RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Archive 11

This page or section is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current project page or contact an administrator for aid if no talk page exists.

Archives
No archives yet Create next archive

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was delete.17:37, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

Calculators/Runecrafter loss in air running

This article contains outdated information. This method is no longer used due to the trade limit changes.

Delete Agreed. And the information is confusing to understand on top of that. Bowler225 21:11, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Delete Checked the history on it, other than the new change it really isn't updated (the last update was way back in April, at least when I checked) if the prices can be guaranteed always to be accurate and such sure keep it otherwise it's fairly useless. Chaos knight 03:25, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Per everyone else, clearly not needed. Zenihdrol 13:06, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Outdated too much. Oil4 ^Talk 22:29, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Speedy delete.

Spirit Seed Images

This is not a vfd for the article, it is a vfd for several images on the page that I find useless and unhelpful. I suggest that we delete them. The images in question are:

File:South_Spirit_Tree1.png File:West_Spirit_Tree1.png File:East_Spirit_Tree1.png File:South_Spirit_Tree2.png File:West_Spirit_Tree2.png File:East_Spirit_Tree2.png File:South_Spirit_Tree3.png File:West_Spirit_Tree3.png File:East_Spirit_Tree3.png File:South_Spirit_Tree4.png File:West_Spirit_Tree4.png File:East_Spirit_Tree4.png File:South_Spirit_Tree5.png File:West_Spirit_Tree5.png File:East_Spirit_Tree5.png File:South_Spirit_Tree6.png File:West_Spirit_Tree6.png File:East_Spirit_Tree6.png File:South_Spirit_Tree7.png File:West_Spirit_Tree7.png File:East_Spirit_Tree7.png File:South_Spirit_Tree8.png File:West_Spirit_Tree8.png File:East_Spirit_Tree8.png File:South_Spirit_Tree9.png File:West_Spirit_Tree9.png File:East_Spirit_Tree9.png File:South_Spirit_Tree10.png File:West_Spirit_Tree10.png File:East_Spirit_Tree10.png File:South_Spirit_Tree11.png File:West_Spirit_Tree11.png File:East_Spirit_Tree11.png File:South_Spirit_Tree12.png File:West_Spirit_Tree12.png File:East_Spirit_Tree12.png

I'm not quite sure where to put the Vfd tag, as I don't want to stick it on each one, and the links aren't going to work right anyway. Anyhow, I suggest we Delete these images. --

Captain Sciz

Talk • Edits • Hiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=

01:08, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Delete some - Keep one image from each stage of development, but at the same direction. ~Muz^Talk 01:11, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

He didn't mark the images from the north view, just the others. ODWNZT^rwojy 01:13, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree here, these images are pointless. In fact, I'm going to speedy d them right now, so consider this Closed. RBFMOIP^rwojy 01:13, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 03:03, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Pay-to-play Melee training (short)

This page is exactly the same as Pay-to-play Melee Training except for the fact that this page lacks the images. There is nothing short about it. Either modify it, or delete it altogether. --Liquidhelium 19:09, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Pointless. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  21:14, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

Delete/Merge - Merge anything worth mentioning into the normal guide, delete rest. [[File:Staff of armadyl.png]] Chaos knight Talk 00:15, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Not very short to me! Per what Chaos Knight said, merge anything useful and delete the rest. Zenihdrol 01:23, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Delete/Merge - per chaos http://i698.photobucket.com/albums/vv341/Rwojy/scoot4.pngscooties 01:26, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - There's nothing that needs to be merged because it's exactly the same, but without images. Just delete it. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  20:34, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Well, in my experience no two articles are ever exactly the same, however I've not read through the other I'll gladly accept your word for it, however, bare in mind, it still should have a once over before being deleted just to make sure someone didn't add something to the "short" one without adding it to the "long" one. [[File:Staff of armadyl.png]] Chaos knight Talk 16:15, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Worthless waste of space. Inhaps ^talk 20:39, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Comment/Delete - It is true pretty much the only thing is the images have been removed. But if you use the "Show changes" feature, you will see that a few dot points have also been removed. IMHO, that is just stupid and just takes away useful points for the purpose of making the article short. Chicken7 ^>talk 11:30, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - It is a waste of space, not worth even merging. ----Morgan-- 11:42, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per all  Lil cloud 9 ^Talk 11:48, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete.

NBBFC^rwojy 22:18, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Category:Active users

This is not a list of every active user on the wiki. Also, several of the users in this category are inactive, but since they are, they did not take the active category off their userpages. For example, Lestatjh3 is in this category, but he hasn't been active since June. User:C Teng/sig 14:35, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. User:C Teng/sig 14:35, November 27, 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Yea. I remember this. I don't see the point of really adding active user category to our userpages. Some users end up leaving/stop contributing to the wiki and forget to remove it. Powers38 ^おはようヾ(´･ω･｀) 14:42, November 27, 2009 (UTC)
• Automate similar to Category:Profitable Alchemy Items. It would then list all users that have signed in within the past 90 days or whatever arbitrary time. However, if no one has the interest and expertise to automate it, then we might as well delete it. --MarkGyver 17:44, November 27, 2009 (UTC)
• Automate or delete - If we can't automate it to make it accurate, delete it. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  21:16, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Does anyone know if it's possible to automate it? User:C Teng/sig 21:19, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Special:Statistics provides you with much better information than this, but doesn't list who are the active users. As well, this list for deletion does not entail the majority of active users. Ryan PM 07:22, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Look at Bonziiznob's userpage. --Nup^(T) 07:27, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

• Automate/Delete - Automating it would be awesome. Having to manually do this kind of defeats the purpose. I do like the idea though. Oil4 ^Talk 21:59, November 28, 2009 (UTC)
• Automate/Delete - Possible, but hard. Cheers, Chicken7 ^>talk 07:00, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
• Automate/Delete - Per others. Monstermas22 07:07, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
• Automate/Delete - Yea its unused unless there a automatic way to do it. User:Supawilko/SkillSupawilko 18:31, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - useless page, waste of space. --Morgan--

Automate/Delete - For 2 reasons: Firstly, it doesn't contain all active users, 2ndly since its not automated this could easily contain users who haven't been on for months even years. Chaos knight 10:05, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Automate or delete - If this becomes automated, then I say keep. If it doesn't, delete it. I had no idea there was an "Active users" category and chances are alot of other users don't know, either. Zenihdrol 01:29, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Active as in edited recently or active as in logged in recently? If the latter, then I don't believe it will be possible at all. If the former, this can probably be done via external monitoring of Special:RecentChanges, but not as a category that self-updates (unless we have a bot constantly add/remove people from this category, which I think is a bad idea). --Quarenon  _Talk 01:49, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I don't think this can be automated. I have been active on another wiki since August last year, but because I hardly edit, they put me on the inactive users list. But I am active, I check the wiki for new messages almost everyday. This could happen with some users on this wiki as well, so I think this should be deleted. --Nup^(T) 09:19, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

Just delete - I don't think this would be worth the trouble of automating, lets just get rid of it. Tollerach hates SoF 22:15, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Keep/No consensus: Group did not reach consensus, so maintain status quo per RS:CONSENSUS. Horsehead ^Talk 13:15, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Sailing

Delete - Sailing is no different to all the other skill suggestions that players suggest, apart from that people faked photos about sailing so Jagex came out and confirmed that the photos were fake. If Sailing was allowed to exist, then that gives the go ahead for anyone to make an article on any possible skill they can think of. Crystal chanting?? Necromancy?? Dragon Riding?? Sheep Shearing?? There are many popular theories on the next skill in the Future updates forum which probably deserve a page before Sailing. They all have the same, if not more, evidence pointing towards them and they also have the advantage of not being confirmed false many times be Jagex. The RuneScape Wiki is not for speculation, yet speculation is all that Sailing is. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 01:42, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - The point of the page was to remove the large trivia section from the Hiscores page. None of the information in it is speculation, it is all stuff that was talked about widely among players. FQKTP^rwojy 01:47, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Speculation is when players talks (speculates) about something which they think will be added to the game, but has not been confirmed by Jagex. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 01:53, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

keep - agree jagex has lied about a lotof other things.   Ppi802   22:09, November 28, 2009 (UTC) DeleteMerge - People are gullible and stupid. They'll believe anything. If we had an article for every rumour that was spread around, we'd have more rumour than fact here. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 01:49, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Changed to Merge, that's what I originally meant but put delete for some reason http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 14:04, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Absolutely and positively. While I will admit that we don't need an article about every rumor and concept in the game, this one is nearly legendary in terms of its persistence on the RSOF and nearly every other fan site as well. No, this doesn't compare to discussion about Necromancy or even a parody "Sheep Shearing" skill. While I admit that this wiki shouldn't be a crystal ball, this page certainly can and IMHO should include the very many quotes by Jagex staff and other official pronouncements about this concept. While it has never been confirmed by Jagex to be an upcoming skill, it has certainly been confirmed explicitly that the next skill to be released will not be sailing. That by itself is a fairly substantial statement. Of the tens of thousands of RSOF posts about this topic.... something should at least be listed on this wiki if for nothing else than an unusual phenomena related to the RSOF alone. The Riots articles have far less in terms of confirmation and statements of an official nature than this article. The article should stick with mostly those official pronouncements. --Robert Horning 03:39, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

To me, having it denyied by Jagex does not make it page worthy, it just might make it trivia worthy at most. There have been many rumours that have had to be denyed by Jagex due to their widespread knowledge such as the free items in soul wars and the godsword duplication glitch, both of which have been removed from the wiki since they did not exist. I realise that the second example don't show any evidence of the Jagex response, but I do remember then denying it. The inclusion of denyed rumours on the wiki is not a one off thing, they have been included before and they have always been removed without complaint. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 06:11, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

*Denied. Evil yanks, perhaps you might want to consider the notability of this rumour, unlike the two you've just mentioned (which I've never heard of incidentally), Sailing has been brought up dozens of times and talked about several times by Jagex moderators. C.Chiam^Talk 06:25, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the spelling thing, I didn't realise. While I knew quiet a bit about both examples due to reading the forums at the time, they seemed noteable enough to be near common knowledge to me. I feel that the amount more that Sailing is asking for makes up for that. They were not worthy of being a paragraph on a much larger page since they were only denied by Jagex on the forums once. Just becuase sailing was denied once officially by Jagex in a Q&A and once unofficially in a conversation with a famous player, that makes Sailing worthy of having an entire page to itself?? _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 06:45, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

On top of the Q&A and the conversation with a famous player, there have been two forum posts by Jagex moderators according to the article. Seeing as the Wiki is an enyclopaedia for RuneScape, I see no reason to not document a reasonably notable rumour such as this. C.Chiam^Talk 06:51, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

One post doesn't deny Sailing ([[:File:2009-08-06 Sailing possible skill.png|this one]]), it just says "Jagex are not willing to disclose any information at this moment". The second post (this one) is probably the most debated post in the Future Updates forum. Both the "sailing is real" and the "sailing is false" arguments quote either the first or second part of the post as evidence for or against sailing. I can understand where both come from, and didn't include it for this reason. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 07:07, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Just to comment on it being mentioned in a Trivia rather than a page, it was before I moved it. Sailing was a redirect to Hiscores#Trivia where it enveloped pretty much the whole Trivia section. It was more than worthy of its own article if there was that much information. Sailing is one of the most recognised topics in RuneScape. RS Wiki should cover everything that is notable, that is what Sailing is, IMHO and other users'. Even Jagex recognises Sailing as a common topic among player, one mod has even said he hasn't ruled it out completely as a future skill (not the new one coming though). Think about how many players will search "sailing runescape" in Google. Right now they find videos and old forum topics. Pretty much nothing on the RS Wiki (yet). Anyway, my 2 cents. Chicken7 ^>talk 23:48, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that there have been far more than just two forum posts by Jagex moderators on this topic. It is more like a couple dozen, and an in-game clan chat by Mod MMG (the CEO of Jagex), along with a retraction of what he said in the clan chat (how many times has that ever happened?) If a subject of a rumor has the attention of the CEO of Jagex and has received formal discussion about the issue... doesn't it at least deserve some sort of note on this wiki? --Robert Horning 14:32, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

Jagex never prove nor disprove sailing on the forums. I have only ever seen them give a boring generic response saying that they are not willing to give anything away, like the photo on the page shows. Take this thread. It is the main "sailing is a possible skill" thread and it doesn't have any evidence of Jagex denying it on the forums. If sailing was told by Jagex mods on the forums that it does not exist, then chances are that someone who has seen this message will probably post on the thread going "nya nya nya, Jagex just said that sailing isn't a skill on this thread" and since the owner tries to answer all questions, this would kill the thread very quickly. This has never happened though, leading me to believe that Jagex never say anything about sailing that is notable on the forums.

Currently with a page called "sailing" on the wiki, when you search for "sailing RuneScape" in google you get the RuneScape wiki at number 28 with the hiscores page, not sailing. Not a great result. The main problem for me with sailing being called notable is that it would open the door to so many more concepts. The reason why sailing took up such a large amount of the trivia was not because Sailing is specifically notable, it is because someone decided to write that much on the subject. If I really wanted to, I could write a large article on "horse riding" and place it in the trivia of Forums since it is probably the most commonly created thread. This does not mean that Horse riding should become an article by itself simply because it is large enough to be split from the trivia.

Also, sorry all about how agressive my argument has been. Sailing threads really annoy me, they are probably the third most commonly created spam thread on the forums. (behind horse riding suggestions and any thread that Soldier creates ^{He doesn't even need to be in the conversation for me to insult him}) All the threads about sailing say the same three points (Please consider this jagex; you can sail places, and the higher your sailing level, the bigger your boat!; it will be the most popular skill ever!) and only exist for about 10 mins before it is forgottern. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 01:29, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any of the info on the article says "You get a cool boat and you can sail from Port Phasy to Port Tyras and then you can have pirate wars in your own minigame!" It all is about the common theories and the comments Jagex has made. And also, the fact that RS Wiki is 28th for "sailing runescape" is a bad thing. Once the article has been around for awhile, the ranking will/should go up. If there is no article, we have no coverage on the topic. And no problem for being aggressive. Chicken7 ^>talk 05:17, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

I think the anti-sailing community is an interesting phenomena as well. Prior to the big video that sparked off the controversy, there were a couple other fairly well written sailing suggestion threads that were more typical to other skill suggestion threads (not the parody ones that seem to keep poping up now). I think it was just some player who was bored and wanted to bring attention to his topic and made a big splash. I don't think anybody else is going to get away with any sort of similar "spoof" in the way that sailing has produced. That is my point: This is notable. Love it or hate it, sailing has become a part of the Runescape culture even if it never becomes a skill.

BTW, if you want to see a "spoofed" skill, I created this image a while back to "dis-prove" those claiming sailing was a legitimate skill: The "New" skill called "Truth". I ought to create a similar spoof that is for Wiki-editing. It would be fun, but besides the point. I'm not saying to keep this article because it is a pointless skill (I won't debate the merits or lack thereof for this as a skill in this context), but it is something that has become notable. That you are tired of seeing new threads on sailing sort of emphasizes the point. --Robert Horning 01:51, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

To me, the spam threads point towards many/most players not knowing about sailing, thus why they think it is a new suggestion. Many players must be ignorant about the "phenomena" for it to be so commonly suggested on the forums.

I feel like both sides of this argument ^{(I could say that I am the leader of my side!)} have drawn a line and are unlikely up budge on the subject. You both feel it is notable due to being a well known phenomena, I feel it is not notable due to lack of impact. Do you want to agree to disagree?? I feel this will never reach a reasonable conclusion, no matter how long we debate it for. We can continue debating if you want though. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 07:24, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that the choices for resolution are rather stark: Let this article continue (typically the result of a lack of resolution or consensus) or get it deleted. Yes, I know that the suggestion is to merge this into the Hiscores article, but as I've pointed out that this is starting to dominate the "parent" article due to the volume of content about the topic. Compromise just doesn't seem like a viable option here.

A great part of this is to try and determine just what might be notability standards for something of this nature. OK, I'll bite at least on that principle: What could possibly be established as a notability standard that could be universally applied to other content as well besides this topic? This has been raised in other discussions in other contexts, such as the beforehand mentioned Black partyhat. I believe general topical articles about the Runescape community at large ought to be written that don't necessarily relate to a specific pieces of in-game content covered under RS:GRAN. Are you suggesting here, Evil yanks, that all such similar articles ought to be deleted as well? If not, can we come up with a consensus at least of what would be notable for inclusion in terms of articles about topics that impact the larger Runescape community? Preferably some sort of standard that could be objective and not subjective based on somebody's personal preferences? (not entirely unavoidable, but it would be a good goal) --Robert Horning 16:45, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

I think one of the big problems was that the Sailing section was very repetitive and had too many resources which said the same thing (Jagex said sailing is a lie!). I feel that the sailing section could be trimmed to a more managable size to make it easier to merge into another article. to be honest merging it into High Scores seems illogical to me, but we COULD make a Rumours/Myths article and have it there, along with other notable myths such as Black partyhat. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 16:48, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

I really can't think any way in which all articles could be judged by one universal indicator easily with minimal human imput. The only way that I can think of would be something really complicated where you would have a point system with many criteria, with each point on the criteria having different weighting depending on how important it is and needing to have "x" points to be considered notable. It would be very complicated, so people would probably replace it with common sense for simplicity sake when deciding whether an article should be included or not. The only other option I can think of is to have an individual case-by-case discussion on each proposed article, which is definitely not a policy.

While I do feel that the Sailing article should not be on the wiki, I feel that I have blown everything out of proportion. Having a sailing page wont have much of an effect on the wiki if it remains as a standalone article, not being used as an excuse to create similar articles. "Since there is an article on Sailing, there should also be one on ____".

To Psycho - I am afraid if a Myth and Rumour page is created it will become a massive behemoth of obscure rumours that can't be proved, like the Glitch pages currently are. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 07:16, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

So is that a forfeit from the debate, evil yanks? You are both right, we all have our opinions, and it doesn't seem like we're gonna budge. In the end, I think that covering the information is better than having no info at all or having it stuck in a small section somewhere. And I have the same fear about a "myths" page as evil. Chicken7 ^>talk 11:40, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

I always thought that the point of this debate was to try to explain to Robert why my stance on the subject is like it is, and if possible on rare occasions to convince him otherwise. If that is what you want me to say, then I forfeit. I still think otherwise on sailing, though I do feel that I am alone with that opinion. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 05:38, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

So it'd be up to us to keep it trimmed. Its easily preventable and easily fixed. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 05:42, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

That is the point of the debate. But truly, I don't know if it is possible to convince Robert otherwise One question: you say you feel otherwise on Sailing, do you mean the skill being implemented, or having the article? Chicken7 ^>talk 09:34, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

<--- Resetting the tabs to make the discussion readable

What I was referring to in terms of how to objectively suggest if an article is notable is to use a test (perhaps unique to this wiki) that most can use and point to that suggests notability. On Wikipedia, a common tool to use is the "Google test" and compare how many times the term is used on other web pages. If the terms shows up on just a couple of web sites, notability can be questioned with cause. Also, there are other similar test in terms of the number of potential sources of information and the quality of those sources. Heck, sailing as a skill article on Wikipedia might just fit Wikipedia's own definition of notability on its own. Writing it up as a cultural phenomena certainly could attract some attention... there on Wikipedia. In terms of notability on this wiki, I would suggest that multiple substantive j-mod statements (not... hmm... this is an interesting idea) and references to discussion on multiple fan sites would be a bare minimum for notability. The article on Riots fits this criteria, as to several other articles about the RS culture. Black partyhats perhaps don't fit this criteria, and skill suggestions like the others used in comparison above clearly would not meet this kind of criteria. All of this is objective and not subjective. If it can be argued that Sailing doesn't fit this sort of objective criteria for which other similar articles on this wiki are kept... I'd be fine for its deletion.

My assertion is that no matter what sort of objective notability criteria you might use for keeping those other articles, it would have to include sailing as a skill as well. This doesn't have to be complicated, but a gut reaction of "I hate the concept of this as a skill" doesn't qualify and isn't a valid argument. We are not talking about if you like sailing as a skill, but rather if this article is notable enough to keep on this wiki, or if this is something that is the product of just one or two users. Considering we don't even have consensus on which article the content mentioned here ought to be merged into even if an article content merger is the "solution", I'd have to suggest there is absolutely no consensus for any action at all for the moment. --Robert Horning 12:38, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like consensus is to merging it, that's what a significant majority of people here have put as their votes. I realise there's no consensus as to where it should be merged TO... but that's something we could discuss on the talk page, or the yew grove. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 16:43, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

To me it is impossible to find the correct "criteria" method to encompass all possible variations. Since there are only a few such RuneScape culture related articles created a month (year?), I think that the influx can easily be controlled and determined be general consensus from the community. Unlike Wikipedia, we don't have dozens of articles created every minute. I can see how the criteria would be necessary if the wiki had maybe a dozen+ of these articles a month so it would become too big of a task to be monitored properly, yet it seems a bit like overkill here.

