Forum:RS:G and Non-Interactive Scenery 2

Forums: Yew Grove > RS:G and Non-Interactive Scenery 2

In Forum:RS:G and Non-Interactive Scenery, there was a very rough consensus to do "something" with non-interactive scenery articles. Below are what I believe to be the main options presented by that discussion.

1. Allow all non-interactive scenery to have an article.
2. Loose restrictions on the types of non-interactive scenery allowed to have an article. In addition, please specify the guidelines you believe would be most suitable.
3. Strict and specific restrictions on the types of non-interactive scenery allowed to have an article. In addition, please specify the guidelines you believe would be most suitable.
4. Status quo - Continue to disallow articles on non-interactive scenery.

If you missed the link above, here it is again.

Discuss, 222 ^talk 07:39, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Status quo - As per the reasons I already mentioned cumulatively in the previous discussion. I fail to see why we can't just mention the scenary inside the article about the location it's found in, if it's really significant. For example, if there statue in the middle of Falador is so special, mention it in the Falador article (I haven't checked, but I wouldn't be surprised if it already is there). If you can't think of a reason to mention the tables on the page about the bar they're found in, perhaps they don't really need a page of their own. Hofmic Talk 08:17, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

Support 1 - If we are a wiki for all things RuneScape, we should have the capability of doing this. Hair 21:43, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

Support 1 - We're the wiki for everything RuneScape. We either change our tagline or allow this. Can't have both. ɳex undique 22:44, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I'm all for expanding our page base to include scenery, but if we're serious about this I think we'd best start with interactive scenery. ʞooɔ 23:08, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

This would probably be a better idea, test run with the interactive scenery before we move onto the non interactive Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 23:27, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

Support 2/3, Partially However, if you did that, there would be a lot of people who go created pages like, rocks, bushes, hanging painting, the amount of non-interactive scenery that I'm assuming you mean with examines, would probably double the pages of what we already have.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cire04 (talk) on 17:13, February 21, 2012.

Support 3 - If it's significant or unique, then add it. As such, the likes of bushes or tables wouldn't get an article, but the likes of Beefy Bill's trailer, being unique as in it is only in 1 location and is used only by Bill, would Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 23:19, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

Support 4 - Per Andorin in the last thread. I am still not convinced that it's good resource management to do this until I see we have information on things like interactive scenery. --Liquid^Talk 02:48, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

Support 1/2 - Let's do as much as possible, but not overdo it. Overdoing it is Bush (Lumbridge 1), Bush (Lumbridge 2), Bush (Falador east), Bush (Falador north), etc. Fswe1 14:27, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

That would still be disallowed per RS:G, as that would be the same as creating an article for each dose of a potion. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 16:37, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

Support 4 - Let's make interactive scenery articles first, like cook said, and if that works out, start thinking about non-interactive. For common scenery such as rocks or bushes, I think we should use common sense and create those anyway, as those are quite important, but for almost all other non-interactive scenery parts, I think we should make those articles when we're about complete on interactive ones. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 16:37, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

Support 1 - I don't see any reason not to have information on scenery. Also, I disagree that it's "horrible resource management". I'd say this is more important than "OMG THIS IMAGE HAS ONLY 2X AA I SHOULD SPEND 2 HOURS TO MAKE A NEWER ONE" bad_fetus^talk 16:38, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

Question - Would pelicans and Estrith be considered non-interactive scenery?  Tien  15:15, February 23, 2012 (UTC)

I think that should be determined based on whether jagex classifies them as scenery or not. If their right-click text is blue, they should be considered scenery whereas they should be considered NPCs if their right-click text is yellow. That said, we could also try using common sense to determine whether something is scenery or not. However, considering the vast amount of 'scenery' present in-game, that would just lead to pointless discussions in many cases. Just my two cents. bad_fetus^talk 19:21, February 23, 2012 (UTC)

Those are non-interactive NPCs, which are allowed to have articles about. (I'm sure we have more articles about non-interactive NPCs, but I couldn't think of any) JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 08:15, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

Strong support 1 - Resource management is a joke... We ain't a sort of factory are we??? People come on here to edit whatever they want freely... If someones feels that the statue in lumbridge requires a article, let them write it. There's no harm in doing that what so ever... Chess has pretty much said it himself; Currently, there is so little to do, that we're worried about AA on some pictures, it's not as if the wiki will fall apart because of this. Rhys ^Talk 14:07, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

Support 3 (or maybe 2) - I think that some scenery deserve articles, and some deserve to just be shoved on a page that lists all the scenery, categorised by 'type'. I was supportive at first, but now I think this will just become a mess unless monitored and will take a lot of effort for minimal return. Chicken7 ^>talk 23:12, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

Support 1 - Per Nex. Telos 11:19, February 26, 2012 (UTC)