FANDOM


Forums: Yew Grove > Affiliating with the RuneScape Classic Wiki
Replacement filing cabinet
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 15 September 2011 by Ajraddatz.

Why, hello there.

Some of you might know me, and for those who don't, I'm an admin here. I'm also a bureaucrat at the RuneScape Classic Wiki, and I'm here with hopes of becoming affliates. I actually would've done this a lot sooner but I only just realized that we aren't affiliated.

The RSC wiki has been around for well over 2 years, and we have a lot of information on the game. Our community's rather small (not many people play it, hopefully this last opening will change that), but we have a lot of hard-workers (you've probably heard of them, most users there are also users over here). However, if you were to look at the wiki now, you would see that recently we haven't had a lot of edits. This is normal in a game that's completely closed off to the public, people sometimes lose interest. Every now and then we go through something like this, but we always pick back up.

Affiliation would be help both parties. It will help us grow and become a bigger/better source of information, and while it probably won't help the wiki, it will help the players who browse it. If any one of them have an interest in RSC, or needed some info they would know where to go. Thank you for time.

Also, Cook suggested that we make a template for content that appears in both games. It would be like {{WP also}}, but it would link to the RSC wiki. If this were to pass, I think that would be a good idea.

Discussion

Support - As nom. ɳex undique 01:32, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Sounds good to me. Suppa chuppa Talk 01:39, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

Support - I like. User:TyA/sig 02:50, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, since we already have RS Classic content here and could support all of it. Sorry for being a stick in the mud :3

  1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 03:11, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
Not really, we don't have all the info and images. --User:Cakemix/Sig 18:04, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Perfectly reasonable - why wouldn't we want to? Yes, we have a page on RSC, but that isn't a reason to refuse affliation with a wiki devoted to the subject. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 12:04, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

Question - You said it would benefit the wiki in a grammatically incorrect sentence: "Affiliation would be help both parties." Two lines later, you say "it probably won't help the wiki." What? --LiquidTalk 12:29, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

He said it won't help "the wiki", but it will help the players who browse it, which helps us, so there is our party, and it would help them grow, which is their party. Hunter cape (t) Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask 12:52, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

Support - I do not see any harm so far that can come from this. --Touhou FTW 13:07, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Surprised that this hasn't been done. --クールネシトーク 14:13, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

Support - They have information on the game as it is. The only information on the game as it is that we have is of content removed since the switch to RS2 Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 14:25, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

Support affiliation & template I have been thinking of ways that we could better help our affiliates and drive traffic towards them, and I think a link box like {{Wpalso}} would be the best way to do so (example). While this would clearly benefit Classic Wiki, it would also help us: we really have no information on RuneScape Classic things that are also found in the current version, and to be honest most people aren't going to want to read about it. But for the people that do, we can give them a link to RSC without taking up too much space or energy. This wiki has the potential to be so much greater. ʞooɔ 17:55, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Pie. --User:Cakemix/Sig 18:04, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

Well said JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 20:16, September 5, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Eet will hopefully give readers more in-depth, current information about all matters classic. P.S. Cook, the template looks teh good. http://img356.imageshack.us/img356/2285/emoticon0178rockhw9.gifRonan Talk 22:38, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

Support affiliation; Strongly oppose template - While I see the logic behind the template, I consider it useless. Firstly, items of the same name don't necessarily cover the same content. A _lot_ changed from RSC to RS2. I don't see the logic behind adding a link to a page that looks like a first revision of our pages. There'd be loads of items that had pages in RSC, but are radically different. Most people here looking at the page for an Iron Longsword don't give two hoots about what it was like in RSC. I'm fine with affiliation, but don't see the need to send traffic that would have just gone straight there if they need such a thing. We're kidding ourselves if we think even a marginal percentage of players play classic. It doesn't benefit our wiki in any way either. It ends up being more like an ad than of use. Hofmic Talk 06:06, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

I should note that I propose we split the initial proposal into two parts: Affiliation and the Template. Hofmic Talk 06:08, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
We are about all parts of RuneScape, which is why we have so many pages and sections for RuneScape Classic-unique characters. I think you are greatly exaggerating the difference between items in RSC and now. With the reopening of classic in the next couple of weeks, the game will become vastly more popular, and clearly most people are unaware that a RuneScape Classic wiki even exists. Instead of actually including information on what things were like in RSC (the kind of thing we do for things earlier in RS), we can take up much less space by linking to a separate page on a different wiki. ʞooɔ 18:54, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

Support - I'm surprised this hasn't been done already. I migrated to the RSC wiki from here to try and give a boost to the smaller project. I find it useful to show what RSC is all about. I'm excited there is going to be another RSC opening this September and I hope to see some people check it out. Cheers, Air rune Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune 18:01, September 5, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm going to side with Ajr on this one. I just don't see the benefits of affiliation. Affiliation should benefit both parties. I just don't think the wiki will get any solid benefit from this.