I am not sure how everyone has got the perception that I was only opposing the page because I hated the skill. While I probably argued it more strongly at the start because of that, I do genuinely feel that the page should not be on the wiki. I don't think that the wiki should say "you can't make an article on these kind of things... unless it is on sailing, which is allowed since it was mentioned by Jagex in a Q&A". It is much simpler to just say that all of those kind of articles are not allowed, without making any exceptions. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 06:13, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that I sound like I am just refusing to include criteria, without any reason why. Let me say what I meant. Take the Slang dictionary, World 111 Glitch and Pure. All the articles are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Jagex would never say anything about street slang worth noting, not would they comment on the World 111 glitch, instead prefering to lock all threads mentioning it and telling people not to discuss glitches on the forums. I can't vouch for the Fansite forums since I have never been on any, yet I assume that if they don't have a page 51 minster then threads on all those subjects probably will exist. All the articles would still not be allowed by the criteria however since they don't pass the Jagex test. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 06:56, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - per Robert and Caleb's arguments/points above. Cheers, Chicken7 ^>talk 23:48, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Merge I think we should have an article called something like "Myths and urban legends", with a section for each appropriate entry, and have Sailing redirect to it. RuneScape does have its own set of unofficial player-generated rubbish, and keeping it all in one place may be a compromise that everyone can agree on. Rare black lobsters are another example.  ;-) Compare with the [[Trivia]] article. But I think this should be acknowledged and documented, and should not simply be deleted. Leevclarke ^talk http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb290/leevclarke/RuneScape/Max%20Bulldog/Max_logo_mini.png http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb290/leevclarke/RuneScape/bulldog_puppy.png 23:39, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - A good idea, although this myth/rumour is very well-known. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any other myths or urban legends (although there would be). This just needs to be a exception of RS:CRYSTAL, and then the other ones should not have their own article, but mentioned on their respective page. Like if there is one about a Slayer Guild or something, mention it there. I believe if we had a Myths and urban legends article, it'd attract too much people adding things that aren't notable. It is hard to define what is notable and what isn't, in my opinion, Sailing is. Here is a discussion when the wiki last tried to define if something is notable enough. Chicken7 ^>talk 00:13, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

Merge - Per Leevclarke. A page to put all those semi-unconfirmed dispelled fakes would be nice. Doucher4000^******r4000 23:58, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Merge (Changed to Keep) - Per Leevclarke. Too prevent it from being constantly re-added to other articles and whatnot, the best known myths eventually end up having a portion of an article or their own article for being infamous.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bluesonic43 (talk) on 00:02, October 17, 2009 (UTC).

Keep in mind that it was merged into another article, and it ended up having so much information that is swamped and overwhelmed the other article. It really deserves to have its own full article for those contributors who want to extend and expand the actual commentary by Jagex on this topic. There have even been some fairly recent discussions... by Jagex staff... about this subject as well, and that information deserves. I'm suggesting this is a notable topic, because of its widespread discussion on multiple RSOF threads, threads on every other fansite that I have ever visited, and the numerous formal pronouncements by Jagex staff about this topic. If this is the minimum standard for having a rumor to be considered for an article, we are setting a very difficult bar to cross for any other similar kind of rumor to qualify. Not a single one of the other rumors possibly meet this kind of standard, with the possible exception of a Black partyhat that is also up for a VfD. I believe it fits that sort of notability standard. --Robert Horning 14:28, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

Didn't realize that I had worded it in the way it now sounds. It can no longer be expanded on, but it does deserve it's article, more than a footnote in another article. I see why it should be there to stay, although currently, the medium has gone to Merge.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bluesonic43 (talk) on 23:00, October 19, 2009 (UTC).

Merge - It doesn't deserve an article of it's own, but it deserves a say in another one. Zenihdrol 12:09, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

Merge - Even though it is only a "myth" it has been the most popular one, so it definately shouldn't be deleted. Maybe add it to the Skills page. --

Killert365^HS

06:20, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Keep/Merge - It's extremely well-known, maybe even the best known urban legend of all time. Oil4 ^Talk 16:56, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

Merge - It's probably THE best known urban legend, even if it is fake. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  06:36, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - It's really famous, I see no reasons for deleting it. bad_fetus^talk 17:31, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal - Since it seems that the popular opinion is pointing towards merge into a myth page, I might make a suggestion on how to manage and limit the page so that it doesn't become like the glitch pages or Slang dictionary where there are many obscure and unnoteworthy sections. On the myths page set down these two requirements of which all myths must fit onto one of the categories: the myth has officially been debunked by Jagex (which would then be sourced) or the myth if common knowledge to most of the RuneScape players. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 09:59, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, No comment. I'm sticking with my keep Chicken7 ^>talk 11:06, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

I'd be on board with that idea. A glitch page would be the perfect spot for this. Let's be frank - how much space do we really need in order to summarize everything there is to know about Jagex? A detailed explantion of every time they debunked it is not necessary. The currently sailing article is repetitive and way longer than it needs to be. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 15:03, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

How much do we really need to know about this game? I suppose that we could replace this entire wiki with two words: "It Sucks", and an edit war to change that to "It Blows". Seriously, the point of setting up a wiki like this is to seek after the terra nullius in a game and to dig up the fine details that make up trivia and the obscure details that other people don't know. The spirit of writing a wiki is that we can record everything that somebody is willing to bother to write. This can involve a style guide, and certainly notability comes into play (which is my argument above). Asking to remove content because it isn't notable or can't be referenced (aka cited) is certainly rational for removing something on a wiki of this nature. That enough folks are willing to comment on this VfD ought to be enough to at least establish some notability. I also argued that this should be kept as there is no natural alternative title to something of this nature, other than perhaps Proposed Skills or some other similar article that would expand and develop into a catch all for all of the proposed skill content on the RSOF and elsewhere. I think in that case the cure would be worse than the original problem. --Robert Horning 16:14, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

I find that argument hyperbolic. I was talking about removing redundancy, and you took that to its illogical conclusion of stripping the wiki of all its content. I strongly believe the "Myths" or "Rumours" article is a good solution here. Sure some people might want to put a rumour that only they themselves have spread, but they can be removed as soon as its realised that there's no sources and no significance. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 16:28, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

Considering that none of the articles that are being discussed so far even exist (there is no Proposed Skills, Myth, or Rumors article to merge this into) it all seems a sort of moot point. Yes, what I said was a sort of reductio ad absurdum argument, but the issue still remains. For the content currently in this article, is there anything here that can't be sources or referenced from what are considered fairly reputable sources, including pronouncements by Jagex staff on the topic? While there may be loose "consensus" to merge this article, there is absolutely no consensus for where to merge this article. If we put it "back" into the Hiscores article where some of this content was originally, it seems very much out of place and dominates that article in an off-topic manner. Reducing this entire article to a single sentence in another article is logically consistent with simply removing all content on this wiki with just two words. That is my point. I believe that even more content can be added to this article as it stands... sourced and verifiable information... and that furthermore the final chapter on this topic for the greater Runescape community has yet to happen either. I certainly don't want any such article be a mash-up of other articles in the way that Pizza became. Of course that gets on with the point that if it is going to be a multi-paragraph sub-section of a huge article, what is the logic for keeping it from simply being its own article? --Robert Horning 15:39, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any one favoring merging the article had in mind that it would be one or two sentences! There are certainly enough sources to justify a good two or three paragraphs of information. Due to its prevalent nature, it should be the first thing listed, along with Black and Pink partyhat, and any other rumour that meets whatever criteria is decided upon (probably, if this ends in a "merge" result, on the Yew Grove). http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 17:24, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - per chess master --Porp1 10:13, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - it was a big deal, it's notable enough for its own article, I think. Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 11:49, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - I vote for keep, as there is a at least 3 Jagex moderators commenting on this stat, the CEO Mod MMG has neither confirmed nor dismissed this speculation, and Mod Mark may be just trying to throw people off. In an unrelated note, another mod has given a hint that it starts with "B" leading me to speculate if it may be Beast Taming. Sir Adunkley^(Talk)(Sign) 06:35, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - On an off-topic note, I just have to say your Beast Taming idea sounds like it could be very real! It would also be a skill that directly relates to Summoning so could improve use and decrease cost of the skill. Cheers, Chicken7 ^>talk 08:54, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

This is also off topic. The three most popular theories on the forums about "b skills" are Beast taming, boating and bard. I think that the mod was joking when he said that however. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 09:36, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Bard?!??! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA Chicken7 ^>talk 11:53, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Brace yourself Chicken, this will come as a shock... You ready?? Ok. Yesterday, Jagex declared that the next skill is not bard. I realise that you were so looking forward to it At the same time, they also said that the "b" thing is false. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 11:46, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!1111!1 lol Chicken7 ^>talk 05:10, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Delete It's been confirmed multiple times, including in the Q&As, to be just a rumour which will never happen. The wiki shouldn't be the place for speculation, especially speculation which is definitely wrong. Phoenix316 12:51, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

If you've read the article, you might have noticed that we're not speculating anything and are simply trying to put forth the facts/evidence in a NPOV. C.Chiam^Talk 03:29, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

Also, it has been confirmed a rumour, but not out of the question and never to happen. Cheers, Chicken7 ^>talk 04:53, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Per RS:NIP, point three. Chiafriend12Loon is best buttlord 01:48, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Great point. If this isn't notable, what is? Cheers, Chicken7 ^>talk 05:08, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - As per Evil. • NnK Oliver • ^(600613) _talk 02:07, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Yes was a rumour/urban legend, but it's easily the most famous one, at the least a merge, black party hat was kept in the party hat article and that's fake why delete this? Easily more famous. Chaos knight 04:31, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - It is a rumor that has been officially denied multiple times. We don't really need this page, there is already enough information about a possible new skill on the Skills page --^(Contribs) Frogging101 ^{(My talk)} 21:00, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Take a look at the size difference between Skills#New skill and Sailing. There is actually heaps more information (not speculation) than what is in that section... 01:16, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the size difference between this discussion and the article itself --Degenret01 01:30, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Imagine what we could have achieved if we spent all that effort and energy on something more constructive like total world domination. By now we could be in control of Bolivia and Peru as well as most of Brazil and Equador! _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 05:17, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Keep per all. User:C Teng/sig 01:39, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Keep Even if it isn't the new skill, A lot of evidence toward it has been collected. It might be worth keeping just for historical records. Omastar444 02:06, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Keep I agree and who knows it might be a future skill, Mod MMG said it got the content team talking, so it might either be a skill or a part of a skill or eventually put into the game. This pages information would be really nice to read if they decide to implement it into the game. If they dont its a good historical page and it is not against the rules for this wiki -- Josh2 01:04, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Delete If we don't have a page for horseback riding and Necromancy, we should not have one for this. If you must, put a mention of it elsewhere, or make a thread about possible/desired skills. But this is completely unnecessary.

'Delete' As mentioned above, the wiki is for facts. Not for myths/theories. If we keep this page, we could at page about another million things as well.

Ikbenbeter

13:13, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Comment Actually, we do have a few articles about theories, but they have a reasonable basis. Deleting and just mentioning the fake Sailing picture elsewhere would be the best solution.

• Comment - To everyone who is saying "the policies say no articles about stuff that is fake" or "no urban myths" bla bla bla. INCORRECT. RS:NIP, point three. Notable urban legends are allowed. What is more notable than this?! And anyway, consensus is not permanent so we could modify the policies if need-be, and I think we should anyway, even though THEY DO ALLOW SAILING! And take a look at our tag line "From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape". It isnt "for all completely factual, confirmed, non-myth topics explicitly concerning RuneScape"... Chicken7 ^>talk 13:27, November 28, 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - A lot of things are more notable. But your point is moot. If, just because of a trick some idiot pulled, Sailing gets its own page, then he has won, hasn't he? Just the fact that Sailing has its own page while none of the other possible skills do makes his lie seem valid. If we do this, you could say he has won. If we're going to give this 'skill' an entire page, then the other possible skills have to have one too, and that's ridiculous. Do you realize that the size of a fake skill's article is about the size of a real one's?

To be honest, I'm less than impressed that other notable "rumored" items have been recently deleted or "demoted" in stature. The idiot you are asserting here merely engaged in a publicity stunt that was wildly spectacular, but I should point out that sailing as a skill (or many variations of that theme) had been a persistent meme and idea for quite some time even before the infamous hiscores video. What is worse, Jagex themselves gave credibility to the idea as they "leaked" other skills (notably Hunter) in this same manner. Because of this incident, almost nobody is going to believe any subsequent attempt to pull off a "fake" skill like this. The whole point is that so many threads, debates, and discussions about this supposed new skill have been created that it seems irresponsible to not mention this somewhere. This will not be listed as one of the "official skills" and certainly won't be associated with anything like that, in any of the skill guides, or the host of other ways that regular skills are listed including the sidebar. This is just a simple factual article, and as such it really needs to remain. Nobody is "winning" or "losing" here. If the size of this article turns out to have enough verifiable and factual information to make an article as large as a real skill... so what? --Robert Horning 13:02, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Jagex did not ever give it 'stature', it was mentioned in a FAQ. Animal Husbandry was mentioned by them as well, but we don't have a page about that. We should really just make a thread about possible new skills or ones that have been theorized before, because this idea isn't really worth a full page.

Stature definition "High level of respect gained by impressive development or achievement". Jagex did give it stature by the publicity this skill received and the many comments Jagex had to make to confirm it was fake. I don't hear of any posts on the forums by J-Mods how Candle-Lighting is not the new skill (because it is not notable). Jagex also applauded the skill, and said they "love sailing" and it gave them "several cool ideas for the future". The fact that Jagex has taken some ideas from the idea of sailing means that they consider it an interesting idea that should not be debunked straight away. EDIT: And when you say lots more non-existant things are notable, give some examples. Some users have said that throughout this discussion but I can't think of any... Cheers, Chicken7 ^>talk 06:50, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

Good point, actually. In my opinion, we should get rid of the theory threads, because, as they say, The Wiki is not a Crystal Ball. Even if it doesn't predict anything, there's no point making articles about things that are not in Runescape. Leave the Out of Game stuff Out of the Game.

So we shouldn't have articles on the soul talisman or soul tiara? Or an article on the life rune? Just because they're not currently in the game doesn't mean they shouldn't be mentioned. The RuneScape Forums have an article, and they're not in the game, just on the website. Sailing has been heavily mentioned by Jagex in their efforts to tell players that it's fake. I think it's definitely reasonable enough to have an article for it on a wiki about RuneScape. Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 20:47, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

There are soul runes, there is a HUGE difference between some thing than can be inferred, and some thing which is pure speculative fantasy. Try a better comparison. One that makes sense.--Degenret01 21:09, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are soul runes. However, soul tiaras and soul talismans don't exist in-game. I was pointing out to the unsigned user above me that we have articles on things that are "out of the game". Sailing was pure speculative fantasy, but then Jagex mentioned it several times. It was a fairly large-scale rumor that should have an article. Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 21:20, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Comment That unsigned user was me. And by that logic, Animal Husbandry needs its own page, since it was mentioned by Jagex. There is no comparison between soul talismans and this skill, because we KNOW the talisman is coming thanks to a leak with url fiddling. I think we should put it on the hiscores page and say that it was/is rumoured to be the new skill of 2009.

Comment - doing that and putting it on the hiscores page would remove 90% of the information and make the other 10% speculative and incorrect (as Jagex HAVE SAID, it is not the new skill!!! (which is mentioned in the article)) Chicken7 ^>talk 09:33, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - While you understood the gist, I did not make one thing clear: We should put it in the TRIVIA section. I meant to include that bit. But it would only mention the trick somebody pulled, and so, yes, it would remove most of the content here. But given that most of the 'content' is mere speculation, I don't see it as much of a loss. The Gremlin 15:31, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

I see hardly any speculation, if any. It is all stating Jagex's replies to the major forum activity about the issue, and also stating the major evidence that has been brought forward on the forums, on fansites and in youtube videos (while keeping RS:NPOV in place) Cheers, Chicken7 ^>talk 13:00, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep - Probably the biggest skill rumor/myth in Runescape. It did have some facts to go with it when it was on the high scores. Team6and7 00:51, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

Keep and maybe rewrite. Sailing is a meme, like Rick Roll, Leekspin and Numa Numa. --Muhahaa 10:52, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Keep Although Sailing is not out yet, there are several in-game and forum references to it. Regardless of what the Jagex moderators say, Sailing has been big enough to keep. --Liquidhelium 22:14, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Keep This should not be merged with myth's as it is still a possibilities. Since it is a possibility it should be kept. --Gladenheim 11:32, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

keep a few reasons, first, its still a possibility(a few jag mods even like the idea) 2nd, it was quite a phenominon for a whiel, with facked photos, capes, even that thing on the skills list. 3rd, welll keep kinda really outvotes delete and merge, as its not reallly a glith, and nither is it a legend. and tons of players like the idea of it!(me included)

Comment - OK, I think this discussion has gone on long enough. I know we are not a democracy, but the keeps are now outweighing the deletes and merges. And per RS:CONSENSUS#No_consensus, the status quo prevails in the case of no consensus reached, meaning a keep. I am going to get User:Horsehead to close and archive this, for a bit of experience. Cheers, Chicken7 ^>talk 05:47, December 31, 2009 (UTC) Delete I don't think Sailing is a total fake, but for now, this is just speculation. ~~Signed,Bulbear4444[[File:Slayers respite.gif]]~~ 00:53, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - We should delete this article and make a new talk article called possible new skills, giving sailing a section in it to talk about in it, as well as adding more possible new skills. anyone with me?--Morgan-- 17:20, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Although I like the idea and wish we could have it, the article would be all speculation, which the wiki does not allow. Whereas this article is not speculation. Chicken7 ^>talk 08:56, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Merge. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 09:41, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

Dragon Slayer/Pure's Guide

Merge with Dragon Slayer Why is this an article? There's already a guide for dragon slayer shouldn't anything in this be moved there? Chaos knight 02:20, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Dragon Slayer I read the whole thing and the only difference between the "pure" guide and the normal guide is that the pure uses poisoned iron arrows and waits till the lesser demon and dragon dies of poison rather than fighting it themselves. That one small change does not justfy a second article. Secondly, what pure would do Dragon Slayer? It gives the dreaded DEFENCE XPhttp://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 02:27, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Strong delete and redirect - Doesn't deserve it's own article. The poison method, at best, deserves a brief mention in the main article. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  05:00, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Delete and merge what little content is original and unique to the Dragon Slayer article... in a condensed form as well. I admit that "pure" players (especially F2P pures) may like some pointers on how to accomplish the task of slaying Elvarg and keeping their purity at the same time, but writing a completely separate quest article just for that purpose seems to be a little over the top. I also agree with Psycho... you can hardly be called a pure when you have finished this quest. --Robert Horning 18:13, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Merge Pures follow the same path until the battle, so put it there, their own article is really not necessary (and in my opinion, shows a bit of favoritism to a pure). Bowler225 21:06, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Merge This should be merged with the origanal article and put parenthases or something detonating that this is for pure only.   Ppi802   21:12, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Per everyone. Should Demon Slayer's pure guide and Vampire Slayer's pure guide be deleted too? They're both basically a copy of the main article. --Iiii I I I 21:15, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Put that one up for speedy delete, it's just a shorter version of vampire slayer at least the pures' guide to dragon slayer offers something to be merged. Chaos knight 02:41, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

If it is declared that pure guides like are a good idea, then they will have to be undeleted. I think it is easier to just give those two guides the same fate as the dragon slayer pure guide. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 03:30, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, merely figured since right now they're just copies of the normal articles that they wouldn't be missed much if at all, however your logic makes perfect sense. Chaos knight 04:10, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Merge - Since it's basically the same until the fight, a new page is just useless. Merging would be a better space saver option. ~Muz^Talk 00:53, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Merge or delete - Information is useless, but I'm torn between whether to keep it or just merge. A pure couldn't do dragon slayer anyway, unless it was a defence pure, because it gives Defence experiance as the reward. Zenihdrol 13:08, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

Merge or delete - Just mentioning the information here in the main article would be better, in my opinion. Prgmbeta 04:14, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Maybe mention some of the methods on the main page, but it's not worth its own page. Oil4 ^Talk 22:28, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

Request for closure - Since everyone seems to agree on merging what little can be merged, and deleting the rest. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  05:39, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

Merge Who even created it? It's just weird why didn't the person edit the dragon slayer guide--Snickervmars ^Talk 19:25, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

Delete There really is no point for this article. From what I can see, there is really no reason to keep this article. Maybe just add something along the lines of "If you are a pure, use poison dagger P++, or P++ arrows. Swampflare 16:44, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Merge. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 10:52, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

2009 Christmas event/Glitches

This is a sub-page of the 2009 Christmas event article that for me seems to be simply out of place. I'm not really sure why it was created in the first place, and attempts to raise the issue on the main talk page have been left empty. As a separate page, I fail to see what benefit to this article is made by having essentially a bunch of unverified "facts" be created. Yes, the trivia section of the 2009 Christmas Event article is getting a bit out of hand, but I'm not really sure that this is the best solution to a growing set of trivia either. --Robert Horning 17:45, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom --Robert Horning 17:45, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Delete It dose look very pointless sitting there on it's own -- Chao.Master ^Talk 20:46, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Having to read a list of glitches over and over again gets a little boring. It's even worse when someone creates an entire article for glitches for ONE new feature which gets released. Why was this article even created? it serves no purpose. Zenihdrol 21:53, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Delete/Merge - There definitely shouldn't be a whole article about this. It ought to be merged back into the event's main article, and if size is an issue, then the glitch section can be trimmed back to include only those that are really significant. Morian Smith 23:42, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Merge - Some of the things in here are useful, but it shouldn't be its own page. Merge this into the main article, under a new heading, and weed out the stuff appearing in both this and trivia. Dude 02:13, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

Merge - Its important we preserve this information, as most of it IS verified, perhaps not by Jagex, but its widely known. on the new heading, label unverified until Jagex releases official post we can link to. Whit3wint3r 03:30, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

Merge I think we should merge he article back as on its own it is looking really awkward. —Zazzyo (talk • contribs) forgot to sign this comment on 11:44, December 24, 2009 (UTC).

