 or 2 sentence brief next to its link this should prove to really neaten up some articles. --Degenret01 09:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel like if we had the training guides in their own separate pages, they should be more detailed than they are now. For most of the skills they're not very in-depth; if they're getting their own pages then those bits should be expanded. troacctid 01:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * my feeling is that when they migrate to their own subpages more editors will be inclined to work on them (as they won't be buried in an article that is as long as some of them grew to be. I know that for me when an article gets to be way more than i'm looking for i'll oft skip over pieces that i might otherwise be inclined to add to. So my instinct is the Training articles will almost automatically grow with new ideas from contributors. 03:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There are several aspects of skill pages that may cause them to explode in size. Skill training is one such element. Training losses/profits are another. Then there are the huge number of items that some skills are involved in (e.g. summoning, slayer, farming, herblore, cooking, magic spells, smithing). It may make sense to dedicate a separate page to off-load the main skill page. Doing this in a consistent manner will be difficult. Often, content moves result in articles with mostly links and no actual information. Miw 13:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Special:Wantedpages

 * Is there any way that the list in Special:Wantedpages be sorted alphabetically? 18:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would love to have the Special:Wantedpages alphabetical! What a wonderful idea! Also, if pointy is not running his bot, and the link on the bots' page is dead, is there any way I can take over ownership so I can run the bot to generate the chart images?  18:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The list would have to be updated manually, but it's fairly simple to alphabetize a list in Microsoft word by highlighting the list and using the "sort" button (more info here). I don't know of any way to sort the updated list, though. 02:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A little off topic, but still in regards to the Wanted pages.. Any idea if pointy can be contacted about the bot? I'd love to either get rid of the Image:GEMH or personally run the bot and create them myself.  02:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

With the images it's not that hard to get them anymore with the Grand Exchange and all. If I got all the pictures(except maybe a few quest ones) and posted them on a special page then would somebody be able to get in and put them in the right places for me? P.s. I've only just got this account so i'm not sure how to put a signature =P R0KK1

Succession infoboxes and non attackable monsters
Template:Succession was recently added to the Spirit Beast article describing the Spirit Beast to be the strongest monster. I have since removed it because we define monster to be an attackable character. Since the Spirit Beast cannot be attacked in any way, it is not defined as a monster based on that article.

Similar characters include Hazeel and the the dragon from the tutorial: They have levels, but they cannot be attacked and serve more as NPCs.

What we need to decide is whether articles on these characters should be treated as monster articles or NPC articles. If they are to be treated as NPCs, they should follow that format. If they are to be treated as monsters, they should follow the format of a monster article. I personally suggest treating them as NPCs because they cannot be attacked. And if they are to be treated as monsters, they should not carry the succession infoboxes. Dtm142 18:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would agree. Conversely, some people consider "monsters" to be a sub-set of NPCs.  Personally I think they are separate classifications, monsters being any person or creature that can be engaged in combat, and NPCs being any person or creature that players can talk to.  But consider someone like Sigmund, who is an NPC at most times, and a monster during Death to the Dorgeshuun.  I think there will be exceptions as well as rules, but the Spirit Beast should be called an NPC IMO.   19:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should call these non-attackable monsters as NCMs (as in "Non-combat monsters"). NCMs should have a combat level indicating their strength, but unfortunately they cannot be attacked.  I think NPCs should be reserved to talking characters without any indication of their strength (combat level).  So, Spirit Beast is a NCM, while Sigmund is an NPC.  This should clear-up the disputes over NPCs and non-attackable monsters.  (P.S.: What's wrong in having the succession box in the Spirit Beast article?  Spirit Beast should hold the title of having the "Highest combat level in RuneScape"  05:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Translucent interfaces
Now that there is fullscreen and the resizable game window, the interfaces are translucent. Shouldn't the interface images not be translucent, but look like they do on an ordinary game window? There is an image for the Music Player, but the backgrounds will always be different for the interfaces. 12:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm a little unclear on what you are asking (double negatives throw me off), but i'm guessing that you're thinking that the interfaces need to be consistently presently on the wiki without random background imagery showing through (correct me if i'm wrong). Here's two examples, the first is a simple capture of the music interface window with an end of the world grey mist background (thus making it consistently shaded) the second is the same but with the transparent parts solidified through a graphical image manipulation program (gimp).