I'm not opposed to giving the RSC wiki a boost from our userbase, but that would be piggybacking, not affiliation. I'm not opposed to the concept; I'm opposed to the name. --LiquidTalk 20:09, September 5, 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think any affiliation could help this wiki. It's so big that it'd be impossible. Any person who knows that there is an RSC wiki also knows about this one. ɳex undique 20:29, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
Read my response to Smuff. ʞooɔ 20:41, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
Your response to Smuff is irrelevant. I said I'm fine with the process. I would rather just call it for what it is. There is no conceivable way in which the RuneScape Wiki would benefit from affiliation. --LiquidTalk 20:53, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
Why does it always have to be about the two parties? Why not do something that benefits the readers, instead of just benefiting our infrastructure? If we can do something that helps our readers to better understand the game, we should do that. ʞooɔ 21:00, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
You seem incapable of reading things I write both here and in the IRC. Affiliation is something that concerns several parties, in this case two. By proposing affiliation, it has to be about two parties. The term "affiliation" is not an accurate description of the process. I think commensalism or parasitism is a better term for the relationship.
On the second point, I have REPEATEDLY (emphasis added) stated that I support the helping the readers, which is why I support the action proposed, even if it is a parasitic relationship. Did you not understand that the last fifteen times I wrote it? --LiquidTalk 21:14, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
Does one word really matter? Did you really just post the definition of a word? I will not stand for you to give this relationship a derogatory name out of some bizarre self-fulfillment. We are not going to put them under a header that says "Parasites" on RS:LINKS. This is just idiotic. ʞooɔ 21:27, September 5, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - It's a no brainer to be honest, they'll get a way bigger deal from this than we will. Think about it, Runescape Wiki covers both Runescape and Runescape Classic; Runescape Classic Wiki only covers Runescape Classic. In essence, what we'd be doing is going "ohaidar, y nawt visit this here wiki fer yer info on this game here instead of getting it of us?" On the flip side of the coin, what's that wiki going to do for us? They're not going to link back to us, "For the equivelent item in Runescape 2, see Runescape Wiki," are they? No. Runescape Classic is a wiki tailored to the one game, readers there aren't going to hop back and forth between a tailored wiki and another which only scratches the surface of a game. All this would do is allow another wiki to piggyback of us. Smuff [The cake is a lie] 20:36, September 5, 2011 (UTC) Changing vote Smuff [The cake is a lie] 16:58, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

What you don't seem to understand is that we have very minimal coverage of RuneScape Classic, other than things that are unique to that game. We do not have any information at all on the classic versions items, characters, monsters or quests that are also found in RS2. We don't, and to include that information here would be messy and unnecessary. What the wiki will do for all of us is have a single place where we can have all of the RSC information that quite frankly more people will be looking for when the game gets reopened. We clearly aren't going to have it, so why not put it somewhere where it can be used? As for the linking...why not? We might as well link back to this wiki. It's not something that can't be arranged. Point is, we are tailored to RS2 with very little information on RSC. This wiki has it, and we don't. ʞooɔ 20:41, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
Neutral on affiliation, vehement oppose to the template - Fine, it's only a link on a page. However, unless they willingly slap a huge template on the top of every page linking to our wiki, there's no justification as to why we should do the same. The Excel Talk 16:58, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
I'm willing to do the same. One just needs to be made. ɳex undique 17:01, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
Are you serious, Smuff? The template is to help our readers. How on earth does that unsettle you? Suppa chuppa Talk 17:03, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
If we really wanted to help our readers we'd have archived pages on Classic subjects. Adding a link referring to someone else isn't really "helping," it's more... unloading onto something else. Smuff [The cake is a lie] 19:06, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
The three options I laid out earlier pertaining to classic content were:
  • Not including any unique information on classic, shooting ourselves in the foot by not having information people want;
  • Incorporate the information from RSC wiki into here, causing an organizational mess, whether it be in subpages or a new namespace or on the same page altogether;
  • Linking to another site that had information on the subject.
I don't know about you, but that last option seems the easiest for me. Like I keep repeating, we shouldn't do things just to benefit our wiki. Also (as we have pointed out before) RSCW is very clearly on board with linking back here, and the template is on the bottom. ʞooɔ 19:16, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Support - It'd be awesome. I don't know why we've not done this already. Nice thinking! Adam SavageSpeech cursor 20:39, September 5, 2011 (UTC)

Support- I like the idea. Hair 21:04, September 5, 2011 (UTC)

Full support - I used to play classic, and much of our information is too current to apply to the original game. This would be a great feature to have. For people concerned that it wouldn't increase our web traffic, you could make that argument about any beneficial change that we make (including improving a quest guide). However, this affiliation would help us better serve the overall purpose of the project. Dtm142 21:16, September 5, 2011 (UTC)

Support - As much as I'd like to say we should involve more aspects of RSC in the RSW, the RSCW does this job already and could use the extra traffic. Hopefully, in the future, we'll be more broad than just RS2 and include more RSC material. Or we could refocus on just RS2 entirely (RS3 anyone?). Ryan PM 07:09, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Question - What exactly is this proposal about? I just looked at RS:LINKS and saw the RuneScape Classic Wiki under "Sister wikis." It's been there since Tollerach added it in February. Is this a proposal to move that from "Sister wikis" to "Affiliates"? That seems both misleading and inconsistent, as all of the other Wikia sites are under "Sister wikis."

Or, is this proposal solely centered on adding the template to the bottom? --LiquidTalk 14:30, September 7, 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, sister wikis and affiliates are separate. If Forum:Appeal for more obvious affiliate links were to pass, we wouldn't be included in that. To me, sister wikis are wikis around the same topic, but there is no official affiliation. ɳex undique 18:31, September 7, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Support - Per Ryan.

  1. REDIRECT User:N7 Elite/Signature 18:37, September 7, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Why not? I'll even rework a few of my programs to work for the rsc wiki.User:Guthix1110/Signature 19:29, September 7, 2011 (UTC)

That would be awesome! Thank you! ɳex undique 21:43, September 12, 2011 (UTC)


Information icon A user has requested closure for Affiliating with the RuneScape Classic Wiki. Request complete. The reason given was: It's been open 2 weeks with no discussion for the last week, and the consensus seems clear ɳex undique 01:07, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
  • Closed. There is consensus to add links to RSC wiki from our related pages, as well as to promote them in other ways (to be determined by the other forum going on now.
  1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 01:16, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.