Merge Doesn't deserve an article, however, much like alot of other articles this could be it's very own section on the Christmas event page. [[File:Staff of armadyl.png]] Chaos knight Talk 16:04, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

Merge - I can't see how having this information hurts, but it should not be in a subpage. I vote to merge it into 2009 Christmas event#Glitches. User:Stelercus/Signature 17:54, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

Merge - Per above. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL ^{Talk - Contribs} 15:00, December 27, 2009 (UTC) 

Comment I am the one that moved it trying to prevent the glitches listed from clogging up the main page. For some reason, the obsession with glitches should not outweigh the article itself. That was the reason for the move. ‎Atlandy 15:42, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

Delete most, merge rest - I don't think we really need to document every single glitch that occurs with an update. Lets just pick the big ones, merge them, and get rid of the rest. Tollerach hates SoF 22:34, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Merge - Put it in a nice new section on the main article. Oil4 ^Talk 20:32, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Keep. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 10:59, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

Water Troll

Delete or Merge As Nominator. I think that this is just a sample, and that's all the article is depicting to me now. If it is to be a 2010/2011 release, it should be Merged with Future updates. If it is a graphics update, I think it should be merged with Sea Troll.~~Signed,Bulbear4444~~ 16:19, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Until we know more, I suggest we keep the article. If it gets released as an official monster then we find that the page has been redirected, it could cause Havoc. Besides, it's quite clearly a water troll, not a sea troll, therefore it's an entirely different monster. Zenihdrol 09:58, January 3, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - It is an article about a to-be-released monster. We probably had an article about Summoning before it was released. We definetely had one about Mobilising Armies. --

Captain Sciz

Talk • Edits • Hiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=

01:03, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Heh. We had it two months early with hundreds of edits before its release. Freaking revert wars all the time back then on that article.--Degenret01 01:23, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Don't make assumptions. I doubt Jagex would waste animator's time on sample models. We don't know what it is, and it should stay here until we do. -- Nightgunner ^Talk 09:38, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - If there has been official acknowledgment of this monster, that's all that needs to be in the article, all else is speculation and should be removed. Tollerach hates SoF 22:38, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Strong keep - Per RS:NIP point 1. I am very strong on making articles about future items. Jagex has confirmed that this is coming. Cheers, Chicken7 ^>talk 09:03, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per Chicken. Ruud ^{(talk)(Suggest me naems)} 09:26, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Keep - Per the reason we had Mobilising Armies, Aquanite and some others up before they were released. Oil4 ^Talk 20:35, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

Only it was specifically stated in guaranteed content polls and Behind the Scenes that they would be released. We have no idea if Jagex ever plan to add Water Troll to the game. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  21:05, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Keep. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 11:11, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

Slang Dictionary (Clean)

- As nominator. Players have been warned the content is offensive at the top of the original page. There is no need to spend loads of effort updating 2 pages.  Lil cloud 9 ^Talk 11:44, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Alot of people don't like looking at rude and vulgar words, also the clean version is there for younger users. Swiz ^{Talk Review Me} 12:00, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose some parents dpn't want ther kids looking at vulgar stuff and I myself don't care for the dirty page.   Ppi802   12:54, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Above. --

Captain Sciz

Talk • Edits • Hiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=

20:22, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Yes they have been warned, however, that doesn't mean this should be deleted, some people don't like seeing this as stated and why should they be left out of knowing what "insert slang here" means because they don't want to see any offensive stuff?  Archmage Elune  ^Talk_HS fetus is my son and I love him. 22:10, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per all. People might want to know what DFS means but not have to scroll through vulgar language. Bowler225 23:18, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose/Keep - per all. this article is there for people who don't want to read all the swearing. Tollerach hates SoF 22:43, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - As Tollerach said, Some people don't want to read swearing. Please remember that 10-11 year old's visit this site aswell. Liam - Beta Tester ^(talk) 09:22, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

Slight Keep - Per all. Can't say I want it to be deleted, but I don't strongly support keeping it either. Oil4 ^Talk 20:36, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Keep.

Money making guide/Firemaking

There is no way to make money firemaking in F2P. The idea of collecting ashes to make money is so bad, it really shouldn't even be mentioned. Other than saying "you can't make money firemaking" this article serves no purpose.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wildy Medic (talk) on 02:07, 26 October 2009.

Delete - As you said, you can't make money. Depending on the price of ashes, they can be slightly profitable for low level accounts, but that doesn't involve firemaking though. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 02:11, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Delete (see later reply) - There is no ways to make money through Firemaking in free worlds. Ash collecting is already located under collecting. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 06:53, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Keep/Neutral - Hmmm, I'm not sure. It is true it can be pretty pointless to have the article, as there isn't much to put. But, every skill has an article, so should Firemaking, imho. A player might think "now I have a high firemaking level, lets earn some money!" They'll come here looking for a firemaking moneymaking article and there is none. But at this stage, I'm undecided. Cheers, Chicken7 ^>talk 06:54, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - It's absurd to think you can make more money from Ashes than you do buying logs. You'll get a return, but not much of one, whatever type of log you use. Zenihdrol 22:10, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Per everyone. --Iiii I I I 22:13, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - LOL Making cash from firemaking let me take something from a ad from nz

Yea right

Tui beer ad

Twig Talk https://i.imgur.com/772kZGs.png 22:15, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - What about Pyre ships?  @Gaz#7521 22:25, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Members, maybe. And Pyre ships are part of barbarian training. Zenihdrol 22:26, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Since the skill guides are representing all of the skills, it is a good thing to keep this guide "complete" in terms of showing all skills. Yes, I will admit that firemaking is mostly a money losing skill (or at least revenue neutral), the two methods listed are some ways to earn money via the firemaking skill (well, sort of). Being zero star opportunities is very appropriate, although I will admit that setting up fires on Karamja is one way to at least earn some modest amounts of money for an enterprising player. Exchanging a fire for a load of fish (aka tuna) is certainly one way a low-level player could earn some money at least. My keep is out of completeness rather than anything in particular. --Robert Horning 00:09, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

But Agility is not represented, nor should it be. Tollerach hates SoF 18:15, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

I don't think lighting fires on Karamja can count as using firemaking to make money. The method is far too dependant on players being willing to trade fish for fire to be "firemaking" in my mind. That method could be put into "other" however. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 18:53, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - I have changed to keep since Robert has thought of a possible way making money. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 10:04, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - I'm sorry, but this article is a stretch at best. I can't see anyone seriously attempting these methods as a way of moneymaking. This article just looks like a waste of space. If there was a decent way to make money off of FM fine, but I don't see one here. Tollerach hates SoF 18:12, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Firemaking can be and actually is used for making money, even in f2p! Just go to Karamja and "sell" fires. Not a very good way to make money for higher levels, but great for starters. Oil4 ^Talk 09:35, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - how about we just say the words "You can't." on the page? I think we should keep it and add in the "selling fires" bit, just for the sake of having a way to make money with just about every skill. It might not be a good way to make money, but it is possible. Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 11:53, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

Why make a page about making money just to say you can't make money. It could be said on the main moneymaking page.--Wildy Medic 02:31, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - This article is horrible. It is a very slow way of making money, and it really shouldn't even be attempted. BUT every other skill has a page, which is the only reason I say keep.

Killert365^HS

07:16, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

not true, agility doesn't have a page and P2P Smithing doesn't have a page. Plus keeping this page just because every other skill has a page isn't a very good reason to keep. --Wildy Medic 04:06, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

Pay to play Smithing does have a guide. Agility doesn't however.  @Gaz#7521 18:13, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is a very good reason if you read Robert and I's points. What if a player has trained firemaking real high and is looking for a way to put it to use? And I think we should recreate the Agility guide. Cheers, Chicken7 ^>talk 08:39, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

But there is no way to put his firemaking lvl to good use. Everything mentioned in this article can be done at lvl 1. If anything this article misleads someone into thinking you can make money firemaking. -- Wildy Medic 02:31, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Then, at the least, but a huge banner on the top not recommending using firemaking to make money. Cheers, Chicken7 ^>talk 01:50, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

This point has been bugging me. There are ways to earn coins from Agility (the Agility Pyramid, Brimhaven Agility Arena, and a few others), so there is a point to a guide about Agility as a skill as well. As a rationale for why Firemaking as a skill needs to be singled out as something which can't make money doesn't make sense.... when some methods are presented that do work. --Robert Horning 17:13, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Pointless, who makes fires just to sell the ashes? And as for the selling fires thing I highly doubt you'd get very much money doing this if at all as some people will happily make fires for free and people will just use that fire instead. Only way to make fire making is on P2P (with pyreships and shade/vyre corpses) and this articles about f2p. Chaos knight 05:52, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

In fairness, I have seen ash collecting at the Grand Exchange as something with some real competition. When ashes hit 80 coins each (it did happen), there certainly were players who made fires just to sell ashes. Even now, the GE price of ashes is 95 coins each is something that is greater than the price of a willow log... currently at 248 coins. In other words, you can make a real and genuine profit from burning logs. Maybe not the fastest or easiest way to make money, but it can happen. Collecting ashes from fires burned at the GE is something that is useful to earn just a few more coins rather than begging your way to a couple thousand coins from another player out of raw charity. --Robert Horning 17:13, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Delete per all. Or put it in the trivia section of the Firemaking article. User:C Teng/sig 22:37, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - just because it is slightly informative doesn't mean it sould be deleted.   Ppi802   22:07, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Delete There is no way to make money with fm so delete it  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fllour (talk) on 17:08, December 3, 2009 (UTC).

Neutral Hmm...well it is pretty pointless, it definitley should go if theres nothing there that actually makes money out of it. Unless someone can actually add something to it that makes money then it should stay.

Delete On a money making guide I made for my clan... under firemaking, Keep praying :), as per this article if you want it to remain. Firemaking has no clear cut money making method. Bowler225 02:04, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Keep i think with a little makeover on it we can show a way of making some money through firemaking, that and you would lose the joy of having a MMG for every skill in F2P. --Morgan--

What ways can you make money with Firemaking? User:C Teng/sig 22:07, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Ash collecting is not Firemaking, so shouldn't that be taken off? {{{{{1}}}}} 22:14, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - A guide on how to sit at GE and collect ashes to make like 5k per hour just degrades how we look. That just makes us look like some kind of noob fansite :| User:Lil diriz 77/Signatures 01:31, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Corresponds to P2P Firemaking money-making guide. Deleting would just be biased. --Fruit.Smoothie 04:32, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

Delete Moneymaking guides should be about making money not how to get a return of practically nothing that uses a lot of time for not a lot of money. {{Gladenheim}} 00:03, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Per Fruit Smoothie. BTW, collecting ashes is tedious and boring. • NnK Oliver • ^(600613) _talk 05:07, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

Closed - Following the arguments, I've decided to close it as a keep because the guide does list some genuine money making methods, as well as for the sake of consistency (having F2P and P2P money making guides). C.Chiam^Talk 13:49, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete and move Template:Cquote2 there.

Template:Quote

This template does the same thing that Template:Cquote2 does, so I think it should be redirected there. User:C Teng/sig 14:25, January 16, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to Template:Cquote2 as nominator. User:C Teng/sig 14:25, January 16, 2010 (UTC)

Comment Wouldn't it make more sense to redirect cquote2 to quote? It is simpler and easier to remember. AEIB^rwojy 14:29, January 16, 2010 (UTC)

I guess. I just thought that Cquote2 was used more. Which one is better, do you think? User:C Teng/sig 14:34, January 16, 2010 (UTC)

Which one is used more really isn't important. But anyway, I think there two options:

1. We can take the stuff from quote, the documentation and such, and move it to cquote2, also cleaning up that page in the process.
2. We can take the code from cquote2, as it is neater, and overwrite quote with it, and also add an <ref> </ref> example.

I have no real preference, except that I think typing quote is simpler and easier to remember than typing cquote2. CJUGKV^rwojy 15:01, January 16, 2010 (UTC)

We should replace the ^[src] with just a ref tag^[1]. We don't have articles for every source in the wiki, like specific forum threads. User:C Teng/sig 03:45, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

...Or have both (src optional). Example:

I'm not sure how you could confuse ME with anyone!

Mandrith, Bounty Hunter

^[1] User:C Teng/sig 03:49, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, but we still need to decide which one to redirect. Honestly, though, I don't think a vfd was necessary for this, you coulda just posted on the talkpage. VZOQY^rwojy 03:54, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

Well, when I created this I thought we'd be deleting it. Should we redirect Cquote2 to Quote, then? User:C Teng/sig 04:30, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

That's good, but if you are going to do it, copy the code from cquote2 and paste it over thew quote code, as the cquote2 code is more consistent with other templates. But deleting isn't a possibility, because it is transcluded on many pages, not substituted, because that would put some code on the page that most wouldn't understand. TNRLLML^rwojy 04:40, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, done. User:C Teng/sig 22:01, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I support deleting Quote and then moving Template:Cquote2 to Quote. CQuote2 seems to be the most often used quote template. Veritas vos Liberabit 14:59, January 16, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Template:Quote has been deleted, and Template:Cquote2 has been moved there. User:C Teng/sig 22:01, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Use Muzzy's template. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 01:36, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

Template:UnsignedIP

This template isn't much different from Template:Unsigned, and isn't even mentioned on RuneScape:Signatures. User:C Teng/sig 17:51, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect to Template:Unsigned Keep as nominator per Chicken7. User:C Teng/sig 17:51, December 31, 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect - Didn't even know that was there and there is no point to it... Pretty much the same as regular unisgned but more pointless. http://i698.photobucket.com/albums/vv341/Rwojy/scoot4.pngscooties 17:56, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

Changed to Keep - per Chicken's comment bellow. http://i698.photobucket.com/albums/vv341/Rwojy/scoot4.pngscooties 18:35, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

• Merge - I use it all the time when I see a user who hasn't signed in, forgot to sign a comment (naturally) but I suppose the two templates could serve the same purpose. Zenihdrol 18:47, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - How do you merge them ? http://i698.photobucket.com/albums/vv341/Rwojy/scoot4.pngscooties 18:51, December 31, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I have no idea. LOL Sorry, I was tired. I mean Redirect. Zenihdrol 00:46, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

You don't need a vote for this man, just go ahead and do it since it makes sense.--Degenret01 01:09, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

Well, they've been doing it at Wikipedia for a long time, so I wasn't sure if there was some point to it. User:C Teng/sig 01:12, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

Putitng the IP addy in for the name will do all the same links right? If so then its just an extra template. No harm in your VFD though.--Degenret01 01:18, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - No, they are different! The normal "User" one is in this format:

• "Userpage" (talk) (contribs) ... "date"

The "IP" specialised one:

• "Contribs" (talk) "date"

IP addresses do not have Userpages, so there will be a lot of red links to pages that wouldn't/shouldn't be created. When you see a linked IP address it is usually always to their contribution page. I rest my case. Cheers, Chicken7 ^>talk 02:51, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I tried my hand at making some sort of template that will work for both users and IPs, and it can be found at my sandbox. Unfortunately, it uses expensive parser function {{#ifexist:}} two times. Which, in a short page, isn't much of a problem. When we get to larger talk pages, it may exceed the amount allowed, and all will return false, which is the result for IPs. Wikia can change the allowed amount in our files. If any way of doing this would work without using expensive parser functions, please feel free to change the coding around in my sandbox. ~Muz^Talk 04:22, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

After changing it around, I got the parser function count to one. I also just made a test of this with ten different usernames with their userpage made. All ten returned as the true string. ~Muz^Talk 02:24, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

I think thats an acceptable compromise. We're allowed to use 100 expensive parsers on a page (you can view the number used by viewing the page source (Page → View Source in IE, View → Source or Ctrl+U in many other browsers), and searching (Ctrl+F) for Expensive parser function which only appears once in the page). Its not exactly often that the there's 100 unsigned IP comments on a page, and if there is we can manually add the links (substing if needs be) or just let it return false (though then page'd be added to Category:Pages with too many expensive parser function calls).  @Gaz#7521 15:01, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support Muzzy's template - What a great idea. I say that, when it is finished, we should use Muzzy's template. Oil4 ^Talk 20:34, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Is there a reason Wikipedia hasn't done this yet? User:C Teng/sig 21:48, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but the template is ready anytime it is wanted. ~Muz^Talk 01:43, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Consensus already achieved on respective talk page. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 01:40, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

Dr Nabanik

Merge with Azzanadra For going on 2 months it has had the merge tag on it and it's getting nowhere, as stated in the merge discusion the 2 NPCs are one in the same Dr Nabanik only has 1-2 frames of diolouge and than reveals himself as azzandra. Anyways it'd be nice if the merge could get along with it already even if the result is to keep. See Talk:Dr Nabanik for the merge discusion. [[File:Staff of armadyl.png]] Chaos knight Talk 17:54, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

I think that consensus had been reached on the talk page about the merge. Eveyrone seems hesitant to merge it since it is quiet complicated (Azza is lower quality article written in a different format, so one of the two pages will have to be rewritten for them to merge smoothly.) and it is quiet a high-traffic page since he is the main character in the high-profile The Temple at Senntisten quest. I might ask Morian if he wants to do it since he excels at history pages touch-up and rewritings. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 01:58, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was No consensus.

File:Black party hat.PNG

[[File:Black party hat.PNG|left|frame]] I think this should be deleted per the non-existent item because its fake. Not real. All it'd do is confuse players into thinking that there actually was a black party hat at one time or another. Would we shop a hypothetical dragon kiteshield and put it up? http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 01:29, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Weak delete - Per Psycho. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  01:39, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Weak delete - However, it might work if we put a caption on it saying that it's fake/an artist's rendering/a party hat colored black on MS Paint. Besides, if someone reads the article they wouldn't be confused. But, since it would be weird to have images of most other nonexistant items (the exceptions being the soul tiara and talisman since those images were on the website via URL manipulation), I think this one should go. Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 02:09, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep - If only due to the number of pages that use/link to this image. It won't confuse players at all, and it isn't being used as a vanity/personal image in the least. We already covered the topic of this image as an article.... which has already been merged into the more general party hat article. This is a highly sourced rumor/myth/legend and is something of note that also fits with RS:IAR. For the most part I agree that non-existent items should be deleted, but this is clearly an exception that proves the rule rather than the target of something that should go. --Robert Horning 08:23, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I really think that's absurd. Its fake. No one ever saw this image until someone posted it on the wiki. Furthermore, its 100% speculation. Its what someone thought a black partyhat might have looked like, but anyone who remembers the Grim reaper hood knows that Jagex's idea of "black" doesn't always truck with everyone else's. A hypothetical image showing what an item which never existed might have looked like is about the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen defended. And surely you're not going to tell me that we should keep it just because its used a lot? Do you know why its used a lot? Because its used someone's signature! So by changing the signature page, we'll get rid of almost all the uses. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 17:19, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Strong keep - Per Robert. Oil4 ^Talk 15:01, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Per Oli. bad_fetus^talk 15:05, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Though a notice that it's fake should be added to the description page. Tedjuh10 (Talk) 17:37, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Weak delete - per Psycho. Cheers, Chicken7 ^>talk 05:13, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Per Psycho. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 07:20, November 12, 2009 (UTC)

Stong delete - Can only serve to confuse people that dont read the article properly. -- Mercifull ^(Talk) 09:11, November 12, 2009 (UTC)

Delete per Mercifull. Or, as the section speculates, take a red partyhat and turn the brightness down. But that's not really necessary. User:C Teng/sig 16:10, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Per Psycho • NnK Oliver • ^(600613) _talk 16:13, November 15 2009 (UTC)

Delete Per above. By turning down my contrast on my computer..I can make a black fire rune. Should that get a page? ‎Atlandy 22:23, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Per Robert Dindirindin!!! 16:29, November 16 2009 (UTC)

Neutral - Both Psycho and Robert bring up very good points, so I'm going to stay neutral here. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  18:49, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - If this is kept maybe we should all just draw randomly non-existent items and upload them (Sarcasm if you can't tell) this has as much of a right to be here as a theoretical picture of say..a dragon war hammer.. come to think of it I take that back the dragon war hammer would have more of a right to be here, it might exist one day, jagex itself stated there will be no more party hats and as this never existed there shouldn't be a picture of it. Chaos knight 08:00, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Strong delete - All this image does is to confuse people who read the article (including me), making us believe at first glance that a nonexistant item existed at some point...which is confusing enough already.  Lil cloud 9 ^Talk 18:28, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Strong keep - It did use to be real once, it's historical!!! Don't we have a template for that?? Tehnoobshow101 16:40, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

Eh, it never was real. It's an urban legend. Oil4 ^Talk 10:04, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, the image is fake, made in photoshop or something. Cheers, Chicken7 ^>talk 13:34, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Strong delete  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fllour (talk) on 17:05, December 3, 2009 (UTC).