 * Thoughts? Ideas? 09:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the second one, the darker background makes the text stand out and looks more solid. 10:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Now if there is an edge of world somewhere with a black background, that would make capturing these interface panels a breeze. The first example above was done at the edge of my house where it's a light beige colour. The second one has had the stock background filled in over the transparent-ed elements (so long as fixed window is a game option, it will be possible to capture this background without the transparency levels applied).
 * [[Image:New_music_HD_interface_with_proper_transparency_and_no_background.png|thumb|left|100px]]
 * Alternately we could just go with the image processed with the proper transparency levels, which means it could be placed over any image and still look right (is there a way in the wiki to place images on top of other selected images)? Here is the window recreated the way it is rendered with proper transparency levels applied to the transparentcized portions (as seen to the left here).
 * If you look at it on its Image: page you'll see the checkered background as it would appear if one was in game.


 * Thoughts? Ideas? 12:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * YUCK. (That was my initial reaction, sorry Kyatt.) Umm... I'd prefer if it "appeared" to be translucent, and but NOT translucent per se.  This means that the images have solid backgrounds without any transparency.  I think that was what C Teng was saying: no translucent backgrounds (with scenery), but solid backgrounds.  The second image (the one on the right) was okay.   13:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree the blue background is overwhelming (i commented it out as a favour to others). My thought is that the first of the two is the better choice for multiple reasons, (1) any user need only go to an "edge of the world" (POH house is the easiest example) and rotate the camera angle so that the interface pane is hanging into the solid area, and (2) no special editing is needed that way, such as is the first image. The down side of that is, (1) the image background comes out a bit washed out, and (2) the edge of world areas are, so far as i know, only available to members.
 * If the later format is preferred then it could actually be considered a mini-project which i could undertake, along with anyone else that would want to help, to document all the HD formats of the interface windows. Thoughts? Ideas? 18:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I just think we should not use fullscreen / resizable window interfaces. 18:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would imagine the best way to ensure that is to only allow captures from the LD version of RuneScape (the one with the minimum specifications of "128MB RAM & 500Mhz CPU"). And i will have to say that since i am currently on dial-up speeds after recently moving and have to say that the huge screen captures, like the 1280 x 800 that i found in ttg, are painfully slow to load with my current limited bandwidth. Thoughts? Ideas? 21:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Two words. Dwarvern Mine. ~ Lol, just go to the staircase at the end and tilt the camera. 19118219 Talk 07:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Additions for Template:Updates
I would like to propose some additions for the current Template:Updates. For the "Latest Game Content" section, wouldn't it be nice if an image is added next to it, similar to the AoTM? I've also added colour to the section headings.

Discussion
Any comments? 04:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The design is already good. But i prefer the style of the header to be inscribed by a css class so that users using different skins can manipulate that into their very own favourite. 12:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, I couldn't do that. That requires modifying the Mediawiki:Monaco.css and Mediawiki:Monobook.css, something which I am not entitled to do (only admins can modify files in the Mediawiki namespace).  Anyways, if this design is accepted, I hope that any admin could incorporate the style for the sub-header into the css files.   13:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks much better than plain old text. Pics are almost always FTW, and certainly are in this case.--Degenret01 15:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm with Degenret on this one, pics are always (1,000 words) FTW even for people with lysdexia, 03:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's totally hot - Lol, I stole that from Paris Hilton. I like that style, but if we put that on quartz skin, it'll mess up. 21:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Would it be better if we did our own captures from in game rather than clone from the RuneScape website? Even the many of the sites Game Guide imagery has been copied here (e.g., Magic which is using this image). This just creates more needless blind dog following of whatever the official site's current style happens to be which is likely to be updated anytime. 21:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the "cloned" image with a screen capture from the Air altar. Now that you mention it, the Game Guide icons appear in many pages, including Bank, and LootShare. But, that's a different issue. 02:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I wasn't trying to confuse issues, however now I'm curious if there is or should be a policy about images cloned from the Game Guide, etc. By the way, the new image looks great. 03:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Changing Article of the Month to Article of the Week
I know there has been discussion regarding altogether eliminating the Article of the Month.

