I want to bring up the policy on articles about future updates. On the 1 August, Jagex announced in Behind the Scenes that they will be released the Runecrafting Guild this month, and a stub article appeared on the wiki containing known information (and probably a little speculation that shouldn't have been there). The stub was promptly deleted under the policy that the RuneScape wiki is not a crystal ball. This policy states: "Future content should not be discussed in the article namespace, unless it has been explicitly mentioned in one of the Behind the Scenes updates. Even then, coverage should not go into detail or speculate about the update's content unless it was given in the update."
I'm not having a go at any individual, but it seems to me that deleting the whole article (rather than just removing unverified speculation) is not proper implementation of this policy. It may be that there was so little information in the BTS that the article would only be a very short stub, but to me that is better than no article at all. The fact that Jagex has confirmed that this guild will exist justifies the existence of an article to acknowledge it. However, it may be that the consensus is to change the policy, so that even officially-announced future updates should not be documented until they are released. Would anyone like to comment on these issues please? Leevclarke talk 14:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Speaking less and showing the evidence of both sides.
- RuneScape:Non-existent item policy
- "You are allowed to make an article for an item that does not exist. However, there must be some valid proof that shows that the item will be created in the future. The article must clearly indicate that the item doesn't exist."
- Non-existent item
- 'If you were searching for a future update, please wait for the update to be released before creating an article about it."
- Contradiction? XDRAGONAITE + 14:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- To me, I support the inclusion of information regarding future updates, if (and that's a big IF) there is evidence of it being released by Jagex themselves. Speculation is unnecessary, but confirmed information should be added to the wiki. Since the Runecrafting Guild will be implementated, deleting it now (after creating it) was inappropriate. It WAS explicitly mentioned in the Behind the Scenes update. Non-existant item policy should be modified to include future CONFIRMED updates, with the statement: "For future updates, please state the expected date of release, and and provide the link to the update mentioning the particular update." This should be clear enough for the readers to know that the item is a future update to be released soon by Jagex.
- Regarding items, if the item has been specifically mentioned by Jagex (for example, Santa suit) it could have an article on its own. However, as there is no way of exactly knowing how the item name would appear in-game, "future item" article creation should be kept to the minimum. This also applies for quests, minigames, and miniquests.
01:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe that anything that has been explicitly mentioned in a BTS article should be allowed a page on the Wiki, exactly as stated on RS:NOT#CRYSTAL. Though we would not be able to provide any more information than JaGex would prior to its release, people (in general) will most likely look up the future updates on fansites, and I see no harm in obtaining more fans for the Wikia. As far as the issue is concerned with not knowing an exact name for items, areas, etc., if we tentatively use the exact name given in the BTS, I think that should be acceptable until the mentioned area/item/minigame is released. If it's released under a different name, it would be simple enough to move the page to the correct name. Karlis (talk) (contribs)
14:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- I would agree with that. It's better to have content and move it later if necessary (when the article name is confirmed) than not to have it at all. If we create articles under the name given by Jagex, then that is the name people will use when looking it up, and it can become a redirect later if appropriate. Leevclarke talk 14:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree that future updates such as the Runecrafting Guild mentioned by Jagex on the RS site such as BTS should deserve a brief article with Jagex references and no speculation. It's being up-to-date on what has already been acknowledged by Jagex as coming in RS. Chrislee33 18:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that a short page without speculation would be good, if only to stop people continuously creating the article for us to delete. Could you imagine if we had no summoning page before it was released? At least we can come up with something literate rather than having an IP creating the usual one sentence l33tspeak page for us. Hurston 10:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the article didn't need to be deleted. If it has been given mention in BTS, it's pretty much inevitable that many editors are going to create it, so we might as well gain the upper hand and create it with unspeculative information. I really see no disadvantage to this. (And I just now realized I have completely reiterated Hurston's position). We need to be cautious, though, when it comes to naming articles. Often the BTS article won't mention the actual name of a planned release. For example, while Runecrafting Guild may be a valid redirect to the runecrafting guild, who knows...Jagex might choose to call the location something specific. Endasil (Talk) @ 15:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The template has not been created yet, but this template could be added to the articles containing future updates.12:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
| This article contains references to future updates to be released by Jagex. All information within this article should not taken as it is, and the information is deemed correct until further notice by Jagex. |
Under no circumstances should there be any speculation be mentioned in this article.
Support - It adds clarity to articles pertaining to upcoming changes in the world of RuneScape / Gielinor. Note however that i am a little confused about the line that reads ..."should not taken as it is". Curiously,
- REDIRECT user:kytti khat/sig 19:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Support - It's clear. Kytti has the point there, how about this:
| This article contains references to future updates to be released by Jagex. |
All information within this article should be taken only as a factual report,
and it is not deemed comprehensive until further official notice.
Under no circumstances should there be any speculation to be mentioned in this article.
- ...Well I have already gone ahead and created this template, basically copying the styling from Wikipedia and customising a little bit for this wiki. You can see the current version by following the link in the title of this section. Feel free to make changes, of course. ;-) Leevclarke talk 17:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)