Strong keep The image may be faked, but it's a good fake, and makes the point better.

Strong delete - It's a personal image imo. A person made it themselves, and it has never existed, therefore is it non existant, and it is a personal image. It should simply be deleted. User:Lil diriz 77/Signatures 01:22, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Strong keep As per Robert. --Liquidhelium 14:38, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

Delete There are very clearly no plans for this, and it does not and did not exist. Its like Sailing. Just Speculation~~Signed,Bulbear4444~~ 16:09, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Because its a fake, not an image of RS but of someone's paint skillz (this probably didnt even need photoshop). Tollerach hates SoF 20:17, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

DELETE - It's 100% fake Frede^Talk 20:19, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I would like to note that this image may in fact be from the game. The article about the black phat says that if one would have a red phat and then put their brightness on the lowest setting, it would appear black. So this may be from the game. Oil4 ^Talk 20:28, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

"An image of a hypothetical black party hat". Hypothetical, so it isn't from the game. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 09:25, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

I hate to say that changing brightness on a monitor won't work like that. Even if a monitor is set to having reds look like blacks, if a screenshot is taken, it would still look red on any normally-set screen. Chiafriend12Loon is best buttlord 05:28, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was No consensus. C.Chiam^Talk 07:57, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

SwiftKit

Previous VfD: RuneScape:Votes for deletion/SwiftKit/Archive1

I strongly believe this article should be deleted. First of all, this article is little more than a brochure for SwiftKit as it is written. The vast majority of content is information about the product, and not about how it relates to RuneScape. Secondly, it is no longer as helpful as it once was. Most of the features which made it useful have been put into the game proper. Third, and most importantly, SwiftKit is not part of RuneScape nor the Runescape Wiki. Its completely independent and should therefore not be covered in such excruciating detail. Is it "the best"? Completely opinion driven, and that argument has no place in an encyclopedia. Is it the most used? That's impossible to prove.

I am not suggesting that all mention of SwiftKit be irradiated from the Wiki. "SwiftKit" should be redirected to Riot, and more specifically (when the Riot article is cleaned up), the "Rule 7 Protest". But what if someone comes here wanting to learn about SwiftKit, you ask? They type "SwiftKit" in the search box and wind up at the Rule 7 Protest section. If that's not enough, they can google it. Its not our duty to make sure that everyone knows about every program made for RuneScape. If we talk about one, we'd have to talk about them all. If you still vote to keep the actual SwiftKit article, please consider whether the information on the article is really suitable for the Wiki, or whether it should be stripped down to cover only the historical context, without all the "advertisment" stuff.

Merge to Riots - As nom. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 03:12, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Support merge Many players have been banned for using SK, since there was a miscommunication between Jagex and Players, there was a Riot. -- Monstermas22 03:15, November 24, 2009 (UTC) (forgot to sign)

Support merge - For reasons Psycho mentioned. Ruud ^{(talk)(Suggest me naems)} 03:18, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - It serves as an important memorabilia of Runescape's very own history, therefore, I do not think it would be wise to remove this article, as it serves a purpose other than for third-party promotion. People should know more about "behind-the-scenes" features of and related to Runescape's background. Many people don't even know what SwiftKit is in the first place. Let there be knowledge. --Fruit.Smoothie 03:20, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - We are voting for a Merge with Riot, not deleting the article. Ruud ^{(talk)(Suggest me naems)} 03:22, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I see no purpose in merging it with the Riot article. It's an individual article entailing individual needs, it's used by the community at large, and there is no rule whatsoever that states that Runescape Wiki cannot contain non-Runescape affiliated information/articles.

I really do hope that the article is kept in its original state, as it's better off staying that way than being merged to a totally irrelevant article such as Riot. I don't see how a riot would have anything to do with SwiftKit, unless you're talking about the Rule 7 Protest, which is insignificant. Besides, the article has already been rewritten several times to adjust to the neutrality concensus policy of Wikia.--Fruit.Smoothie 03:27, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Merge into Riot (edit conflict 3 times in a row...) I predict a massive riot coming the way of this thread. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 03:30, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Keep I would like to redirect SwiftKit, not merge it, to Riot, as this would have both benefits of the doubt. --Fruit.Smoothie 03:31, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Redirect means that you want to delete the entire article, replacing it with a redirect to the Riots page. I feel that this is not what you mean. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 03:37, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Merge to Riots - For reasons outlined above. Star Find 03:35, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Redirect would be much better than Merge, seeing as how it would still have relevance to the original article. --Fruit.Smoothie 03:47, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Merge to Riots - Just as RS:PDDA covers players, we should not give programs articles as well. Another factor is that it is written without a RS:NPOV. This client does not deserve an article, nor do any other clients/programs/etc. Per Psycho. Ryan PM 03:55, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Keep it When I say SwiftKit, this includes previous incarnations ie SwiftSwitch. Firstly, there is no reason to delete it, its not advertisement or a brochure. If you can find any part that isn't factual in the article please show me. It is information on an important feature of the RuneScape game. SwiftKit, no matter how much above users may wish it is a part of RuneScape. Many historical evens have happened in result of SwiftKit. Its not a brochure, we have all that information on our site. Psycho Robot says "The vast majority of content is information about the product" what do you expect its a wiki entry about SwiftKit, you don't go to the cooking wiki page and expect information about farming do you? Yes it does have context of how it relates too RuneScape, whatever gives you the idea that it doesn't.

It should NOT be merged into the riot, the riot topic is about something that SwiftKit as an entity was not associated with. It also doesn't make logical sense, merging a topic about a specific client, with something about a rule. They're two different topics, why would you merge them.

"If that's not enough, they can google it." on that premise you could delete the whole wiki, oh, we don't need a farming topic, they can read about it on the skills page and if thats not enough they can google it.

It doesn't matter the opinions on whether which client is better or not, SwiftKit is the most popular and is more commonplace.

There is no "advertisement" stuff, it is an analytical list, advertisement would contain opinions and appealing attention grabbing content. For example if I stated how many downloads to date it has have, or if I say if its so many times faster.

I would like to say again SWIFKIT IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH AND IN GAME 'RIOTING' The 'riots' if you want to call them that were about the rule change, not SwiftKit.

Swiftkit is also not associated with RuneScape or the RuneScape Wiki. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 04:25, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

It has no official association with RuneScape, but its associated in the sense that you use it to play RuneScape. Thats what an association is; isn't it, a connection between two things... Your argument there, RuneScape has nothing todo with the RuneScape wiki, does that mean everything has to be deleted, because it has no association with the wiki? SwiftKit-Zanith 05:00, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

SwiftKit being the most "popular" is pure speculation. If I added to the Hill Giants page that they were the most popular free monster, then it would be removed very quickly even though it is probably true.

The analogy that you use seems to hinder more then help your argument. If you went to the cooking page, you would hope that there is a section showing how farming relates to cooking without advertising what you can do with farming. You would want to hear "you can grow your own baked potatoes, which can then be cooked using cooking", not "you can make spirit trees from spirit tree seeds at level 85. Farming is also a skill requirement for While Guthix Sleeps". _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 05:02, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Well then, according to Psycho Robot, then the farming page isn't needed to, you can get all the information from the cooking page, and the rest you can just google it. I thought that what wikia was, for information. SwiftKit being most popular is not speculation, we toggle download counts and provide them, this system isn't don't fraudulently as can be verified by multiple people let alone myself. If more people are downloading it, then doesn't that make it the most popular?

Ok, so lets put it this way, if somebody was coming looking for information about RuneScape clients, yes clients for the RuneScape game. They came here seeing as its a RuneScape wikia. Now, its not advertisement having the article there, it serves no advertisement purpose. If we wanted to advertise, there is a big square at the side where we could advertise. I implore you, find one part of the article which isn't factual. Please, tell me, what part of the article would you deem as an advertisement, please look up the definition first hand. I'd understand if you wanted to merge it with a 'Third Party Client' article, but to delete information completely, or to merge it to something which has nothing todo with it makes utter nonsense. SwiftKit-Zanith 05:22, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

I think that you are interpreting Psycho's google comment the wrong way. The wiki should try to include as much information as possible if it directly relating to RuneScape. If you wanted to know about Monty Python, you would only come here to see how Monty Python directly effected RuneScape (ergo, the references in-game), not the storyline of Monty Python and the Holy Grail which would require you to look elsewhere. It is the same as SwiftKit; you would only come here to see how it has effected RuneScape directly (the rule seven riot), not what you can do with SwiftKit.

While "popular" is pure speculation, most visited is a slightly different. If you want to call it the most visited fansite, then you would have to find a reliable, unbiased source which also had the information of other competing programs which would be cited after you state it. If you don't do this, then the claim would be pure speculation.

Now what do I consider an ad for swiftkit?? The intro, about and gallery sections are all advertisements since they only talks about the program itself and what it can do, not the effects it had on RuneScape. The "Does SwiftKit Break the Rules" section is a bit dodgy. While It doesn't break any rules, Jagex thoroughly recommend that players don't down load it along with any other 3rd party software. (I heard a J mod say this yesterday on the forums) This would need to be added for it to really be neutral.

If someone wanted to look for Swiftkit, they would have to look the same place as famous players and clans. By allowing say an article on Zezima, we would in extension allow an article on so many non-noteworthy topics to have pages made about them that it is just best to cord the whole area off and say it is out of bounds. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 06:40, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Keep Theres no point in merging it with somthing else.Its great on its own-- User:Dmck2b 08:04, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Keep Remove anything too adertising about it though. --Degenret01 08:48, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Merge with riot if anything remotely advertising is removed otherwise delete, however, if kept perhaps a policy not to make articles about third party software, unless needed specifically, should be added, I mean what's stopping articles about programs being added right now? Nothing; and there should be otherwise what's stopping people making wiki one big advertisement for programs? Even java doesn't have an article. Chaos knight 09:07, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Keep and certainly don't merge with something that has absolutely nothing to do with Riots, protests, or other similar kinds of player protests. Yes, there were players that were upset when Jagex went through a phase of banning all 3rd party software, mention of that software, and became upset about any 3rd party software.... heck became upset at 3rd party websites like even the RS Wiki. Perhaps this is the reason why it is suggested to be merged with riots and protests? BTW, Jagex later apologized and took a softer stance against 3rd party software, and in particular gave explicit guidelines over "legal" 3rd party software that could be used with the Runescape client.

The rationale given for deleting this article, that many of the features of this software has been incorporated into the regular client interface, is IMHO some rationale for keeping this article as well. It is explicitly due to this software that motivated the Jagex developers to incorporate some of its features into the game. If software like this can motivate Jagex on this level, it seems like an excellent point to find out what drove Jagex to make those features. Just like the GEMW pushed Jagex into making the GE Database (there was nothing like the GEMW on any other fan website), there have been other player-driven changes to the game as well. It is unfortunate that Jagex steals ideas from things like Swiftkit and elsewhere and does not give credit to those sources of inspiration. For me, that makes preserving an article about the source of inspiration like this all that much more important, as if we don't keep track of that background, who will? Jagex isn't keeping track of the history of this game, so that falls on our shoulders here on this wiki and for other fan websites. --Robert Horning 17:31, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Keep, rewrite. - Although not part of RuneScape in itself, it is still allowed to be used instead of the RuneScape Client, downloadable on the RuneScape website. When it was named SwiftSwitch, it was banned because it unfairly allowed players to world-hop quickly, which was against Jagex's standards. However, it was renamed SwiftKit and is now kept in compliance with Jagex, aswell as having many of the features players would otherwise not use on the RuneScape website. Alot of players I know use Swiftkit and to me, it's officially become part of RuneScape, albeit unofficially. All of this information pretty much says that this article deserves to be kept. It's a part of RuneScape history. Merging this article with Riot is just absurd, in my opinion. If the context of the article bothers you, re-write it so it becomes less of an advertisement and more of an informational + historical article. Zenihdrol 17:39, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Merge - It doesn't really deserve an article. Oil4 ^Talk 18:03, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Neutral - But if you're going to merge it, don't merge it with riot. Rioting has extremely little to do with SwiftKit. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  20:47, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

Keep Swiftkit is such a big part of the game for so many players, and goes beyond the comparisons of famous players. It has had an impact on the game and how many other tools/fansites have done that?--Varthlokkur 00:44, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Keep I don't really see why you want to merge it with riots, they're two entirely different subjects. Swiftswitch is an important part of rs and its history, and it's different from other 3rd party software because it has had an impact on the game, and Jagex cared about it enough to make a newspost about it. Mortyst 15:45, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Comment The reason I suggested merging it with Riot was because the riot was the only historically significant event related to SwiftKit that was currently documented on the Wiki. If anyone has any other suggestions as to where it should be merged, then say it, but I don't think the current article should stand, as it is nothing more but an extended product description. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 21:37, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - but rewrite it to have it more focus on how it has effected RuneScape. SwiftKit is much too significant to be transformed as a sub-note to an article. --Zpoon 01:16, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

Keep This has cleared up alot of things about this which i have heard, also i agree it is part of runescapes history --Onmjoey245 19:16, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

Total tallies so far...

• Keeps: 10
• Merge into riot: 8
• Neutrality: 2
• Comments: a lot

We are not a democracy, we don't base decisions on the number of votes, but the strength of arguments.  @Gaz#7521 21:28, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Keep, rewrite - I think it deserves its own article. If we have to merge it, we should create an article for programs like it. Merging it into the riot article doesn't make that much sense. It'd be like, if on wikipedia, people merged George W. Bush with stupidity. A lot of people associate the two, and they received a lot of notoriety for it, but they're not the same things. Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 20:55, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Not merge with riot - (Ha, there's an interesting vote.) That's like merging Rune scimitar with Player killing. But otherwise, keep. It's notable, and per what others have said. There's no way to go around that. Chiafriend12Loon is best buttlord 22:10, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - If we are to keep this, then why not add Tip.It's Microhelper or RuneHQ's RuneScape Toolkit? While these you may have never heard of, they also enhance RuneScape gameplay as an addon or as a browser oriented tool. Both of these are legal as well, yet do they deserve an article? No. If we were to allow SK to keep an article, don't all other programs for RuneScape deserve one? As my views go, the most it needs is to be mentioned in the appropriate articles it dealt with (the old rules of RuneScape 1 and 15). The point, only the Windows client needs an article, however small it is. If we are to keep the SK article, would you add the RuneScape Model Viewer as an article do to it being mentioned by a Jagex Moderator and discussed by the Wiki community? (I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes here) Ryan PM 08:02, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

Merge into a new page - Why not merge this into a page that documents all major add-on kits and common add-on features? We could give it a subsection entirely about SK if needed. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  05:24, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - This has nothing no do with riot. Telos has a good Idea I think how ever. Team6and7 18:11, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

Keep Riots? Honestly... were talking about a program, sure Rule 7 caused a riot, but it was RULE 7, not SwiftKit. If one was to merge it, merging with riots sounds a bit preposterous. I agree with Telos. Bowler225 02:11, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Keep Bluesonic had the good idea about putting Tip.It, and stuff like that on a page with it. I don't think we should get rid of it

Strong Keep It has somthing to do with runescape and people use it. Also why merge it with riots? The page itself has nothing to do with riots. User:Supawilko/SkillSupawilko

Keep Supawilko is right, II think we should keep it --Lilninjabro6^Talk 21:12, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

Keep I found this article very helpful when finding out what SwiftKit was and wether it was against the rules of Runescape or not. I would not like to see it deleted, and I vote keep, as per Bowler225. -- ile:Runecrafter hat.png Helm360 ^Talk_hiscore 10:45, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Merging into the riot article doesn't make much sense to me. SwiftKit is a significant part of RS history and deserves its own article. Any NPOV issues could easily be dealt with by editing the page, that's no reason to delete the entire article. Tollerach hates SoF 4:10 pm, Today (UTC−6)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete. C.Chiam^Talk 08:05, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

File:Detailed Dfh.png

[[File:Detailed Dfh.png|thumb|left]] Simply put, I don't see any way that an image of this quality could be produced from in-game sources. As such I think its something from the RSMV or something like that. I've posted on the original uploader's talk page asking where he got it, but have received no reply. I'm not sure if this really is an RSMV file, so I've posted here to see what other people think.

Delete - as nom. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 21:30, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

Pending - I can only support this if it is an RSMV image, as it is a high quality image. I would give the uploader a few more days to respond before jumping to conclusion. User:Stelercus/Signature 21:34, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - The high resolution and the, um, rough shading make the image really suspicious. Inhaps ^talk 21:52, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delete, replace with detailed GEMW image - It is not from the GEMW page, so I don't see how it is possible to get this any other way. On all other pages that have the detailed image in the top corner it is taken from the GEMW. To make it fit in, we probably should replace it with a gemw image. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 00:18, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - I just have no idea how you get an image like that, as I'm pretty sure you can't just take a screenshot in-game... It's fishy... --

Captain Sciz

Talk • Edits • Hiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=

02:04, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Assume good faith for the win. It is a heck of a nice shot.--Degenret01 05:48, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Too big to be an in-game image. wat --Iiii I I I 02:07, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - It CAN be an in game image. As a video creator, I know how it can be created. You zoom in your browser like... a lot, and you get highly detailed images of RuneScape. It wont pixelate the game, the game assumes you are running at a MUCH higher resolution. So no, its not too big to be an in game image. In fact, EVERY image can be made more detailed via the same method I just stated. Bowler225 03:07, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

What browser do you use? I use Firefox and the max zoom is, at the most, about 2x zoom. Nowhere near the 10x+ that this image appears to have. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 04:55, December 20, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Of course my opinion on the RSMV has been abundantly made in the appropriate forum thread, but in this case I can name a few potential ways that this image may have been created using the standard user client interface. I'm not saying that it would be easy or guaranteeing that this image was taken from the user client interface (suspicion that it came from a model viewer is possible), but that shouldn't be the only criteria here. To me, it seems sad that a high quality image is being rejected merely on suspicion that it came from an "illegal" software package. Yes, "illegal" is in quotes because... I've said my piece on that elsewhere, but suffice it to say it isn't really illegal either. --Robert Horning 07:17, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep - Per Robert. Also, isn't this simply a chathead? What's wrong with that? ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  19:04, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

It can't be the chathead since chatheads don't go this large. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 05:52, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - I am personally a video maker, and for your information, a video would have nothing to do with an image like this; editing software is good at putting videos together, not creating a new... thing. If anything, it is probably photoshop. Now, as for my argument, we don't know whether or not this actually was created or not; there are some points in the game where the camera gets glitchy, so maybe it's that -- http://i1016.photobucket.com/albums/af290/porp109/sig1.png Spam me w/ lolcats Is <insert name here> awesome? I don't know, let me check... 18:17, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Fishy, very fishy. This image seems to have been obtained my means other than taken in-game. It's a nice image I'll admit, but it's not our own work. Zenihdrol 01:17, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Big head is big. And how can it be from the game? --Nup^(T) 12:36, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - There is a glitch that allows you to see a highly close up view of another player around the blurite ice caves. This could be a result of that. User:Stelercus/Signature 13:09, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

Neutral leaning to delete - I wanna say delete...however if the poster says he got it in a legitimate way keep it. [[File:Staff of armadyl.png]] Chaos knight Talk 16:02, December 24, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Watch this vid, it actually shows a DFH closeup http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JQoXy-BS3s&feature=sub -- http://i1016.photobucket.com/albums/af290/porp109/sig1.png Spam me w/ lolcats Is <insert name here> awesome? I don't know, let me check... 23:07, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Porp1! Now you've made it certain that File:Detailed Dfh.png is a RSMV image. Shine AND texture! You can't get such a close-up without HD texture and shine. Well, You could argue that it was made in SD, but that image was made before RuneTek 5. Since the image can be replaced by a legit one, it's no big deal for it to be deleted. Inhaps ^talk 12:08, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

(Speedy) Delete - RSMV image. Oil4 ^Talk 22:30, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Sounds like this is an RSMV image. Tollerach hates SoF 22:22, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Merge. C.Chiam^Talk 07:40, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

Free-to-play Runecrafting training --- sub articles

While I'm not necessarily complaining about Free-to-play Runecrafting training, this nomination is in regards to "sub-articles" to this main training guide:

• Free-to-play Runecrafting training/Fire altar
• Free-to-play Runecrafting training/Air altar
• Free-to-play Runecrafting training/Tables

I have considered merging them into the main "parent" article and simply deleting them, but I consider the information in these sub-pages to be simply obsolete and hopeless of salvation in terms of the quality of the information compared to what is now in the main guide. These pages have also been orphans as nothing really even links to these pages and will rarely even be seen by players searching for this information except on a full-wiki search for content. This also accounts for the general dated material here, and what appears to be some very old vandalism as well (teleporting to Falador for crafting Fire runes).