However, I would propose that we change it to Article of the Week. In doing this we can:
 * Encourage visitors to return more often as there is updated information on our front page.
 * Bring exposure to many more excellent articles.
 * Lessen the prestige (a concern mentioned as a reason to eliminate the AotM) of the article.
 * Increase traffic and hits on our site as more people visit more pages.

The only downside I see is more work for someone (sorry) to do weekly edits rather than a monthly one. Comments? Thoughts? --Kashibak 20:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thats an awesome idea!!! I like that you mentioned the downside, but it doesnt seem a big one. This seems a good moderate solution to the problem of keeping/killing AotM. 1diehard1 20:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I like this idea. I do see another possible downside, which is that we'd go through our best articles four times as fast, and eventually end up with some lower-quality picks as we run out of really great ones that haven't been used already. But would that really be an issue? troacctid 20:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we should keep it as AotM for now. I agree with Troacctid; we would run out of good articles. 22:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so what if we recycled Articles of the Week once we run out of the higher quality topics? Surely there are 52 good articles existing on the Wiki right now-that's a year's cycle of high quality articles. And, worst case scenario-no additional "good ones" are added within a year, we repost the cycle again. With new players to Runescape, and new visitors to the site, for many people it would be like seeing the article for the first time. Again, just my two cents. --Kashibak 02:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute why not keep the Article of the Month as is but add an Article of the Week which is like the best of Articles, we could literally just cycle through previous Articles of the Month for Article of the Week. The upside here is minimal extra work, plus previously featured articles would get fresh exposure to keep them from getting out of date or less than AotM worthy (so to speak). Thoughts? Ideas? I'm ready to put it together if it meets consensus. Curiously, 03:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to add AOTW instead of replacing AOTM, and it will help make up for the fact were prob going to lose UOTM. I think were not going to get a lot of input or votes on this feature, especially after a couple months go by.. But by cycling past AOTMs that will eliminate most problems. Perhaps we could even include articles that almost made AOTM and only lost by a couple of votes (but not if they lost for being poorly written or something like that).--Degenret01 06:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I totally think that making the main page updated every week with a new article will be a change for the better. This will make it seem more like we are a growing and active community. It's horrable seeing the same thing EVERY week on the front page of the rs wiki -- Rune ldr 88  07:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Updated Logos and Favourite Icon
Again I am going to put this to the Yew Grove. I am recommending that we update the logos and favourite icon. The version that most people seemed to agree upon before the discussion was archived what seemed a bit prematurely were as follows:

