m (reply) |
|||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
'''Support 3 (and 1 kinda)''' As Kelsey noted, option 1 would work if the redirect pages exist. If I see a piece of named scenery and wiki it, I want to be presented information by entering its name as article name. It has been argued that it's pointless to point out that the scenery doesn't have a non-aesthetic use, but this information could be exactly what I was looking for. To me option 3 is preferable, though, as it gives much more space to expand information. Let's take for instance the humble bullrushes: It would be interesting to research how and when they've been graphically updated, when they were introduced, what kind of real-life entity it corresponds to, where exactly in Gielinor they can be found, in which update they lost their examinability etc, etc. In option 1 getting all this information in would be at least cumbersome and would quickly clutter the page. In addition, short pages aren't necessarily stubs if there is nothing of great importance missing. I hope we can stop deleting contributions just because it feels useless to someone; If someone felt the need to write an article about content in RuneScape, how can it not be notable enough for a wiki about all things in RuneScape? Why would <nowiki>[[bullrushes]]</nowiki> get deleted multiple times in history while [[cherry blossom]] is allowed to exist? [[User:Thingummywut|Thingummywut]] ([[User talk:Thingummywut|talk]]) 10:55, July 12, 2018 (UTC) |
'''Support 3 (and 1 kinda)''' As Kelsey noted, option 1 would work if the redirect pages exist. If I see a piece of named scenery and wiki it, I want to be presented information by entering its name as article name. It has been argued that it's pointless to point out that the scenery doesn't have a non-aesthetic use, but this information could be exactly what I was looking for. To me option 3 is preferable, though, as it gives much more space to expand information. Let's take for instance the humble bullrushes: It would be interesting to research how and when they've been graphically updated, when they were introduced, what kind of real-life entity it corresponds to, where exactly in Gielinor they can be found, in which update they lost their examinability etc, etc. In option 1 getting all this information in would be at least cumbersome and would quickly clutter the page. In addition, short pages aren't necessarily stubs if there is nothing of great importance missing. I hope we can stop deleting contributions just because it feels useless to someone; If someone felt the need to write an article about content in RuneScape, how can it not be notable enough for a wiki about all things in RuneScape? Why would <nowiki>[[bullrushes]]</nowiki> get deleted multiple times in history while [[cherry blossom]] is allowed to exist? [[User:Thingummywut|Thingummywut]] ([[User talk:Thingummywut|talk]]) 10:55, July 12, 2018 (UTC) |
||
| + | :[[Cherry blossom]]s, along with [[Arch]]es and [[Volcano (Uncharted Isles)|Volcanos]] (as well as the interactive scenery which isn't part of this discussion), are unique cases as they are not guaranteed to even appear on the [[Uncharted Isles]] which does add to their notibility. I really do understand your frustration, but I see '''option 1''' being the best way going forward. {{User:IN008/Signature}} 20:00, July 14, 2018 (UTC) |
||
'''Support 1''' - We can pull a list of all scenery from the cache, not cumbersome at all. We don't need a page for every single rock, statue, bush, pole, wall decoration, and carpet in the game. Non-interactive scenery definitely do not deserve their own articles {{Signatures/JaydenKieran}} 11:17, July 12, 2018 (UTC) |
'''Support 1''' - We can pull a list of all scenery from the cache, not cumbersome at all. We don't need a page for every single rock, statue, bush, pole, wall decoration, and carpet in the game. Non-interactive scenery definitely do not deserve their own articles {{Signatures/JaydenKieran}} 11:17, July 12, 2018 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 20:00, 14 July 2018
Currently, as per RS:G, it is suggested individual scenery deserve individual pages, this consensus was, to my knowledge, made back in 2012 - Forum:RS:G and Non-Interactive Scenery 2 with mixed feedback on both threads, although it still passed assuming UCS was used. 6 years later, very few pages have been created on either RS3 or OSRS's wikis and this silence indicates that non-interactive scenery is not notable enough to warrant individual pages.
As such, I propose that any scenery that is not deemed notable enough should be collected with other scenery into pages similar to Graphical updates/Locations/Scenery with an image, name, examine, and optionally a note; preferably in tables. OSRS Wiki already has a page listing every examinable object which would help speed up this transition on OSRS Wiki's end.
Below are the options I see going forward in regards to non-interactive scenery.
- Condense pages - as outlined above, this would allow for a more structured approach to adding this information to the wikis,
- Strict specific restrictions - such as a notability criteria,
- Status quo - continue with endless stubs (if they were ever made in the first place).
I'd like to see more input on this,
- REDIRECT User:We left wikia/Signature 00:57, July 12, 2018 (UTC)
Discussion
Support 1,3 I think that doing it on a case by case basis as outlined with 2 would be too confusing. --
Scuzzy Beta
01:11, July 12, 2018 (UTC)
Support 1 - As long as appropriate redirects are made User:KelseW/Signature 01:19, July 12, 2018 (UTC)
Support 1 - Would be nice to get some solid consensus on this, along with its own section on the RS:G page. On a similar note, it would also be nice if we could be more consistent in making pages for interactive scenery. Star Talk 
01:52, July 12, 2018 (UTC)
Support 1 - Efficient, effective and easier to maintain and update. 
MAGE-KIL-R 
01:59, July 12, 2018 (UTC)
Support 3 (and 1 kinda) As Kelsey noted, option 1 would work if the redirect pages exist. If I see a piece of named scenery and wiki it, I want to be presented information by entering its name as article name. It has been argued that it's pointless to point out that the scenery doesn't have a non-aesthetic use, but this information could be exactly what I was looking for. To me option 3 is preferable, though, as it gives much more space to expand information. Let's take for instance the humble bullrushes: It would be interesting to research how and when they've been graphically updated, when they were introduced, what kind of real-life entity it corresponds to, where exactly in Gielinor they can be found, in which update they lost their examinability etc, etc. In option 1 getting all this information in would be at least cumbersome and would quickly clutter the page. In addition, short pages aren't necessarily stubs if there is nothing of great importance missing. I hope we can stop deleting contributions just because it feels useless to someone; If someone felt the need to write an article about content in RuneScape, how can it not be notable enough for a wiki about all things in RuneScape? Why would [[bullrushes]] get deleted multiple times in history while cherry blossom is allowed to exist? Thingummywut (talk) 10:55, July 12, 2018 (UTC)
- Cherry blossoms, along with Arches and Volcanos (as well as the interactive scenery which isn't part of this discussion), are unique cases as they are not guaranteed to even appear on the Uncharted Isles which does add to their notibility. I really do understand your frustration, but I see option 1 being the best way going forward.
- REDIRECT User:We left wikia/Signature 20:00, July 14, 2018 (UTC)
Support 1 - We can pull a list of all scenery from the cache, not cumbersome at all. We don't need a page for every single rock, statue, bush, pole, wall decoration, and carpet in the game. Non-interactive scenery definitely do not deserve their own articles https://i.imgur.com/xHR7zpA.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/6encXAo.png 11:17, July 12, 2018 (UTC)
Support 1 / 3 - Like Thingummywut said, it's not really a stub if there's nothing more to be said -- F-Lambda (talk)