If there is some use for this information not already supplied in the main training guide, I'm certainly open to merging that in or considering some additions to the main training guide as well. I just don't see any value for keeping these backwater pages on this wiki when nobody is using them or keeping them up to date. --Robert Horning 18:04, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Merge Table article is the only thing I'm iffy on, other than that everything else could easily be merged without much hassle. On top of which it's out of it's very out of date as the air one alone still acts as if the air altar is in Falador. [[File:Staff of armadyl.png]] Chaos knight Talk 22:27, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Per Robert. Seems useless. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  23:12, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Merge+delete - Merge the useful stuff into a more known article and delete what isn't needed. Zenihdrol 01:25, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Mergelete - Per Robert and Mike. Oil4 ^Talk 22:32, December 30, 2009 (UTC)

Merge - per above. Tollerach hates SoF 22:31, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Merge. C.Chiam^Talk 08:06, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

Different dimensions and Realms

These pages have had merge tags on them for a while so I'm bringing them here to provoke more discussion.

The original discussion is here: Talk:Realms

User:Hippodo_3113 placed the tag initially, but didn't discuss it further. I suggested merging to Realms and User:Ralnon has suggested merging to dimensions since the word is used in game.

Merge - Either name is fine with me, but I would much rather have the article be just "Dimensions" instead of "Different dimensions" as the former sounds less awkward. These two articles are discussing similar locations and it makes sense to me to have them in one article instead of two. Tollerach hates SoF 21:06, January 11, 2010 (UTC)

Merge to realms - Because they're essentially talking about the same thing. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  05:37, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

Merge - There's not really a difference. Oil4 ^Talk 20:37, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

Merge to Realms - "Dragonfire" and "Dragonbreath" eventually got merged after I raised suspicion about the two articles talking about the same subject, so I agree with this. Merge, pl0x! Zenihdrol 14:59, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Merge to Realms - Since it is called "realms" on this page. And redirect obviously. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 03:12, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

Merge to Realms per all. User:C Teng/sig 22:06, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Keep separate. C.Chiam^Talk 08:07, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

Dagannoth (not a Vfd; a Vfm, or vote for merging)

This isn't really a vote for deletion, more like a vote for merging. I propose that we merge Dagannoth (Chaos Tunnels), Dagannoth (Lighthouse) and Dagannoth (Waterbirth Island) to Dagannoth, then move Dagannoth to Dagannoths. This is because the Chaos Tunnels, Lighthouse and Waterbirth version of Dagannoths are basically the same thing, only with different combat levels and at different locations.

Merge/Move/Redirect - As nom. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  06:56, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - This has already been done with another monster: skeleton. Look at the page, and tell me if you really want another one like it. EYUBU^rwojy 06:59, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - They are not the same thing. The only thing similar is their appearance and name. They have different damage, some have higher attack than others, and they all have different drop tables. I think its fine as it is. By the way, Dagonnath is already plural without the s. Altzae 07:18, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

If "Dagannoth" is plural without the S, why are they called "Dagannoths" numerous times in the Dagannoth article? ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  08:17, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the Trivia of the of the landing page for Dagannoth. "Although the plural of Dagannoth is commonly known as Dagannoths, when given as an assignment, Slayer masters refer to them as "Dagannoth" as a plural form." Altzae 08:31, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

Right... but that doesn't explain why the article is inconsistent. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  10:58, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

Because no one has cleaned it up yet?  @Gaz#7521 13:48, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

Keep separate - Before the split it was chaotic and confusing (see the final edit before the split). Plus, per RS:G, they should be separate (Q1 - they have different attacks, max hits, hitpoints and combat level, not to mention drop tables hence no; Q2 - while they are substitutable for slayer tasks, they are not if you need the hides for the armour etc hence no; therefore split/separate).  @Gaz#7521 13:48, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

Keep seperate pl0X!!!!111 - The different dagannoths in the different locations are very... different. The lighthouse ones are entirely different. The chaos tunnels ones are only rangers. The waterbirth island ones are meleers and rangers (with entirely different stats than the lighthouse ones. In summary: Different Dagganoths Deserve Different Deliniations. Tollerach hates SoF 18:35, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

Keep seperate - The monsters look the same, but that's really it; their drops, attacks, health, hits, slayer xp, location, examine, etc, are all different. In my opinion, any monsters like this, such as those covered in the skeleton article mentioned earlier, ought to be split up. Morian Smith 16:27, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

I'm convinced - OK, keep them seperate. With the community swaying to one side, I suggest this section is closed and archived. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  22:07, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Merge into freeloading. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 05:56, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

50 Hitter

I am vfding this article because I simply don't think it is notable enough for its own page. This could easily be merged into Freeloading under the Pest Control section. Please note that this Vfd is not about outright deleting the page, but merging its content to Freeloading and turning it into a redirect.

Delete - as nom. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  08:30, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Merge/Redirect - per nom. Chicken7 ^>talk 08:50, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Merge/Delete/Whatever - Per Nom. User:Stelercus/Signature 19:42, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Nom nom nom (plus, it's kinda useless.) He has knocked four times. 19:46, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Merge & Redirect - It is too small for its own article and would fit nicely in Freeloading Tollerach hates SoF 23:15, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Delete/Merge - I think it should be deleted/merged, but can we remove it from Wiki Stickies? JohnGlave 22:14, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

Merge - Merge it with Freeloading Frede^Talk 06:32, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was No consensus. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 06:09, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

Gravy Boat of Saradomin

The Gravy Boat of Saradomin is given one brief mention in the 2009 Thanksgiving event. It is never seen or described; all we know about it is that the Sacred Gravy of Turkey Slaying (which does not have a RSW article) comes from it. User:C Teng/sig 22:58, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

Merge/Keep - With either the Saradomin or the Event page. Kazakov 20:30, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Delete Move to Fabled Gravy of Turkey Slaying as nominator per my comment below. User:C Teng/sig 02:11, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Could be used in the full one? If not Delete Twig Talk https://i.imgur.com/772kZGs.png 23:00, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - It is only metioned, is not seen, carried, and has no examine or weight, meaning the article is virtually useless.--Cheers, Yoda 23:02, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

merge - Just add all the info to the thanksgiving event page for rs:g's sake. User:Stelercus/Signature 23:25, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

All the info in this article comes from the Thanksgiving event's page. User:C Teng/sig 23:29, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

Merge - Same as above, it is not significant enough for its own article, and if it is in the future then it can get it's own page then. --Josh2 23:59, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

Mege with 2009 Thanksgiving Event - It should just be in the event or in Saradomin's article.

Youdead00 02:43, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delete - This is non-interactive scenery. In fact, its not even non-interactive scenery, since its not even scenery. I strongly believe that a VfD is unnecessary here, but I'd like a second opinion. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 02:50, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - It is presumably an item since the Cook's Brother could give you some of it. By maknig it able to be traded and consumed, I don't think that it is non-interactive scenery. It is referenced, therefore it probably needs an article imo. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 05:51, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

its not an item. You never actualy see it you read that you drink from it. --Xtarn ^{• Talk •} 05:55, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

It is the fact that it is talked about like an item that makes it an item. Arthur Artimus is an NPC even though he is never seen in-game since he is talked about as an NPC. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 06:18, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

I have gone back on my decision after some thinking. While it might be an item, there really isn't much to write about it currently and it would just be speculation. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 07:29, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Though it might exist in the future. ^{(Rofl, shameless crosspromotion there. Today Tonight would be so proud of me)} _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 07:45, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Weak Delete - I'm still not completely convinced that this should be culled from the wiki, as Jagex does have a funny way of taking an item mentioned during an event or quest and making it real. If so, this is something that will happen on a subsequent year's event and not something to necessarily hold your hopes for at the moment. I'm supportive of deletion as it is not an item that can be pointed to, viewed, or even anything more than a reference.... something more like an inside joke. The link should be perhaps made into a redirect into the 2009 Thanksgiving Event though. --Robert Horning 11:10, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Redirect to the event as Robert says, just make sure there is a sentence mentioning it.--Degenret01 13:32, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Huh, shouldn't this be speedy deleted instead? --Nup^(T) 13:55, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Merge - It is completely valid to keep a mention of it. Just merge it with Thankgiving 2009, its own article, yeah, with only like 5 sentences or less, it is probably not that necessary assuming it is an item alluded to, not a physical object. Bowler225 14:46, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Merge/Delete - Merge any info not already in event page into it; Most likely a joke item rather than a serious one. Chaos knight 16:05, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - This article is virtually useless, at the most keep one trivia sentence mentioning this item on the main article.--Runerune239 16:08, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Merge - It IS mentioned by the Cook's Brother, so why not just merge it into the page? :) \_/Bluepupfrost\_/ 16:51, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Merge/delete - I think that the article should be merged into the Trivia section of the 2009 thanksgiving event. That's where this stuff belongs. 117:20, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Saradomin article - Just stick it in the Saradomin article, much abridged, in the Trivia. Other than that, it doesn't seem to have much of a point.

I'll put in its trivia section. User:C Teng/sig 19:48, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - It is only metioned, is not seen, carried, and has no examine or weight, meaning the article is virtually useless.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.86.214.162 (talk).

Delete - Obviously we know hardely anything about it. Merging with the Saradomin article is a great idea. If more is found out about the "Gravy Boat of Saradomin" then I new article should be created, but only then. kvoth

Keep - It's a gravy boat...OF SARADOMIN! C'mon guys, how cool is that? You don't see gravy boats from Saradomin every day. --Fruit.Smoothie 22:12, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - I was going to suggest a merge, but after reading so many mutually exclusive places it could be merged to, the simplest solution is to keep it. --MarkGyver 00:07, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - No reason for it to exist, just merge it, and delete this page.--Sirnot 04:40, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - I think that it is notable enough. Oil4 ^Talk 09:58, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - The article is unhelpful and useless. It has only information stated in the KB. A merge would fit.

Ikbenbeter

13:09, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - If the problem is that the page is too short, why not just add the stub template to it and/or add more information? --MarkGyver 17:51, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

There is no new information to add to it. It's mentioned for one sentence. More than half of this article, in fact, isn't directly related to the Gravy Boat. User:C Teng/sig 17:59, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Keep/Merge - I think that this is something worth keeping! I mean, maybe it will be mentioned again in some quest or something. If you must get rid of it, just merge it with the Saradomin or 2009 Thanksgiving Event Page Compdude123 20:14, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

But, it hasn't been mentioned again, and no clue has been given that it will be mentioned again, and, RS:NOT#CRYSTAL. User:C Teng/sig 20:29, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Also, it's now mentioned in the Saradomin and 2009 Thanksgiving event pages. User:C Teng/sig 20:29, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Merge/Keep with saradomin and 2009 thanksgiving event. Sir Adunkley^(Talk)(Sign) 03:43, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Delete No use because it is only a event item that you can't obtain so not worth having an article about it. Liam - Beta Tester ^(talk) 11:44, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Delete Theres no need for this page to exsit. Can the gravy boat of saradomin help you on a quest? No. Can the gravy boat of saradomin help you power up? No. Can you take a ride on the gravy boat of saradomin? No. So theres no need for this page to be on the wiki. Who knows if it even exsit, the cook's brother is probaly crazy.Supergrunt8 11:59, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Keep This is one of those things that often turns out to be significant later. Or it's a red herring that people will be searching on and not finding an entry will be confusing and frustrating. Either way, we were told by an NPC that the thing exists, so it's an item in Runescape, even if we don't understand it right now.

And the event isn't even over yet!!! How can people be passing judgment on an item that could pop up during the event??? Mamabear47 18:46, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Because RS:NOT#CRYSTAL. User:C Teng/sig 20:02, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Comment You make a good point, but if something is not notable (such as a particular bush in Falador)and then turns out to be incredibly important, there's no need to give it an article until this unvieling occurs. Likewise, if the Boat is not important now, then we can wait to give it an article until it isl. It's just good sense.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Gremlin (talk) on 15:07, November 28, 2009 (UTC).

Keep - For the same reasons as Lucien's daughter. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  20:09, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Aww, Telos, I was going to use her as an example. Well, yeah, per Lucien's daughter and RS:G. Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 22:18, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Jagex very rarely makes a passing reference to something without a plan to expand upon it later. References like this have been made before, and they tend to show up again before long. For instance, the Quill of Armadyl. Although this subject hasn't exactly "paid off" yet because it hasn't featured prominently in the game or its greater storyline, its passing reference in Postbag 20 was backed up 22 postbags later, and this obviously is going to play into something bigger in the future. I would not be surprised if the Gravy Boat shows up again, and because of this I say keep it. Morian Smith 00:02, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Lucien's Daughter is the biggest waste of space ever. Unlike the Gravy Boat, it shouldn't even exist, since for all we know, she doesn't. There should just be a note about it. Bad example.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Gremlin (talk).

Merge with 2009 Thanksgiving event - It is only brifly mentioned during this event and thus does not deserve it's own article, but it does deserve to be mentioned in a more relevant article. Zenihdrol 13:21, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

Delete and Merge per others Team6and7 02:45, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - As people have said, it's as strong a candidate as Lucien's daughter or the Quill of Armadyl. As long as they are allowed to exist, the Gravy Boat is also a valid article. Phoenix316 ^talk 17:12, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

Merge Just add the info to the thanksgiving 2009 page. --Morgan--

Proposal - We create a page called the Fabled Gravy of Turkey Slaying, then merge the Gravy Boat page into that. User:C Teng/sig 17:32, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

Support C Teng's idea - Much better than having it outright deleted. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  19:43, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Pheonix, I have already said that I do not believe that Lucien's Daughter is valid. It's worse than this article, actually, since, while we know the boat exists, we know no such thing about the daughter. It was just mentioned in passing by one who we already know lied.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Gremlin (talk).

Keep- Just keepit because it is something about runesscape and since this is a wikia, we should keep all the knowledge we posesse.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Meter55 (talk).

Merge - Preferably with the event page. I agree this is not significant enough to warrant its own page, but a mention in the event page would be appropriate. --Nearin 13:40, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete, as it has been confirmed by a Jagex Mod to be false. C.Chiam^Talk 12:05, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Tiana

Delete- we should delete the [[Tiana|tiana article]], as there is absolutly no evidince that she exists. 3rd age farcaster 19:52, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - All the info we have is based off of what one person has said, who could easily be lying. It looks very unprofessional to do this. Once we have a picture or some other form of proof, then we can post the article again. The Last Pun ^Talk 19:46, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - As per Mr. Zurkon and 3rd Age Farcaster.

1. REDIRECT User:N7 Elite/Signature 19:48, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Userfy - The article should probably be moved to a user page of the editor who made the article. This way the current information isn't lost if it turns out to be real, but if it's fake, it won't be cluttering up the main space. --MarkGyver 20:19, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Keep, for now. - We never know if she'll be released along with a new quest. Frede^Talk 20:23, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Keep It - There is no reason why it should be deleted. FlipN

Comment - There are reasons why it should at least be considered for deletion, as stated above by 3rd age farcaster and Mr. Zurkon. For example, the entire article is based off of ONE person's claims, and since no one has any proof (pictures, videos, etc.) that she does exist, there is the possibility that this could be a hoax.

1. REDIRECT User:N7 Elite/Signature 20:44, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - whats the difference between this and all other possibly fan made up stuff? why would we delete other stuff without a thought, but we keep this? what makes it even worse, seeing as the fact that it was an aready used concept makes it almost gurenteed to be made up, and yet, it lasts longer then something that is new, fresh, and maby even possible. 3rd age farcaster 20:52, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Comment <edit conflict> - Supposedly there will be an update next week. If she isn't involved, we can delete the page. Frede^Talk 20:55, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Delete- The thread on the RS official forums has now been locked.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.241.202.148 (talk).

[1] PLS Frede^Talk 20:58, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - The only evidence is a thread made up by 1 person. No one else on that thread could say they also saw her. And its been closed too. http://i698.photobucket.com/albums/vv341/Rwojy/scoot4.pngscooties 20:57, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

comment - LOL. "obviously" spam. wasnt so obvious here.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 3rd age farcaster (talk).

userfy - per MarkGyver.

1. REDIRECT User:Matt is Me/Signature 21:07, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Question - Why is the {{Future}} on it if it is already released? http://i698.photobucket.com/albums/vv341/Rwojy/scoot4.pngscooties 21:11, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Future shouldn't be there, and I have removed it. LLVANZT^rwojy 21:58, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Comment- how many votes before its deleted/kepted?