Discussion section

 * Update - As I'm posting this again I'm going to vote for updating these images. 04:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay I'm going to have to agree with people below regarding the favicon. It wasn't intended as fan art but i can't argue with the definition (except that it was intended directly as fan art of the wiki and not directly for roonscape).  20:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Update - except the "favicon.ico" image. It's too small for my eyes.  I had to zoom it 400% before being able to figure out that it is a combination of fire + law runes.  I think "Astral rune" is nice, or even "Chaos rune" is much better.  I suggest that you stick to existing runes, rather than combining different runes.  My two cents...  08:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Update main page logo but keep fave icon - The Fave icon sucks. It looks worse than the current favicon. In fact, a fire rune fused w/a law rune is soooooooo ugly. 21:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Update the logos but keep the favicon, I agree with Amethyst... except for the ugly wording. Oddlyoko talk 23:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I reckon get the herblore and the mage symbols and put the mage hat ontop of the herby symbol and call it 'mage potion'. I think that would make a great Favicon. I would make one but i'm on the laptop. I'll make one tomorrow and show you. R0KK1 =] ((20:40 20/8))
 * Update both Favicon and Logos. 15:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Update The logos, but not the favicon. I don't really think the new one looks that good (no offense) and I really don't think that we should replace the favicon with fanart (especially since we delete fanart here(mixed signals anyone)) this may confuse new users. 15:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Update both. Am I like the only one who liked the proposed favicon? O_O 15:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Update - I recommend that both are updated. But might I suggest the new Omni-talisman as the Favicon? Ok, so it reminds me of an insect thingy...but it is RS icon and not fan art.--Kashibak 19:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Oddlyoko, Amethyst is Derilith. =Þ 21:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't care about the logo, but I would prefer it if we keep the current favicon. The Fire rune in all of my tabs on this site seems iconic somewhat. 07:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Update the logo. I would like to have the one favicon below this message that is the RuneScape "R". Also, will the new logo be transparent? 22:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Idea how about this one? [[Image:RSW_logo_idea.jpg|50px]] Btzkillerv 15:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Btz, your logo is too large (minimum 16 x 16 pixels), and the logo is completely 'violating copyright laws, which close down RSW, and eventually close down Wikia themselves.

New favicon
I created an alternative icon. 08:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just an R. Simple and effective. [[Image:Example favicon R.png]]
 * Zoomed to 40 pixels. [[Image:Example favicon R.png|40px]]

Who keeps Deletin' the pic in my signature!?!?!? 09:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the 'R' the best. 09:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey everyone, just a quick note that the favicons need to be 16 by 16 pixels in size, like this one: which is one I created from the current logo. 22:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The RuneScape "R" is 16-by-16 pixels in size. 02:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I like RW the best. Here's my order (from most fave to least fave).
 * 1) RW logo - Votes: 3
 * 2) RuneScape "R" - Votes: 3
 * 3) Fire rune - Votes: 0
 * 4) Fire-Law Rune - Votes: 0

00:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't like how the logos and such are mage-oriented. Maybe a non-combat rune, like a law, would be best. 00:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I would vote for the RW favicon since it is directly from the logo and as such would clearly stand out. To me the current fire rune is simply too dark in contrast to related icons as seen here: At the least I'd suggest lightening it namely it's background. 09:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment -- I'm really not trying to be an ass or anything, but the "R" is copyrighted by Jagex. While that in its own doesn't really matter, using a section of the RuneScape logo as our own favicon definitely does not constitute Fair Use. It implies affiliation with Jagex, and that's not good at all. We could write a disclaimer or something saying that we aren't jagex, but it'd kind of kill the whole point of a favicon. The favicon imho should represent us as a Wiki (again IMHO).
 * What if we changed the shape of the R a bit? I don;t know any legal stuff but I think if our R doesn't look like their special R, it's ok.--Degenret01 13:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a law rune would work well. Kind of symbolic of RSW in a way. 05:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The RW works for me.--Degenret01 06:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think that the "RW" is goodlooking, but still, its deprived from the RuneScape "R" which is still "(c) Jagex under 'Jagex Limited' from 1999-2008". So, like Earthere, I don't really think that the RW will work, but I still support "RW".

Registration Revision (take 2)
I have noticed two VERY annoying changes brought on by some new users. I would like you all to read this (my old idea of revising this), because revising the registration process will, at the very least, make new users have a BETTER general idea of the wiki's rules

Here are the two editing flaws I'm seeing:
 * Personal images returning-even though we HAVE been receiving far fewer users who upload crappy pics of their character or whatever, we still have some slip through the veritable sieve.
 * Users believing that their talk page is theirs to control-in this month alone, I've reverted quite a few user edits where the user removed some content their talk page OR flat-out blanked it, thinking that it was theirs to delete. This is not allowed, obviously, and I'd like to have it stopped. However, seeing as how it’s been going on quite often (or at least often in my eyes), I feel that new users should at least KNOW that it isn't theirs to play with when they register.

