This is our list of previously rejected proposals from the Yew Grove. To be included in this list:
- The topic has been discussed and rejected at least three times.
- The community has rejected the proposal overwhelmingly.
Wikians are not forbidden to re-raise these topics, but should note the reasons for why they failed. Such re-raised proposals must consider these objections strongly and explicitly address arguments against those objections before proposing anything similar again.
Prevent unregistered users from editing[]
- Proposal: Disable/ban/prevent unregistered users from editing/moving pages on the wiki.
- Previous discussions:
- April 2008: Forum:"...that anyone can edit'
- August 2008: Forum:Registered Users Only Allowed To Edit
- May 2009: Forum:Block IP Editing
- October 2009: Forum:Unregistered users
- December 2010: Forum:Require autoconfirmed for all page moves
- Reason for rejection:
- The wiki is a place where anyone is allowed to edit, regardless of whether they are registered or not.
- Users should assume good faith whenever possible.
- We have other ways to block/ban unregistered users who vandalise this wiki.
- Unregistered users have made significant contributions to this wiki in the past, and should be allowed to continue doing so.
- Conclusion: Unregistered users will not be prevented from editing this wiki (or a specific part of this wiki), unless the particular page/section/namespace has been protected per the protection policy.
Enable the blog extension[]
- Proposal: Enable the blog extension through Special:WikiFeatures.
- Previous discussions:
- July 2008: Forum:"User profile" feature
- January 2009: Forum:Blogging option for RS Wiki
- June 2009: Forum:Blogging
- December 2009: Forum:Re-make User Blogs?
- February 2010: Forum:Bring Back The Blog!
- Reason for rejection:
- There are numerous other ways to express oneself on the wiki, including the the userspace.
- Blogs themselves do not fit into our philosophy, as the wiki is not a social networking site.
- This extension has caused enormous strife on other wikis, as it can divide the community and take focus away from the point of that particular wiki.
- Maintaining the blogs would be an administrative nightmare.
- Conclusion: Blogs will not be enabled on this wiki in the foreseeable future.
Change the RuneScape Wiki's host[]
- Proposal: Move the RuneScape Wiki from its current host, Wikia, to another host site.
- Previous discussions:
- October 2010: Forum:Moving the RuneScape Wiki
- December 2010: Forum:Changing hosts
- November 2012: Forum:Idea from Yugioh.Wikia.com
- December 2015: Forum:Gamepedia
- Reason for rejection:
- The logistics of changing hosts presents an almost insurmountable challenge.
- There is a significant chance that readers will remain on Wikia, leaving the new site with little regular traffic.
- While Wikia is by no means perfect, most other candidate hosting sites have their own similar issues.
- Conclusion: The RuneScape Wiki will remain on Wikia barring exceptional circumstances.
Use videos in the mainspace[]
- Proposal: Embed videos in the article namespace, whether for quest walkthroughs, combat guides, cutscenes, etc.
- Previous discussions:
- August 2009: Forum:Media Policy
- January 2011: Forum:Video guides
- February 2012: Forum:Creating video aids for various wiki pages
- November 2012: Forum:Video
- November 2014: Forum:RuneScape Wiki Custom Videos
- June 2017: Forum:Videos on specifics pages
- September 2017: Forum:Featured Article Videos
- Reason for rejection:
- MediaWiki software and the concept of wikis are built around text, not video. Requiring recording and editing software, hardware that can handle high graphics settings, and video production skills goes against the idea of a community where "anyone can edit".
- Due to the constantly-changing nature of RuneScape, videos may quickly become out of date.
- If something needs to be changed, other users will not have access to the uploader's original copy of the video. Downloading the existing video, editing it, and then reuploading it will cause progressive loss in quality.
- Certain pieces of content cannot be replayed once completed, making it difficult and/or time-consuming to create videos for them if they are updated.
- Videos require many times more bandwidth to download than an article composed of text and images, and cannot be quickly scrolled through or searched with a browser's find function.
- If the video is narrated, hearing-impaired users will require captions or labels to be able to understand it, at which point it is no different from reading the article.
- Conclusion: Videos are inferior to text-based guides and should not be added by our users.