Keep - We got a name, a place wait... Kuradal was like this and it was proved right Twig Talk https://i.imgur.com/772kZGs.png 22:01, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

comment- but this is just like kuradal. kuradal was not coping something else, unlike this would be. no company the size of jagex would copy like that. besides, this is "obvious spam" [2] . 3rd age farcaster 22:08, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

comment- How is this spam? This could be the Twitter one Essence of life = farming Twig Talk https://i.imgur.com/772kZGs.png 22:10, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

comment- because there isnt a shred of evidince that its true. i could say i hacked jagex and found out next weeks update will have clensed rune essances in it, but would you be believing that like you believe this? 3rd age farcaster 22:11, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

comment- I did not believe Kuradal would be real but she did come around i believe that Tiana is logistical and sound what it is Twig Talk https://i.imgur.com/772kZGs.png 22:17, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

comment- so you really think jagex would be so unoriginal as to reuse ideas like that? 3rd age farcaster 22:21, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Friday the 13th did and it made Slasher films also we have been unoriginal Twig Talk https://i.imgur.com/772kZGs.png 22:23, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - This is almost exactly like the Kuradal event before her official release, this may be indicative of a Farming update, or even FT3.Icecold531 22:22, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Comment- imo, the fact that its so much like kuradal is what dooms it. yea, i can see something teleing around, maby seen by farming patches. yea i can see it having a farming cape. but the "this will be nice my garden" part is just 2 unoriginal. 3rd age farcaster 22:26, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Guys, stop arguing. Nothing ever gets deleted this quickly, unless it is simple vandalism. As per what frede said

“

Comment <edit conflict> - Supposedly there will be an update next week. If she isn't involved, we can delete the page. FredeTalk 20:55, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

”

OWDTR^rwojy 22:24, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

KEEP and comment I have seen this charictar when I was a member. Its no false its real   Ppi802   22:30, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Comment- at no point did anybody say why this is more likely to come out then cleansed essence, life mages, or essence beasts. ill stop arguing, but until next week we will look like the most gullible fansite out there. 3rd age farcaster 22:33, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Comment- guess we should make an article of this[3] also? since we make up articles out of every wild rumor about new skill masters... right? 3rd age farcaster 17:29, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - So far people have said they have indeed seen her, and as no evidence has been given saying she isn't real keep per RS:AGF after all Kuradel was the same in a way.  Archmage Elune  ^Talk_HS fetus is my son and I love him. 11:00, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

I have created a thread here on the runescape forums asking if s/he is real or a hoax a Jmod has yet to comment however, once one comes in and gives an answer either way we may finally know the answer either way, until than we wait. If it is confirmed false I will gladly change my vote 'till than again assume good faith it could be real.  Archmage Elune  ^Talk_HS fetus is my son and I love him. 11:47, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Delete http://i747.photobucket.com/albums/xx119/JimtehMage/modconfirmation.jpg Mod Emilee was nice enough to confirm it as fake so changing to delete.  Archmage Elune  ^Talk_HS fetus is my son and I love him. 14:34, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Note - This discussion was closed by Rwojy, but reopened by Chicken7. C.Chiam^Talk 11:06, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Keep. C.Chiam^Talk 04:52, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

Template:Userbox/CheeseRulez

Delete. It's nonsense and of no use. Inelcirc 22:57, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Next there'll be a "This user loves bukkitz." Chicken7 ^>talk 12:55, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

Userbox/Bukkit

• NnK Oliver • ^(600613) _talk 05:43, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Question - But this is a userbox, there are a large number of these on the Wiki, some of which are even more nonsensical, and they are supposed to be used on a userpage. What's the problem? C.Chiam^Talk 12:57, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there are two things wrong with it: it was created by an ip, which doesn't make sense as an ip can't use it, and second, it is used on all of four pages, two of which are because of the vfd. UNGALX^rwojy 13:15, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, well the IP seems to belong to Manyman, and even so, it doesn't matter if the IP doesn't use it, just as long as someone actually makes use of the template (therefore keeping it out of the UnusedTemplates category), there isn't a problem. And this is the case, seeing as we have two users using this template on their userpages. Again, no issue. C.Chiam^Talk 13:20, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - As long as userboxes are not offensive and are used on at least one userpage, there are not real disadvantages to keeping it. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 03:24, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

Keep as per Evil's answer above, I have seen worse. Bob2006ty^{_{(RUNESTORM333)}  talk} 13:37, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Slightly-related question - May I ask why we use server space (which we have an unlimited amount of) on useless non-mainspace templates used on ~2 userpages, yet we refuse to create articles that are apparently "not notable enough" (Sailing) or "are not worth wasting space on" (Evil tree images). This template applies to 2 people. If another article that does not meet those two criteria gets viewed by 2+ people, the article is "more worthy" of "limited server space" in my honest opinion.... Chicken7 ^>talk 13:32, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with you Chicken. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  04:16, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

Keep It doesn't hurt and it is non-offensive. Back a year or what ever ago we decided to get rid of potentially offensive user boxes, and people were told simply to put them on their own page instead of having a Wiki template for it. But I don't think we made it official policy. Can't find it right now. And putting the nonharmful ones all in the same place will reduce potential duplicates (how many people have the "same" welcome template? What the heck is up with that? Quite silly).--Degenret01 04:30, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per Degen.  @Gaz#7521 14:31, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per Degen. I fully agree with Chicken. Oil4 ^Talk 21:58, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per Degen. Also regarding the "of no use" part of it that could be said about alot of userboxes, none of which are up for deletion so this one shouldn't be singled out.  Archmage Elune  ^Talk_HS fetus is my son and I love him. 10:07, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Keep- Otherwise you will have to get ird of about 50 other userboxes Sentra246 10:23, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Not harming anyone and it's being used so its fine. Tollerach hates SoF 21:06, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The noob days. —Manyman ^(talk) 03:30, February 6, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per Yanks & Degen. --Coolnesse 15:46, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - It is used. ShinyUnown _{T | C | E} 15:51, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete. C.Chiam^Talk 04:55, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

Template:Bspell

• Delete - The template has never been used on a talk page and probably will never be used. British spelling is not a problem worth picking someone up on (it is a luxury), with using it makes us become a bit too pedantic and therefore off-putting, like wikipedia has gone. Templates are only helpful when you have to constantly write a message on a talk page over and over again, but you don't need to use it enough to have the template to really become useful. It would take less time to change the American words to British yourself then to post this template anyway. If someone is constant enough of an editor to warrant having to ask them to use American spelling, then you would probably say it to them since they would be a part of the community and it would be rather awkward to use the template. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 10:29, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

Delete Never been used, most (all?any?) didn't know we had it. It would take longer to look up the template name then to just post a one line message.--Degenret01 10:42, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - The rare occurrence of notifying someone of using British spelling is probably better handled by a more personal, typed-on-the-spot message than by a template.  @Gaz#7521 14:16, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Rarely used, and thus easily replaced by more personal messages. Oil4 ^Talk 21:59, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - I've used it once, though... --Iiii I I I 22:01, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - It would seem this is very underused, quite frankly I'd personally prefer getting written out notice rather than a template, shows more thought in it than the template and written out messages usually get better responses, IE thought out Christmas cards get well received more than just a hallmark card with a persons name in it.  Archmage Elune  ^Talk_HS fetus is my son and I love him. 10:22, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning towards Keep - *cough* Have a guess why it wasn't used? Because no one knew about it. I am going to purposely use this now, as this VfD has brought attention to it. To all those people saying "personal mesages are better". I'm sorry, but if you think that, why don't we hand type the welcome message, the vandal message, the block message, etc.? I don't understand how this message is any different to those; the case with every user should be exactly the same: they didn't use British spelling... Chicken7 ^>talk 06:33, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

We don't really monitor if players use British spelling however. I must have reverted about 100 American spelt words that Morian has used, yet I only told him about it in the editor review since he didn't have any major criticisms. It is a very small problem and I don't think it is a good idea to criticise someone when it really isn't necessary, especially if it is a new user. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 06:44, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Constructive criticism? Do we all not learn from our mistakes? Chicken7 ^>talk 05:44, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

It can be very off-putting to have someone criticise you right off the bat. I think that it would be more likely that they will be hesitant to contribute again in case they get criticised for a differnt policy that they don't know about then for the user to continue doing as he was doing after he memorisas all British-American word conventions. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 07:23, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Who says we have to stick it in new users' face? After the user has settled in, we can let them know with this notice then, just as a friendly reminder. This isn't the only template used to notify editors of their errors... Chicken7 ^>talk 07:36, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

It felt very awkward when you used the template on my talk page then. It would have been much more friendly to say it manually since I am a constant editor. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 09:09, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I made you feel awkward, just wanted to joke with you. Anyway, I have changed my vote to a neutral, as I understand it'd probably be rarely used and that maybe it'd be easier to type out. Cheers, Chicken7 ^>talk 22:23, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - I wasn't used until the RFD and it had been sitting on the RS:Template page for a while I think. For the rare instances when this notification needs to happen, a 2 or 3 sentence note would work fine. Plus we don't want to template the regulars do we??? lol Tollerach hates SoF 21:14, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - As creator of this template I can say that it has been used and I believe we should keep it for when an editor needs it. ShinyUnown _{T | C | E} 22:28, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - It's more or less a pointless page. Some people who write with American spelling may not even be aware that the British version of that word is spelled differently. It's difficult to criticize someone for his or her habits, especially when they are related to the country in which he or she grew up. Other editors (unfortunately, I belong in this group) dislike the British spelling and will not use it, and that template probably will not change their minds. So, all in all, it is a pointless template. --Liquidhelium 20:07, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - I've used it and just because we don't use it MUCH, doesn't make it a good reason to delete it. It has been used and will be used it the future at some point or another. http://i698.photobucket.com/albums/vv341/Rwojy/scoot4.pngscooties 20:22, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - It's explained in the style guide and it's really not that big of a deal if someone spells colour as color. Are we REALLY going to be such jerks that we're going to correct people directly that they spelled a word "wrong"? I'm from America and I rather like spelling "colour" as "color". Notifying someone with this template is just a waste of time and bytes on this wiki, and is quite offending to people who don't spell things the British way. Hell, I might take this up on the YG tomorrow. Stupid rule. User:Lil diriz 77/Signatures 07:27, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Keep redirect, move talk (User:Iiii I I I/Bukkit).  @Gaz#7521 20:38, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Bukkit

WTF? This is an utterly useless page. It features an epic misspelling of Bucket. Even though it redirects to the correct article, the wiki does not feature user slang in its articles. As such, I am absolutely appaled that a user slang term has become pervasive enough within the wiki that it merits its own article. Furthermore, the talk page of that article, Talk:Bukkit, is filled with useless junk that really shouldn't be attached to any mainspace article. Furthermore, it violates RS:TP, as seen in my post towards the bottom of the page. --Liquidhelium 02:48, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

Support - As nominator. --Liquidhelium 02:48, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Yes it doesn't really add anything to the wiki, but it doesn't detract from the wiki in any way. No one will ever find it except by accident. But more importantly, we are not robots. We do not have to always be serious on this wiki, and we shouldn't have to be. It is a single talk page that gives us enjoyment. Why do you want to take that away? That is the main purpose of the page, and I see nothing wrong with it. RZAN^rwojy 02:53, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

Take a gander at Talk:Bukkit. It's filled with useless junk that really doesn't belong on a mainspace article. It's perfectly fine if that took place in the userspace, but not mainspace. --Liquidhelium 02:55, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

If you looked at it, you would have seen I have posted on it myself, several times. I believe it does no harm, because it is a redirect page. If someone types in bukkit, it will take them to buckit, with a little thing underneath the title saying redirected from bukkit. How many people are going to click on it, then click on the talkpage? Very few, it is mainly an injoke, which hurts no one. EWMA^rwojy 03:00, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

I saw you posted on it. I agree that it does no harm, but I think that sort of talk page belongs a namespace other than the mainspace. Mainspace is for serious articles. Incidentally, I found that page myself when I saw Iiii I I I posted on the talk page. I'm going to bed now. Have a good day. And please don't get mad at me for this. --Liquidhelium 03:03, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

Support - ^^ delete Bukkit Wth is bukkit lol.

as supporter Spirit revenant ork :) 02:53, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Wojwoj. --Iiii I I I 03:01, February 12, 2010 (UTC)
Neutral - Meh, I don't know now. --Iiii I I I 13:35, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Who's Wojwoj? O.O --Liquidhelium 03:04, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

Rwojy. --Iiii I I I 03:05, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

• Slaps head* >.< I never realized admins gave nicknames to each other. --Liquidhelium 03:06, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

AMG! Wojwoj is my nickname for him!!!! Chicken7 ^>talk 04:20, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with calling him Rwojy? Rwojy is shorter than Wojwoj. --Liquidhelium 15:05, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

Leave it alone It's not hurting anyone, just leave it be --Obama Luigi 03:02, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

See my statement under Rwojy's vote. I don't think that type of stuff should be found under mainspace. --Liquidhelium 03:04, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - People call it that Twig Talk https://i.imgur.com/772kZGs.png 03:47, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Do we REALLY HAVE TO delete a REDIRECT? Please see this and this when I browsed a vfd for a redirect. Powers38 ^おはようヾ(´･ω･｀) 04:17, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose/Keep - With all the weird obsession with "bukkits" on wiki discussions (forums, cc, user talks, YGs even), we may have a lot of users wondering what it is. It isn't even an article but a redirect. They take up only a few bytes; I don't see much of a problem. Cheers, Chicken7 ^>talk 04:20, February 12, 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Comment - Guys, the Redirect page isn't my concern. It's the talk page that is. Look at Talk:Bukkit. It's filled with useless junk that belongs in userspace or forums instead of mainspace. If someone moved it to like User:Rwojy/Talk:Bukkit or User:Iiii I I I/Talk:Bukkit or something like that, then there is no issue. --Liquidhelium 14:06, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

Strong support - Pointless junk. Frivolous pages make the wiki look childish and unencyclopaedic. Delete -- Mercifull ^(Talk) 14:38, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

Keep redirect - They're cheap.

Move talkpage - To someone's userspace who wants it, adding a link to the current talkpage about where it has been moved to.  @Gaz#7521 14:55, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap, but is this the type of article that we want to be found inside Mainspace? It makes the wiki look unprofessional, just like all the grammatical and spelling mistakes that I'm too lazy to fix. --Liquidhelium 15:04, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

Keep Redirects should not usually be deleted, especially as so many articles link to it (links to a redirect are bad, but miles better than broken links). Unfortunately we have no idea how many external websites contain links to this redirect, so it should be left in place. I must emphasise that my position on this issue does not mean that I support use of "bukkit" in mainspace articles (in my opinion it has no place there). I totally disagree with Rwojy, who says that "We do not have to always be serious on this wiki". If we don't take mainspace encyclopaedic articles seriously, then who else will? Links to the page in question should be fixed (as with any other redirect), but the redirect itself should stay in place. Leevclarke ^talk http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb290/leevclarke/RuneScape/Max%20Bulldog/Max_logo_mini.png http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb290/leevclarke/RuneScape/bulldog_puppy.png 19:25, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, but everything on the talk page that is not discussion of how to improve the article (which is what talk pages are for) should be deleted. If that means wiping the entire page of spam, then that is what should happen. Leevclarke ^talk http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb290/leevclarke/RuneScape/Max%20Bulldog/Max_logo_mini.png http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb290/leevclarke/RuneScape/bulldog_puppy.png 19:28, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

I whould have marked the talk page with a speedy delete when you are around Max. I couldn't do it last night because Rwojy and Iiii I I I were the only admins there and I doubted either of them would be willing to delete that page. --Liquidhelium 19:39, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Since most of you have supported the deletion or movement of the talk page, I will now ask Rwojy if he is willing to have it in his userspace. If he consents, then the page will be moved and I will request this page to be closed. --Liquidhelium 20:00, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

Less than half supported the deletion... --Iiii I I I 20:13, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

RS:NOT#..._a_democracyC00l dud4 14:03, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Support talk page move, oppose redirect delete - I feel mainspace talk pages should be about editors talking how to improve the article. What is happening in that talk page should be moved over to an user talk page. ~Muz^Talk 21:00, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

Move talk, keep redirect - I agree with liquid that there is consensus if Wojwoj (=P) agrees to it. The page wont be deleted (which is what all the opposition are arguing for) and the talkpage banter is moved off mainspace (which is what most of the supporters are arguing for). _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 01:14, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

Adamant Support - first off, why add it to the mainspace in the first place? i see it as a major insult to the runescape wiki to do this, no offense to whoever did it, as im *hoping* they didnt mean it that way. secondly, i cant stand all this community bullcrap- we might as well be robots, seeing as we cant add personal pictures. adding personal pictures would sure be causing alot less trouble then this is. but back to the topic. maby it doesnt take anything away from the wiki, but if whoever did this can do it, i can do it. ill go and make up stupid names for all manor of items, as will the rest of the community, and the wiki will turn into a trash heap of misspellings, slang, etc. instead of asking ourselves "what does it hurt" we should ask ourselves "what does it hurt to add it to the userspace". this issue may well be the most outrageous thing iv seen in a while. sorry if i sound mean, no offense intended, and whatever else needs to be said. thanks, 3rd age farcaster 01:27, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

RS:R. Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 07:19, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - If you know anything about RuneScape, you will know that we will use about any type of slang. I mean, why do we have things like [[1337]]? In my opinion, it's pointless junk, as it just makes you harder to understand and takes more time to type. Why do we have redirects like d, lol and d pl8? Why can't we just keep the Redirect, it's not really causing any harm. If you think that looks unproffessional, how do you think gp looks to me? Yet I can't vfd it... --

Captain Sciz

Talk • Edits • Hiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=

14:23, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose deletion/move of talk page - In my honest opinion, this is outrageous. I don't see how a talk page of a redirect, which is impossible to view unless you specifically go back and check the redirect coding then click on the talk page, is "detrimental" to our wiki. It disturbs me how many wish for us to be "purely encyclopedic". This is a community; we need to expand on that. We are not robots, nor are we employees paid to make an encyclopedia. Although many of us edit here because we want to expand the largest encyclopedia about RuneScape on the web, we also want to enjoy ourselves, meet new users, be part of the community and have fun. No offence to anyone, but this reminded me of communist Russia... Where has the spirit in the wiki gone? If anything, that talk page shows users that we are human beings and not unsociable creatures incapable of emotion. The other fansites show they have some "humour", and so does Wikipedia, if you look at their numerous articles and wikiprojects specifically about useless things (there is a WikiProject Antarctic Highways). I'm not proposing we do that, but just have a little sense of life in this wiki. Geez. Chicken7 ^>talk 14:27, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

I concur. --

Captain Sciz

Talk • Edits • Hiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=

22:29, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

comment- leet, d, lol, etc, are all used on runescape. this, as far as i can tell, is unique to the rs wiki. and still, not a single person tells me why we shouldnt have it on his/her talk page. as for gp, ill look at that shortly.

this may, be, unfortunately a community. i wont take part, but you can all you want. HOWEVER, KEEP THE COMMUNITY ON THE TALK PAGES. not in the mainspace. would you add random, confusing things to a real encyclopedia? i would hope not. WE CAN ENJOY OURSELVES, MEET OTHERS, ETC ON TALK PAGES. we dont need that creeping into the mainspace. why dont you people get that we can have all the community, chatting, spam, and whatever else is on that page we want, just not in the main space? why are you not content with talk pages? 3rd age farcaster 19:50, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

While 3rd age said it more firmly then I would, I have to agree with him. You are using mainspace talkpages to talk about something completely unrelated to RuneScape. You don't mention the RuneScape item Bucket at all even though that is what the page is about... I think it does verge on spam being on mainspace since it isn't constructive no matter how you look at it. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 00:05, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

That talk page is not the mainspace. People do not use it to view information. I don't want every talk page on the wiki to look like that, but that talk page is in effect, hidden. And so is the redirect, unless someone types it into the search bar. Chicken7 ^>talk 00:15, February 14, 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)

if i was to go to a talk page and type @@@@@@@@@@@ on it, im fairly sure it would aether be removed quickly or i would be blocked/warned. why is this any different? and why cant the people who obsess over bukkits add it as a subpage to their userpage? 3rd age farcaster 00:52, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

It's different because @@@@@@@@@@@ isn't discussion, it isn't a joke, it isn't anything but spam. Someone isn't going to post underneath you and go "lol". You'd probably get a message on your talk page saying not to spam, but hardly a block, anyway. I'd say there is a lot of difference between those two examples. And, I would object to random bukkit-talk all over talk pages, but that talk page is of a redirect called bukkit. If Rwojy or Iiii I I I was going to plan their annual "bukkit-a-thon" or write a novel "Betrayal at Bukkidor", of course something that large should be in the userspace. Chicken7 ^>talk 12:31, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

EXTREMLY OPPOSE - Id say we'd keep it because it's just a talk page on a redirect. It's not even harmful, i mean lots of people dosen't even know the word bukkit and "bucket" isn't searched in an everyday basis you know. geez louise it's just a talk page with spamming.Murd3rlogist^{Talk• Contribs •} Sign here 10:53, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The problem with using the talk page is that it's improper use of the talk page, according to the policy set out in RS:TP. It clearly states that talk pages are provided for the discussion of the content of the articles, and should not be used by editors to express their personal opinions. Since Bukkit is a redirect page, it has no content to discuss. Furthermore, I have seen many instances of users (mainly those whose signatures have Bukkit in them) glorifying the "bukkits", which is a clear instance of expressing personal opinion. So, the talk page does not follow the Wiki's talk page policy. Therefore, it needs to be deleted/moved out of the mainspace. --Liquidhelium 13:11, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Support, and move Talk:Bukkit to another page (e.g. User:Rwojy/Bukkit talk) - Per Liquidhelium. This is a blatant misuse of talk pages. Although per Chicken7 that we are not robots, we should keep our encyclopedia and community matters separate. This way, it gives the encyclopedia a more professional look, encouraging people to come back to RSWiki when they need a reliable source of information on RuneScape. Also, "Bukkit" is very far from the spelling of "Bucket". It is unlikely that people will type "i" instead of "e" as the two keys are far apart from the keyboard. "Bukkit" is just an intentional misspelling of "Bucket" in "Lolcat" speak, and it isn't even used often enough in the RuneScape game to refer to a bucket to have a redirect page. Personally, I have never seen anyone saying "Bukkit" on RuneScape before apart from the Wiki Clan Chat. C00l dud4 13:54, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Notice - Degen has told me that he will delete Talk:Bukkit in two days (on February 16, 2010) if it's not moved. Therefore, anyone that still wants it should move it to his or her userpage. --Liquidhelium 16:16, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

I have marked Talk:Bukkit for Speedy Deletion. The page can now be found at User:Iiii I I I/Bukkit. --Liquidhelium 20:33, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It's just nonsense. Ruud ^{(talk)(Suggest me naems)} 19:41, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete. C.Chiam^Talk 12:14, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Combat Quest Rewards

This page is essentially a less-useful version of this page. Combat quest rewards doesn't have any links to it (besides somebody's userpage >_>) and doesn't even specify what the melee experience is in... utterly pointless. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  20:17, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Inferior duplicate of Quest Experience Rewards.  @Gaz#7521 21:03, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per Telos and Gaz. --Liquidhelium 21:06, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Not needed. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 05:39, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - It's the same as Quest experience rewards, without the "skilling" skills. It's also organized kinda... bad. User:Lil diriz 77/Signatures 07:32, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per all. --Coolnesse 15:38, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - This is just poorly duplicated info Tollerach hates SoF 07:38, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per all. Superplayer08^{Talk HS User:Superplayer08/Template:AdvLog} 18:53, February 15, 2010 (UTC)Superplayer08

Request for closure ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  04:55, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete.  Tien  01:26, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Hidden locations

This article is basically a copy of here and the Speedy Deletion tag was removed twice, so I placed an RfD.