Granted, I understand that we may not be able to do this, or this suggestion might get shot down again. I do not feel that this will cut the vandal amount down, but instead bring new users who will at least KNOW the rules and possibly become well-established. We seem to have received an influx of users who don't want to stay here; rather, they make a few edits, say a few things on community discussions, and leave. This isn’t good, and it makes us look bad by making other wikis look at us as too (insert bad quality here; there’s quite a few things that I can imagine as bad qualities that other wikis see). This obviously isn’t the case, but still, new users should feel welcome, yet at least know that they’re not welcome enough to think that these things are OK.

In a nutshell, I think that the registration should, at the very least, have it’s text edited by someone (us, Wikia), w/e) so that the main rules are CLEARLY stated…maybe a link to the Style Guide would be sufficient.

Alright, I’m open to discussion. (I probably screwed up and worded all that wrong...)


 * That sounds pretty great, but how about doing this:


 * 1) Put the rule about personal images on the front page in bold !

23:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Custom edit buttons
Hey guys. I've added three more custom edit buttons to MediaWiki:Common.js which Azliq7 requested on my talk page. They allow you to put in a table, add a gallery, and add a line break. If you guys want anymore to be added feel free to request them.--Richard 17:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protecting RS:CVU
Based on the vandalism of 69.148.16.122, should we semi-protect the RS:CVU? 02:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Just because one IP vandalized once, doesn't mean we should protect the whole page. What if an unregistered or new user wanted to report vandalism? They wouldn't be able to, and the vandal might vandalize more because they weren't blocked. 13:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Also No. The CVU should be a place where nearly anybody (including IP users, if appropriate) to raise the issue about potential vandalism.  I keep this page on my watchlist, and keep very close tabs on what is written there.  Indeed, what was written by that particular individual was more akin to somebody writing "Please block my account, I'm an idiot and hate all admins!"
 * While I don't speak for all admins on this issue, I evaluate every report individually and review all of their edits carefully before deciding to impose a user block, even on the most obvious of vandals. I've even disagreed with some reports and have done nothing at all in some cases.  Vandalism of the sort that reports random IP addresses or other nonsense would in turn raise the issue that it was reported by a vandal, and it in turn would be dealt with just as swiftly as the above action.  In other words, this is the worst possible page for a vandal to strike and not just because of little old me either.  --Robert Horning 06:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think we should block a whole user group because of the actions of one person. Sorta like what the Americans did to the Japanese-Americans in WW2, put them in camps while most of them were innocent. Ok that was a bit of a far fetched analogy but even IPs do report vandalism every now and then, it's not like all IPs are vandals, assume good faith. 15:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox seed
I think that the Street price could be removed, why?


 * 1) We got a grand exchange to trade
 * 2) There is no price set by players
 * 3) Players could see the current price at the bottom of the trade screen
 * 4) RuneScape has trade limits

And examine and patch should be turned swapped places, patch is more important then the examine text.

What do YOU think?

07:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Good idea. Another thing: "Experience" could be shortened to "XP". For example: "Planting XP", "Harvesting XP", and "Checking XP". 08:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to take Az idea 1 step furhter. I think too many infoboxes are just way too long and worthless. So instead of 3 lines for xp, chop to 1 line saying "Xp For Plant/Check/Harvest"--Degenret01 08:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Or even in order:
 * Planting
 * Checking
 * Harvesting

And instead of Time to grow and level to grow:
 * Time
 * Level

09:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Downloads?
I suggest a downloads page be added to this wiki (if possible). It could be a place where people could safely download cursors, backgrounds, etc without getting malware and such, since JaGeX only provides a small amount of downloads. Since this is a wiki, and it is made to be edited by everyone, user-made downloads should first be tested for malware by an admin, (preferably in a virtual machine to be safe). If people don't have one, I'd be glad to test. and if it seems to be safe, be added to the downloads page by an admin. It might be called RuneScape:Downloads, with a shortcut of RS:DL or something like that. I'd be happy to make cursors for this, as I know how. Discuss, and please don't say this is a dumb idea. It isn't to me. I'm sure this could be possible if staff helped us, or we could use an external site, possibly? 23:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have some suggestions, Cash.