Delete - As nominator. --Coolnesse 16:35, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - This is a duplicate page, and the Speedy deletion should have gone through. ----Liquid^Talk 17:00, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Speedy delete - Per both. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  22:30, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Request closure - Per RS:DP. --Coolnesse 01:21, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Speedy keep. TGWWRW^rwojy 02:57, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

Mound

This article is completely neglected, has little use and only one link to it, and I added it an hour ago. It's small, short, and the things it leads to can be accessed easily in other ways. Sw0rd

DELETE- Sw0rd

Keep - It is a disambiguation page, so that users typing in Mound in the search box get sent to the proper place. Disambiguations pages aren't supposed to have any internal links, so it's a good thing that nothing links there. --Liquid^Talk 22:38, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - We can't delete every neglected stub http://i1016.photobucket.com/albums/af290/porp109/sig1.png Spam me w/ lolcats Is <insert name here> awesome? I don't know, let me check... 22:38, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Disambiguation pages are supposed to have no links according to this. --Liquid^Talk 00:43, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per keepers. --Coolnesse 00:49, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per above. Ajraddatz _Talk 00:52, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - There is no one specific thing that you would expect mount to go to, so the disambiguation page makes sense. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 02:54, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna RS:BB in closing this as a speedy keep, as it was a new user that is unfamiliar with disambig pages that nominated this for deletion. YDDULZ^rwojy 02:57, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Keep. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 10:18, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

Incommodo

This is a page about a character in a FunOrb game. He does not appear anywhere in RuneScape or RuneScape specific material.

Delete Neutral - I don't think we should be adding characters from FunOrb here. First, the FunOrb Wiki covers that stuff fine, and second, I don't think we want to set the precedent of adding FunOrb content here as it would create many articles that are only loosely related to our content. Tollerach hates SoF 07:14, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

I've heard some good reasons for keeping this page and I'm going to defer to those who want to keep the article. Good discussion. Tollerach hates SoF 20:56, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Weak delete See bellow - It does have some information about runescape. Though it is about someone in the 3rd age of runescape, there is nothing that actually prooves that that game and runescape are linked. http://i698.photobucket.com/albums/vv341/Rwojy/scoot4.pngscooties 07:18, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Ask a mod. Any Mod. (S)he will tell you that Armies of Gielinor and RuneScape have the same storyline. --

Captain Sciz

Talk • Edits • Hiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=

01:44, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Weak delete - per above. Cheers, Chicken7 ^>talk 12:18, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Changed to Neutral. Chicken7 ^>talk 10:05, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coolnesse (talk).

Delete - He only appears in FunOrb, and he isn't really notable. If he was a Mahjarrat, then sure, keep it, but he's only a normal necromancer. --Nup^(T) 13:42, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - He is a part of the RuneScape storyline, and therefore he deserves an article. Per RS:G --

Captain Sciz

Talk • Edits • Hiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=

16:26, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - In the first level of the game, the objective is to kill the enemies leader, Zebub. He's a greater demon, and probably no more important than the 3 demons in the UnderGround Pass quest. He's just a demon with a name, no more powerful than any other of his kind. And Incommodo follows that same path, same as any necromancer, just lucky enough to have a name.Anthony13579 16:39, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

If he has a name, then he is a character. If he's a character, then he gets an article. Got anymore stupid statements? --

Captain Sciz

Talk • Edits • Hiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=

01:43, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - As the RuneScape franchise expands, there are going to be more and more things like this, where it sort of becomes a question of "What's really part of RuneScape? What's canon?" When it comes to characters, events, and places created by Jagex, or with Jagex's input (see Betrayal at Falador), I feel the Wiki's stance should be to cover them with more or less the same policies it covers everything else. Look at Wookieepedia, the Star Wars Wiki[4], which has found good ways to cover characters from hundreds of games, books, movies, tv shows, etc. RuneScape isn't nearly as diverse, so the inclusion of a handful of RuneScape characters in FunOrb doesn't really pose a risk of confusing people. If it's an issue of notability, then Incommodo is honestly more article-worthy then hundreds of other characters with articles we already have; he's given a name, has a known allegience and (brief) history, can be fought, has set stats and attacks, and actually makes an appearance. The only difference is that he doesn't appear in the game itself, which is already the case within hundreds of other "legendary" characters. I don't think we should treat him or any other RuneScape-related characters from Armies of Gielinor any differently than we would treat him if he appeared in RuneScape itself. Morian Smith 22:09, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per Tollerach. ----Liquid^Talk 22:15, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Yes he doesn't have an appearance in the game but that's not the reason to delete. It is actually the fact that he was never even mentioned in anything directly related to runescape. http://i698.photobucket.com/albums/vv341/Rwojy/scoot4.pngscooties 22:17, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Does Armies of Gielinor not relate to RuneScape? Obviously there's been a lot of creative license taken by the developers in making the game, but it's still clearly based heavily on RuneScape. We cover characters mentioned only in Betrayal at Falador and those mentioned in the website's Lores. Armies of Gielinor is a little more distant than either of those, I'll admit, but not by much. We've gotten information from it before; when we got Seren and Temeken's symbols from the game, we treated that as official, didn't we? It's not as though some third-party company made the game; it's all Jagex's writing. Morian Smith 22:24, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Armies of Gielinor is based off of RuneScape. It uses animations and monsters from RuneScape. It's made by the same people who made RuneScape. It has the same story, people, gods and cities as RuneScape. It is therefore, related to RuneScape. Get the picture? --

Captain Sciz

Talk • Edits • Hiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=

01:43, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - It does have something to do with RuneScape related content; it's about a conflict that happened in the Third Age. If nobody disputed my creation of the Valis article after the Zamorak Returns campaign came out, this shouldn't be deleted either. Sure it's FunOrb, but it does have to do with RuneScape.

Asparagoose

22:34, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - It could be an invaluable source for the future. • NnK Oliver • ^(600613) _talk 01:45, February 18, 2010 (UTC)~

Keep - Per Asparagoose. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  05:30, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - After checking out the links from the Canon page and a few other places I discovered that there are a few articles with content that is purely from FunOrb. I suspect I never found them before because I don't play FunOrb and wouldn't think to look for things like that on this wiki. After finding these pages, I wondered. Should we have articles whose only content comes from FunOrb? My opinion is still no, per my points earlier. I do however understand that this content is somewhat related to RuneScape so I understand why people might want this. I know we have Betrayal at Falador articles, so I guess the bigger question is, do we include characters from Armies of Glinore (sp?) in this wiki? Tollerach hates SoF 10:13, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

I say yes. Armies of Gielinor does have a minor part in the actual RuneScape storyline, therefore it should be included. Also, there is a RuneScape Classic Wiki, a Jagex Wiki and a War of Legends Wiki too (>.>). --Coolnesse 13:09, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I think we ought to, but I do think that we have to keep FunOrb-related articles very limited in number. Any information from the game that is relevant to RuneScape's storyline ought to be kept; but at the same time we have to accept that, for the most part, its representation of RuneScape's story is very loose. Things like new characters (Valis, Zebub, etc) and areas (Hallowglade, [[Cave Canem]]) ought to be kept, but information like levels, strategies, rewards, anything that is really only relevent to Armies of Gielinor, definitely should not. Consider that someone playing Armies of Gielinor might see Zemouregal in it and say "Hey, I remember him from RuneScape." Then they see Incommodo and say "Wait, who is that? I'll look it up on the Wiki." There's only a small handful of named characters that appear in it, so there's not an issue of the Wiki getting crowded with these. Morian Smith 23:52, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Incommodo is Zamorakian. He fought in the God Wars during the Third Age. He struggled against Saradomin forces to claim the island of Entrana. As such, I think he's definitely RuneScape-related, even though he's only mentioned in a FunOrb game. Look at Lucien's daughter. She is only mentioned by Lucien; we don't know her history, her name, or whether she even exists or was just mentioned for effect, and yet she has her own article. I think she was considered for deletion before, but the consensus was to keep it.  Tien  13:36, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Strong keep - What really matters in this situation is that he is part of an official release and that he lived in Gielinor. No matter what reality he may be in, he's part of one official canon or another. Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 02:58, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Weak keep - My mind was kinda changed... http://i698.photobucket.com/albums/vv341/Rwojy/scoot4.pngscooties 03:04, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Do the 3 steps specified below.. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 10:29, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

Trivia

I am NOT proposing that the Trivia page be completely deleted. However, I put the RfD tag there since it's the main page, and tagging all the subpages is tedious and not very useful.

This is what I am proposing:

1. We delete
   1. Trivia/People
   2. Trivia/Beast
   3. Trivia/Locations
   4. Trivia/Quest
   5. Trivia/Minigames
   6. Trivia/Holiday events
   7. Trivia/Random Events
   8. Trivia/Skills
2. The content of Trivia/Other should be placed onto Trivia.
3. Cultural references is already its own page, so nothing needs to be done about it.

The Trivia page is mostly fluff. All of the contents found on its subpages (with the exception of /Other) is also found on the main articles that the subpages are about. I can personally attest to this since I have spent some time making sure that everything is found in the main article. (If anyone sees something I missed, feel free to fix it/tell me about it) Therefore, Trivia is an inferior duplicate of the independent article trivia sections. Furthermore, the Trivia found on the subpages of Trivia is often messy and imcomplete, since the individual articles have much more in their trivia sections than the Trivia subpages do. (For example, Farming#Trivia is much more comprehensive than Trivia/Skills#Farming)

Other faults include the fact that the lists are messy, and not even in alphabetical order. Some of the lists are incomplete for their subject. Trivia/Skills does not list all the skills, Trivia/Quest does not list all the quests, Trivia/Minigames does not list all the minigames, etc. Sometimes, what is listed is obsolete. Some of the updates have happened quite a long time ago. Trivia/Minigames#Blast Furnace and Trivia/Random Events#Frogs both give redundant and outdated information. For both of them, the update that made the information redundant happened quite a long time ago.

Trivia/Other and Cultural references actually state trivia not found in other articles and there is no appropriate place to put them. So, that's why I say /Other should be placed onto the main Trivia page (which right now only links to the subpages and would be useless if the subpages were removed). Cultural References is not a subpage, so it is of no problem.

If the articles are in this state, and there is no maintenance of them whatsoever, then they should be deleted.

----Liquid^Talk 13:11, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: A Delete vote will be assumed to mean in support of my proposal (that is, move Trivia/Other to Trivia and keep Cultural References and delete the other subpages) unless it is explicity stated that is not the case.

Delete - As proposer. ----Liquid^Talk 13:11, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Delete/Automate - I never saw these. The lists will forever be incomplete (RS:SNOW), so it leads to either deletion or automation. --Coolnesse 04:43, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - tl;dr but what I read seems to make sense. --Iiii I I I 15:30, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

BURN IT ALLLLLL - It can all go die. Painfully, if possible. KHQSFE^rwojy 22:12, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Support - outdated, redundant, unwieldy. Simplification win.--Aburnett ^(Talk) 22:16, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Toss them in the pit of no return! http://i698.photobucket.com/albums/vv341/Rwojy/scoot4.pngscooties 22:43, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Send them to... THE PIT! ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  22:47, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Not into the pit, it burrrrrrns!  @Gaz#7521 22:53, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Support - All three things, per all.  @Gaz#7521 22:53, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Salvage and delete. C.Chiam^Talk 03:31, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

List of recent locations

This is not so much a request for deletion as it is an attention-bringer. My reasons for deleting this article are that it hasn't been updated since September 2009, and nothing links to it. However, I believe that it could easily be brought back to date if someone wanted to.  Tien  19:52, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Conditional delete (?) - As nominator.  Tien  20:04, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - What is that page actually for? http://i698.photobucket.com/albums/vv341/Rwojy/scoot4.pngscooties 20:01, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

For keeping track of the most recent locations, I assume.  Tien  20:04, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Recent as in newly added to the game? http://i698.photobucket.com/albums/vv341/Rwojy/scoot4.pngscooties 20:06, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Yep. The problem is that no one has updated it since the Living Rock Caverns were released.  Tien  20:07, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Conditional delete - per Tienjt http://i698.photobucket.com/albums/vv341/Rwojy/scoot4.pngscooties 20:27, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Conditional delete - Delete if no one is willing to maintain it. Keep otherwise. --Liquidhelium 21:08, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Yeah. Never heard of it, and nothing in the mainspace links to it. --Iiii I I I 21:16, February 7, 2010 (UTC) Delete - Who cares? If a person is looking for information about a location... they would go to the location's article. Otherwise, it's pretty much useless. User:Lil diriz 77/Signatures 07:31, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Take info, then delete - Quiet a few of the release dates on there are not featured on their respective pages, so whoever has the task of deleting it should salvage all that info and place it on its respective pages before pressing delete. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 06:59, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Archive, then delete - Per Evil yanks. --Coolnesse 04:17, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Revive or Delete - But make sure the information doesn't go to waste. Oil4 ^Talk 13:12, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete. C.Chiam^Talk 02:54, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Top 5 money making methods (F2P)

I am also including Top 5 money making methods (P2P) in this RFD since it is the same thing. All the information on the page is already included on the respective money making pages, and the it is saying that this moneymaking method is definitively the best, which is never good on a wiki.

• Delete - as nom. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 01:05, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - Title does not show RS:NPOV and..those money making methods aren't even the best, minus the mining rune ore. :/ Powers38 ^おはようヾ(´･ω･｀) 01:09, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
• Strong delete - Inferior copy of the money making guides. Kill it. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  01:10, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - Although it may be violating RS:NPOV, aren't the rest of the money making guides, or even the rest of the guides on the wiki in general. I think that policy should, or would only cover informative articles, not guides. And I would like a guide that in general gives some of the best money making methods from all skills put together. Those moneymaking methods aren't the best, but the idea of that page is pretty good in my honest opnion. Chicken7 ^>talk 01:29, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - Per Telos. Frede^Talk 12:42, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - Per Telos. --Coolnesse 15:06, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - per all, and don't ya just love that there are actually 6 methods on each page, ironical Tollerach hates SoF 21:29, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - Per all. ----Liquid^Talk 21:30, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - It's useful to have a page with the best ways to make money, as you don't have to search on all pages, but just check that page and you know the best ways to make money.Joeytje50 17:30, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - It's been very useful to me. i agree the page must be expanded but i'm sure it must stay. if someone asks the best m.m.method u only have to refer here! 14:56, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - Per RS:NPOV. Oil4 ^Talk 13:17, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - Per Chicken. bad_fetus^talk 19:23, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - Some of these aren't even great money making methods. For example, cutting magic trees that players have grown themselves is a terrible method of money making, unless combined with a hydra familiar. 80 Summoning isn't even listed as a requirement, however. --Liquid^Talk 22:23, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Just because the article is badly written, it doesn't mean the whole idea has to be deleted. If this is deleted and then some experienced user wants to recreate it, the proper method would be making a RFU. Chicken7 ^>talk 11:35, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - Per all Rhys ^Talk 22:30, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree with Evil yanks, Sentinel Telos and Powers38 Phoenix316 ^talk 02:48, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete. C.Chiam^Talk 03:06, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Magic and Runecrafting items

This page has an odd grouping. Why would Magic and Runecrafting items go on the same page? The only thing the two have in common are runes, which aren't even listed on the page. This article has nothing that links to it (besides redirects), and features repeated information. All of the contents of the lists are found either in categories or in separate pages.

Magic weapons is a less useful version of Category:Magic weapons. Magic armor and Runes both refer to outside articles, and aren't even found on the page. Talismans, Tiaras, Talisman Staves, and Pouches are essentially less useful versions of their respective pages.

Therefore, I say that this page should be deleted since it features nothing useful.

--Liquid^Talk 22:15, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: If this passes, I will use it as a reason to mark other pages for speedy deletion, such as Mining and Smithing items.

Delete - As nominator. --Liquid^Talk 22:15, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - I totally agree, they're two different skills, plus there's already a large list of items, but split into magic and runecrafting on different articles - Sw0rd

Delete - Per everyone else. --Iiii I I I 22:25, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - On top of that, players wouldn't find the article helpful. --  http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/1254/lockkey.png  Nequillim  T C E   22:33, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per all. --Coolnesse 00:48, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

Question - Can you list all of the pages that group together in this RFD, so we can get an idea of the other pages before they're speedy deleted? Thanks, Tollerach hates SoF 04:42, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - It is an artefact from when the wiki first started up in 2005 and items didn't get pages. Old! _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 04:46, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

I just checked, it was made 4 days after Merovigan created the RuneScape wiki. It would have be like the 12th article created or something =P _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 04:48, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

Delete or Split - If no "Magic items" or "Runecrafting items" pages exist, create them, but grouping them like this doesn't make sense anymore. Oil4 ^Talk 13:19, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Note that articles like Weapons and Armour contain this information, so there's no need for a split. C.Chiam^Talk 03:06, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Keep. C.Chiam^Talk 02:53, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Skeleton (Ape Atoll)

Speedy Deletion tag removed by User:Chicken7, so I placed RfD. This article goes mostly with the Skeleton article.

Delete - As nom. --Coolnesse 05:03, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Its still a monster and its still different from normal skeletons its a Ape one Twig Talk https://i.imgur.com/772kZGs.png 05:04, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Unlike regular skeletons, they don't drop things from the normal skeleton drop list. They also look different due to originating from a different species and are a much higher level then the rest. Apart from the name, nothing is really the same. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 06:09, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - If anything, the Skeleton article need to be split more, not less. Tollerach hates SoF 07:06, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Strong keep - per RS:G. The Skeleton article is too long, messy, and is desperately in need of cleanup and a split actually. The different skeletons are all notable and all deserve their own articles. In fact, I've been planning to split it for months now, but I never got around to doing it because of other priorities. C.Chiam^Talk 12:00, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per all. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  20:33, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Articles on monsters with multiple versions, like skeletons, ought to be split. Apart from name and appearance, they're really different monsters. Most of the times they have different HP, slayer xp, max hits, drops, location, storyline, etc. I would support splitting up articles in pretty much any situation like this. Morian Smith 00:41, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Wolves are going to be merged --Coolnesse 00:42, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - I see no reason to remove this.  Panjy16 ★ 05:21, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - It doesn't really violate any Wiki guideline, so I don't see why it should be removed. Since these skeletons behave differently than the others, I think that it should have its own page. --Liquid^Talk 22:20, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was no consensus 02:53, March 13, 2010 (UTC).

Evil tree animations

Evil Elder Tree.gif Tree.gif Evil_Maple_Tree.gif Evil_Willow_Tree.gif

I think these animations are unneeded, overly large, and useless to show the Evil trees as much as the png's already do. Not much else to say.

Delete - As nominator. Ryan PM 05:57, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - I second that motion. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 09:11, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

Delete all - Yes they're nice, but they're far too large and don't really show anything that a still image can't show. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 21:55, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - The essence could be easily captured in a still. Ruud ^{(talk)(Suggest me naems)} 21:58, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - I don't agree. If not for my experience with Evil trees in-game, I wouldn't have been able to imagine at all what their animations would be like. These gifs show just that and allow readers to get a better understanding of what they are reading. Still images do not show this at all. C.Chiam^Talk 02:32, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Replace them with still images showing players cutting them, maybe? --Iiii I I I 02:35, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Keep all - Per Caleb. He summed it up better than I could, though. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  18:25, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - To Caleb and Telos, even if we need one (which I think we don't) do we need all four? http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 19:12, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It'd look weird having an animation of an evil willow in the article about normal evil trees, for example. Keeping them won't do any harm and we can use these to illustrate the evil tree article. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk 

Delete - Kind of pointless to have all 4 even one isn't needed, all it shows is the trees "flailing about". Keep maybe one if it's completely necessary to have it in article which I doubt. Chaos knight 04:07, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Keep Elder delete rest - Per part of Chaos knight "Delete" Twig Talk https://i.imgur.com/772kZGs.png 04:11, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Keep all - These are nice animations and not everyone gets the chance to see each of these trees often. It would be a shame if users couldn't come to the wiki and see say an evil yew tree in action. Tollerach hates SoF 21:35, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Keep all - Why not? There's nothing wrong with them. Oil4 ^Talk 18:05, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - While these animations fit the "Unique and interesting NPC animations" of RS:IMAGE, only one would be justifiable to keep, that being the Elder if any. A reason why I nominated these was due to the quality and size of the animations (even though I didn't think the Elder was when I uploaded it some time ago). If someone wants to view them, keep the Elder animation, create a File:Evil Elder Tree First Frame.png with a redirect on that file to the animation file. This way, we could reduce the lag already experienced from the Wiki. Ryan PM 06:38, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

Keep one - I wouldn't have been able to see how much evil trees moved without these (I thought they just wiggled their branches a little), but we don't need all of them, as they all make the same movements. User:C Teng/sig 14:40, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

No. The normal, elder and maple tree animations all show different movements. The willow animation is the same as the elder one, but everything else is different. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  04:55, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

Even though I haven't done Evil trees in awhile, I recall that they all have the same motions, just that I recorded three of them at different intervals. I cut them to a certain rate and looped to make a reasonable file size (however large it is now, it would be several times larger had it been the full avi/gif file). Ryan PM 22:04, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

I get that, but the animations all show different parts of the movement. None of the animations show the full evil tree animation. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  23:56, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Replace them with stills with players chopping it. Anyways, the animations look quite funny though, especially the Elder tree one (wtf a Leprechaun) • NnK Oliver • ^(600613) _talk 05:14, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

Delete all - Completely agree with deletion of them, they are far too large and unnecessary, placing a picture will be just fine for those pages. -- MrZaros357 19:54, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Keep one, delete the rest - They show the hectic and brutally, cruel awesomeness of evil trees . They're EVIL for a reason, they're not some weird trees with a face that stand still. We need at one to show this, but having four just shows one thing in four different colors. User:Lil diriz 77/Signatures 01:28, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Then we might as well delete all of the party hat images except for one, right? Oil4 ^Talk 20:29, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

....no... The partyhats don't move, don't have a personality, and don't have gif images here on the wiki. There's no reason to delete any of their images because they're all used on the article, per the fact that every item on this wiki has a corresponding article and image to go with it. We're not VfDing the phat images. We're VfDing these Evil Tree gifs. User:Lil diriz 77/Signatures 09:04, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

• To all who support deletion: What is the point of deleting these images? They're perfectly good and show the evil trees far better than the PNGs. I never would have expected them to move in the way they do. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  03:38, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

Keep one- it is usefull to show but only one is needed Sentra246 06:23, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

Keep one - Per Caleb about animation and Lil Diriz about one is just as good as four. Powers38 ^おはようヾ(´･ω･｀) 14:35, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - So are any supporters going to answer my question? ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  09:29, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Strong keep all - We have space on this wiki. I've never been "Evil-tree-ing" but now I know how each of the trees move. Even if they are the same pattern, they are different trees! Are you going to put the willow gif on the maple article? And this isn't a "Waste of space" at all! Useless templates like Template:Userbox/CheeseRulez|this is what I call a waste of space, not informative, appealing and helpful animations. Chicken7 ^>talk 13:35, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Nicely said. ^^ ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  20:14, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

I am changing my vote from keep all to strong keep all, per Chicken. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  20:37, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Compramise suggestion - Retake all animations so that the image that is currently the smallest would become the lergest?? (so try to keep them at 500kb)?? _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 09:26, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - It's been nearly 4 months since I nominated these for deletion... It's still here... The intent is to remove these files due to their atrocious size and not being needed. As for the less than 500kb, it's not fairly possible without reducing the entire length to a ¼^th of what it is now (maybe even smaller) making the animation into a simple gif image. If we want to keep them, why not just keep one. The best one would be the elder, yet being a nice 1.18 MB makes it the article unvisitable by those with less than stellar connections (Dial-up). My whole purpose was to allow normal viewing of pages rather than waiting 10 minutes for it to load. As for server memory, why not just do GIF Animations of your avatar like Tari did before RSHD? Oh right, it was a waste of space (I don't see how you can call these "helpful" animations). Ryan PM 05:00, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Strong delete all - The background makes it look worse. I don't like imperfections. --Coolnesse 14:17, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Delete keeping those wont accomplish anything Fllour 17:03, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
Keep - very few "everyday" scenes in RS are as "animated" as the evil tree events, and I have issues with lag mostly in editing mode (even large still shots and a large pile of signatures can cause this, though). As a compromise, I like Bluesonic's idea, and as the contributor, I think his opinion ought to carry a little extra weight. These gifs represent time and effort he made and shared with the community. --TheLastWordSword 14:47, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Keep one, delete rest - Per all who support deletion. ----Liquid^Talk 14:48, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Keep all - Per Caleb. bad_fetus^talk 19:18, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Support retaking of images for smaller file size - MUCH better than outright deleting this (useful) images. Also, it'd be nice if we could get animations for the trees not included here (oak, yew, magic) too. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  05:02, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - there is no consensus to do anything. Andrew ^talk 02:53, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete. C.Chiam^Talk 02:42, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

PvP worlds/Free-to-play drops

This page is basically just a long list of obtainable items in F2P PvP/BH worlds. There's really no way we can prove that some of the listed items are possible to get. I have got several Treasure Trail items from 'death matches' where we both (My opponent and I) had 'trimmed' items in our inventories, and I have even seen players transferring items this way.

Frede^Talk 12:50, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Unreliable since you can get items that your opponent has on them. Not a very useful page. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 01:03, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per Evil Yanks. ----Liquid^Talk 01:04, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per all/RS:SNOW. --Coolnesse 05:00, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

3 people doesn't give it a snowball's chance in hell... The hidden locations page was closed prematurely earlier today because you called consensus after 3 people had commented... _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 05:06, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

... and that doesn't make sense to you? No, I don't think it was premature... Besides, speedy deletion should have gone through. --Coolnesse 05:53, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Snow is either when someone creates a RFD for something where the outcome is blatently obvious (like a RFD for a spam page) or when there is insurmountable evidence and support/opposition on a cause. Only the first really applies to RFDs, with consensus normally being called before there is even a chance of Snow being called. It is always a good idea to leave a RFD open for at lease 24 hours to give anyone/everyone a chance to say something. I was forced to create a RFU to give my opinion on the "speedy deletion page" since it was closed before I could comment. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 06:11, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Question - I understand that this list is bulky and suspect, but I do think some sort of information on PVP drop should exist. If we delete this page, where do we put the information on here? Sure things get unreliable because of inventory items being dropped, but I think the information is useful to PVPers. Where would this info go if it was deleted? Tollerach hates SoF 21:37, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per all. Oil4 ^Talk 13:18, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete. C.Chiam^Talk 02:46, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Category:Words with identical singular and plural

Delete - Cumbersome name, confusing, and doesn't fit with our category scheme. It just seems bad and I can't quite explain why. Tollerach hates SoF 04:27, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per Tollerach. --Coolnesse 05:04, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Strange thing to make a category about. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 06:19, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Keep but change name - Good information, it'd be a waste to delete it. Oil4 ^Talk 13:20, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per above. --Liquid^Talk 03:10, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - As Evil yanks said, really strange thing to categorize. bad_fetus^talk 19:25, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Categories such as this one, that actually have a use, are ones we should keep. However, this one, serves no actual purpose. Who really cares, anyhow? Delete it, and get this over with. --

Captain Sciz

Talk • Edits • Hiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=

18:04, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Keep. C.Chiam^Talk 02:38, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Troll cook

Speedy Deletion tag was removed by User:Calebchiam, so let's discuss it here.

I know attempting to delete this may violate RS:G, but this article currently has no use? What I mean is that it's all covered in Burntmeat, Ash and Dung.

Strong Delete - As nom. --Coolnesse 13:46, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Question - Would these cooks fall under "non interactive scenery"? Since all they have are examines, they don't have much purpose, just like the scenery in areas. Maybe have this page be a disambiguation for the three main cooks. ~Muz^Talk 14:05, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

I guess so. --Coolnesse 14:11, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Strong keep - Per RS:G. Troll Cook (if I'm not mistaken and remember correctly) does not refer collectively to Burntmeat, Ash, and Dung. They refer to the non-interactive NPCs with the name "Troll Cook". The subject of the article is different, so there isn't any reason to delete this. And with regards to the question about them being non-interactive scenery, non-interactive NPCs do not qualify as NPCs (previous RfDs: RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Blacksmith working the bellows and RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Mountain goat), and RS:G corroborates this: "characters who do not have these features are still worthy of their own article, even though they are not interactive". Not worthy of deletion in my opinion. C.Chiam^Talk 14:54, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

You know, all you did was repeat what I said. (I would keep the other articles, lol) However, it's still covered in those three articles. --Coolnesse 14:59, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, is there an NPC by the name of "Troll Cook"? C.Chiam^Talk 15:08, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Yes there are three of them in the Troll Stronghold kitchen, and Burntmeat is a additional one. --Tyrant T100 15:15, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Then Coolnesse, I suggest you reread my argument. I'm arguing that Troll Cook does not refer collectively to Burntmeat, Ash and Dung, but refers specifically to an NPC of that name, and per RS:G, the article should be kept. C.Chiam^Talk 15:19, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

If you can reread what I said after you it clearly states 'it's still covered in those three articles'. --Coolnesse 15:24, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Would the article pose more purpose if we added a bit in on Lalli, seeing as he doesn't actually try and cook humans?--Tyrant T100 19:34, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Keep In my opinion it serves a purpose. It is referencing a group of NPC's, and three specific examples. Its like a group page. For example, if we can have a page like Dagannoth, with all of its child articles, what is the matter with this page? Mikelid109 19:38, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Weak keep - Personally, I think that this is a pointless article and should be deleted, but deleting it violates RS:G. So, it has to stay. --Liquid^Talk 19:40, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - By having RS:G say that everything with a yellow dot in-game is worthy of its own page, a lot of possible debates are prevented. By making exceptions to this rule, we might be opening a pandora's box of problems. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 06:24, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per Caleb and Yanks. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  11:06, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - The debate on deleting articles about mostly non-interactive characters has been beaten to death, and it has been decided a number of times (more than Calebchiam mentioned; I know there was atleast one other debate about deleting the Ardal article, and probably more aside) by the community that they're worth keeping. Is this article great? No, but consider that it could be expanded on to make it atleast decent. Morian Smith 00:27, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Request closure - Per RS:SNOW. --Coolnesse 00:35, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Request for closure - We've had many discussions about this, whether Non-interactive NPCs should have an article of their own. And the answer is–Yes. NPCs such as this deserve an article. Close this please. --

Captain Sciz

Talk • Edits • Hiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=

17:53, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Speedy delete. C.Chiam^Talk 02:37, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

File:Bandos throne room map.jpg

[[File:Bandos throne room map.jpg|300px]]

This image is JPEG, has the creator's name in it (in the corner it says "created by: Poofu1") and is unneeded, because the article already has a (better quality) map. Terrible quality picture that makes the article look bad. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  02:25, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

If a better quality version is available, an RfD is unnecessary, just tag it for Speedy deletion. C.Chiam^Talk 02:27, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Very well. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  02:28, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Keep. C.Chiam^Talk 02:04, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Shooting Star/Solo guide

I believe this article should be merged with the Shooting Star article, due to the fact that there is practically the same information, just with a paragraph or two for the solo guide.

Merge as nominator. Bowler225 04:34, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose The purpose of the solo guide is to have all the information you need in a short bam clear list. The full star page is too long, lists too many options, it gives so much detail that a new solo hunter won't be able to figure out what they need to do exactly. They will get to all the spots,but it won't be fast and they won't get many tags.--Degenret01 04:53, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Also, it is not in the main space, I put it as a subpage off the Star page when I made it since the information is identical, just laid out different.--Degenret01 18:02, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - The guide also lists the fastest way to each location and the recommended route to take when finding all possible star location by yourself. Powers38 ^おはようヾ(´･ω･｀) 11:45, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per all. --Coolnesse 22:52, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete.

File:Orb_Of_Oculus_Glitch.png

I think it's time someone took the initiative to RFD this image. This image, and I think you'll agree, looks horribly... Wrong. It's just another Graphical Glitch, and we already have dozens of them. We don't need another one. Honestly, who cares if there's a glitch like this? We don't need a picture of it. We know what happened, that should be enough....

Delete - As Nominator. --

Captain Sciz

Talk • Edits • Hiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=

16:42, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Pending/Neutral - True, this image can be the source of quite a bit of trouble for obvious reasons, and it's not the most notable thing in the world, but we should try and keep track of everything. Some vandalism has been added to pages going into too much detail over the nature of the image which has to be reverted but cannot be considered to be in bad faith due to the nature of the information added. I would like to see more discussion before I make a decision one way or the other. User:Stelercus/Signature 21:54, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

Weak delete - I guess it isn't particularly notable, these sorts of glitches are fairly common. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  08:52, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Strong delete - that image makes me sick, but you know, we could just re upload it, still im supporting this deletion, it a good idea --User:Parsonsda/Signatures/Parsonsda 09:05, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per Parsons. --Coolnesse 22:55, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Sure it can be argued that this is a valid image, but... Do we really have images of every single graphical glitch? (I doubt it) There have been plenty of times this kind of stretching occurs on a given piece of equipment. This is not new. The reason I say delete is that this image seems more likely to be the subject of ridicule or vandalism than it actually documents a new and unique glitch. It's not a bad image, but the likelihood of misinterpretation seems much greater for this particular image. Tollerach hates SoF 09:58, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - It is the same as all the other stretching graphics glitches, though this one could be misinterpreted as his "manhood". Not vital, probably the butt of many jokes. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 05:19, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Merge. C.Chiam^Talk 02:09, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

RuneScape:Wiki History

This page hasn't been edited in over a year, and is basically the same as RuneScape:News. User:C Teng/sig 03:10, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. User:C Teng/sig 03:10, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - Boringggg. • NnK Oliver • ^(600613) _talk 03:12, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - While it could be revived if people decide to put effort into it, I really don't think that it would be worthwhile. I have never even seen the page before... _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 03:15, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Changed to Merge further down. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 05:48, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - from a historical perspective. Perhaps protect and archive the content if there is some concern about somebody editing this page, but there is some value to keeping this page. I've tried to do some forensics to write a semi-objective history of a wiki before (in that case it was the Wikibooks project), and content of this nature is critical if you are to be able to understand the community better. Yes, I realize that this information can be mostly obtained by looking at Special:Logs and through other means as well, so it isn't strictly necessary. Still, it isn't completely without value. As for the argument that it hasn't been edited, all that implies is that somebody hasn't picked up the torch to continue on here. I don't consider it to be a valid argument that something should be deleted strictly because it isn't being maintained. --Robert Horning 09:47, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Wierd. Even before I saw your sig, I knew it was you talking.... --

Captain Sciz

Talk • Edits • Hiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=

19:07, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

I could tell it was Robbie H from the first 4 words Chicken7 ^>talk 14:06, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - Per C Teng. --
  
  Captain Sciz
  Talk • Edits • Hiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=
  19:07, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - Per Robbie H. This needs to be kept, but just revised and updated. The fact that it hasn't been edited in a while is a very dodgy reason, imho. A lot of our content articles haven't been edited/updated in a long time, shall we delete them? Slightly unrelated, but I wouldn't mind another page like this but with history of the wiki in an essay/speech/sections/paragraphs format. A lot of new users wish to know about the history of our great wiki. And I don't mean like "Butterfly jar is the wiki's 8000th article". I mean things like how the Wiki struggled with shortage of editors when it started, the whole scuffle about Total Rune and the Fansite Recognition debate. These things are only known through word of mouth to new users. Obviously, it'd be very biased and non-NPOV; but it isn't an article or policy, but merely something an interested Wikian may want to learn about. But that is something for another topic. Cheers, Chicken7 ^>talk 14:06, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

I'd support that.  @Gaz#7521 15:20, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. ~  Sentry Telos ^Talk  02:09, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

The NPOV page seems like a good idea since there is nothing like it on the wiki. I still think that wiki history should be deleted however since it all overlaps with RuneScape:News. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 10:56, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

• Delete- Sentra246 11:00, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - it's defiantly worth keeping, it just needs to be updated. Our policy on stubs (if that's the right policy, I know we have one on the topic) is that no article is to be deleted on the basis of having little information unless it can fit in with another article. On top of that, it's moderately interesting. User:Stelercus/Signature 23:17, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - It has potential, and if it's not great right now, be bold and make it great. Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 10:19, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - When it is fully updated, this will be a good history of the wiki. It has potential. Oil4 ^Talk 21:57, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - This can never be fully updated, and furthermore, who decides who is notable enough to be included on this list? If RS:AEAE were to apply, then it would be an unloadable page, well beyond the 100-200kb wikipedia recommends for splitting due to lag. And if this is the case, we already have a much better tool for users, right here. If it just stays as it is now, then it does nothing for the wiki, as it an archive that will rarely, if ever, be used/referenced and we might as well semi/fully protect it. KUPITH^rwojy 07:30, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per Chicken and Robert. --Liquidhelium 21:39, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

Delete Merge - Per RH. From a historical perspective, it shows very little significance whatsoever. Per Tollerach. --Coolnesse 00:48, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Idea - Looking at this page and RuneScape:New] it seems like we could almost merge the two. History slows down in 2007 and RS News starts there, and the formats could be converted decently. What do people think about that idea? It keeps the old info, ties it to a page that's kept up to date, and is generally fluffy, squishy, and all sorts of other good things. Tollerach hates SoF 10:28, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Merge - Better then deleting. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 05:44, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Closure? - This section hasn't really had anyone update it for two weeks... So... Are we keeping it? Deleting it? Merging it? --

Captain Sciz

Talk • Edits • Hiscores File:Runecrafter hat.png|link=

17:50, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do the merge if that's the way we go with this. I'd just need the go ahead from someone willing to make the call. I think that the merge does provide a middle ground that takes into account both initial supports and opposes, the problem is that most of the discussion happened before I proposed the merge and few people weighed in on it since then. Silence doesn't mean consensus so please keep talking everyone. Tollerach hates SoF 10:08, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete, although the discussion about moving the Advanced training guide to a different name may be continued on the talkpage. C.Chiam^Talk 02:25, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Money making guide/Pay-to-play Grand Exchange Merchanting

This article should be deleted as it just either rehashes things already present in the Advanced Trading guide, or lists too concrete examples (trading specific items like some sort of a drone is NOT what the idea of money making in RS is about) that may change over time.

No comments?--Agamemnus 01:56, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

Delete, move Advanced training guide to "Money making guide/Pay-to-play Grand Exchange Merchanting" - Pay-to-play Grand Exchange Merchanting should be deleted due to being either too specific or being the same as what is said in the advanced trading guide. The convention on all moneymaking guides is for them to be a sub-page of Money Making Guide, as a way of making it easier to navigate between the related pages. For this reason I think that Advanced trading guide should be moved to where the deleted page was. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 03:33, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

The reason why I renamed it the "advanced trading guide" is because that's what it is -- "merchanting" is not a word. I would support making the link for both "Money making guide/Pay-to-play Grand Exchange Merchanting" redirect to the Advanced Trading guide, though. The same rules apply to both making money in p2p as they do in f2p, with only variations on what you can trade and your slot limit, thus I would like to delete/move both this "merchanting" guide and the f2p "merchanting" guide and make them both link to "Advanced Trading guide".--Agamemnus 20:40, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

Could I have a decision on this?--Agamemnus 22:47, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Merge - It seems like the "Adv trading guide" is the most thorough of the three and any relevant information from the other 2 could be added into it. I also think it should be a subpage of the Money Making Guide, since its another way to make money. I'm ok with calling it merchanting since it is widely known as that even though it may not be an actual word. I don't like calling it "advanced" since that is more of a judgement call (why is it advanced?). Perhaps we just call it the "Money making guide/Grand Exchange" since that is how you're making the money anyway. Tollerach hates SoF 21:01, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

The advanced trading guide already has all the information necessary. The reason why it is called "advanced" is because to understand some of the concepts, players need to have a working brain -- as opposed to, say, a guide that says "buy low sell high" :). --Agamemnus 17:44, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - It's plain useless. --Coolnesse 00:52, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Pointless page. ----Liquid^Talk 19:40, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Request closure - This has been on for about 1 1/2 months, and it's mostly Delete. --Coolnesse 22:51, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Calebchiam (talk).

Money_making_guide/Grand_Exchange_Merchanting

The reasons for deleting this are the same as those for deleting "Money making guide/Pay-to-play Grand Exchange Merchanting": it just rehashes every single thing already mentioned in the Advanced Trading guide.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Agamemnus (talk).

Exactly! I've seen these tips in a lot of guide books.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.10.210.136 (talk).

Delete - Per Agamemnus. --Coolnesse 00:51, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Request closure - This has been on for about 1 1/2 months, and it's mostly Delete. --Coolnesse 22:52, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.