 * 1) Full protect the page to make sure no vandals can try to add crap to the page.
 * 2) Write in bold on the page that "none of these downloads are affiliated with Jagex, and that they are player-made, so that they are not completely safe. Always consult Jagex for official RuneScape logos at RuneScape.com"
 * 3) `` `` `` `` that you should "Use at your own risk."
 * 4) `` `` `` `` that "If you would like to add a download to this page, consult an administrator."


 * Any more suggestions? 14:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC) (Oh yeah, I support this idea.)

Let's see...I agree with the full protect thing, but if this goes through, I'd be the founder of the project and I wouldn't even be able to edit it because I'm not an admin (finally a reason for me to have an RFA? Maybe!) The disclaimer would obviously have to be there, and the "use at your own risk" thing would probably be part of it. I already went over the last suggestion you made, but I wasn't clear. I've fixed my wording now. I hope this goes through...as soon as I thought of it I instantly thought "Wow, this is a great idea!" 15:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure. I will probably not download anything user-made just because I don't want any spyware or viruses from the download. I guess we could do it, but I just don't think it will be compleaty safe even if a person says it works ok. -- 23:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right it will never be entirely safe but as Cashman (InsantWinston) suggested we can always get them tested by installing some sort of anti virus program, assuming this will be either off-site or will need something installed by Wikia staff. 23:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but there can always be a problem later.-- 01:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I oppose this idea. It'll bog down the site even more than it already is, and it's not the focus of the wiki. Planeshifted 06:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, this, this, this this, and this is not the sprit of the wiki. 11:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As a response to Planeshifted: If it was offsite, how would it bog down the wiki? 14:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. We are not here to advertise our competitors.  If we were to link to unofficial fansites, I would expect them to link back to us in return. Dtm142 22:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

PointyBot Source Code
I've been inactive for a couple of months now, so I thought I'd just leave a quick note in case anyone wants the source code for PointyBot to carry on with updating the GEMW charts. I've uploaded the latest version of the bot to Codeplex at the two links below.

http://www.codeplex.com/wikibot/Release/ProjectReleases.aspx?ReleaseId=16621 http://www.codeplex.com/wikibot/Release/ProjectReleases.aspx?ReleaseId=16622

You'll need both downloads to run it - the first is a generic library for writing Wikibots in Visual Basic .Net 2005, and the second is PointyBot itself. There's no documentation I'm afraid so you'll probably need to be pretty programming-savvy to get it working (especially Pointybot, which is a bit of a mess), but I'll keep an eye on my talk page for a bit so feel free to leave a message there if you get stuck.

I might come back to edit the wiki some time, but if not then I wanted to say thanks to everyone for making this a great community - I've enjoyed being part of it for the last 18 months or so, and I'm kind of sorry to be leaving.

Pointy 13:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I don't think I'll have time today or the next to really give it a shot, but I'll look into it later in the week and see what I can get done! 16:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

PROPOSAL: Registered Users Only Allowed To Edit
Hi folks. I've decided it was time to lay this idea out on the table for all to discuss.

Why do we have registered accounts on the Wiki? To be able to edit the wiki and people can identify us by our edits, correct? So why do we allow anonymous editing?

The problem with anonymous editing is that far too many vandals come along and try to insert nonsense, blank pages, delete content, put misleading content in, advertise riots, and just be a pain in the neck day in and day out.

An excellent way to mitigate vandalism here and reduce strain on people combatting it is to restrict write access to registered accounts only. Talk pages could be edited by anonymous accounts perhaps.

Proposal: Only allow registered accounts to make mainspace edits.

Let the debate begin.Planeshifted 19:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)