Replacement filing cabinet
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.
Replacement filing cabinet
1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

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. --LiquidTalk 01:41, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Category: Pages to be checked for HP to LP conversion

Since the Constitution update, our Wiki has worked hard to change every article from HP to LP. I noticed in the category, that it seems that all the pages have been cleared, except for two userpages. Since the Wiki has checked all the pages, I think the category should be deleted.

Delete - As nominator. Spined helm SpineTalkBook of knowledge 20:26, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per nom. --Coolnesse 23:55, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - above Farming cape (t) Lil cloud 9 Talk 23:59, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - As per nomination.

Delete - Per above.

  1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 00:03, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Along with Template:Check HP. Full slayer helmet Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon platebody 00:05, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - I'm going to be bold and call this a speedy delete, since this is essentially an unused category. --LiquidTalk 01:41, July 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 Speedy-deleted Weird gloop @Gaz#7521 15:10, July 18, 2010 (UTC).

Money Making Guide/Edgeville Dungeon

The page is a mess. It's basically a badly written set of directions to the Edgeville dungeon, with instructions to kill chaos druids for their grimy herb drops, as well as a note that you can see some Black Demons. Chaos Druids are already mentioned on the page for this dungeon, and their own page, and the member's money making guide for combat. I don't see any reason why this pile of bold text is needed. Brought to you by Dawn's Light Talk HS 13:42, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support -- OK; agreed.--Agamemnus 13:47, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion Closed - See above deletion tag. User:Haloolah123/Sig 13:48, July 18, 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. Chicken7 >talk 09:00, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

Money making guide/Prayer

|this isn't truly a money making guide for prayer as most money making guides are guides for people to train that skill and make money, but all be belwo methods doesnt give any pray exp. shld be moved to money making/misc.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kyosinn95 (talk) on 06:32, July 3, 2010 (UTC).

  • It has money making methods that use prayer, so I think it's appropriate.   Armadyl godsword Jimothy  Talk HS Ranged cape (t) 17:03, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • It does show ways to make money, and it does make the person use the prayer skill, so I don't see why you would cut it out. O-o User:TyA/sig 17:05, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • Where does it say that the skill must be trained while making money? I didn't think that was an actual qualification for methods. - [Pharos] 03:35, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - No one seems to get how this works (don't worry, my community interaction lesson will be finished soon Smile). But yeah. The guide shows things that use the prayer skill, so it's good to have this page. I'm sure there will also be more added in the future. User:Haloolah123/Sig 04:00, July 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Just because you don't gain prayer experience doing it you need a prayer level for it.Hunter cape (t) Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask 04:37, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Forgot to put this in above ^   Armadyl godsword Jimothy  Talk HS Ranged cape (t) 07:15, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - It has money making methods. Nowhere does it say it must give prayer xp 222 talk 04:31, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per brain. This article is a good example on gathering popular resources for players to train skill. Rewlf2 04:36, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Nowhere does it say you have have to be gaining xp to be using a skill, and you are using prayer so it being in the prayer guide is appropriate.Quest point capeBakinblak009Zaros symbol15:14, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

Request closure - Consensus is to keep. 222 talk 09:27, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per above. bad_fetustalk 09:44, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per above. Matthew2602 02:58, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Article will be kept. The guide has many methods which use Prayer, and there was unanimous opposition to delete. Chicken7 >talk 09:00, July 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 Redirect to Clue scroll..

Elite clue scroll

There is the same amount of evidence for jagex releasing this as there is for jagex releasing intercontinental ballistic missiles. Jagex NEVER, EVER said that they will release elite clue scrolls. They have said they will release elite TREASURE TRAILS, which is different. Furthermore, we do not split clues into separate articles- level 3 and 2 and 1 are all just called "clue scroll." No evidence for this being any different.

delete- as nom. 20:17, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect - Per Psycho. User:Haloolah123/Sig 20:22, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per nom. Spined helm SpineTalkBook of knowledge 20:29, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per nom. --Coolnesse 21:26, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per nom. Keg of beerAtlandyBeer 18:43, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per nom-nom-nom. The Pandorica will open. 18:53, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to Clue scroll - Which is probably what all of you meant anyways. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 18:57, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect - Per robot. Coelacanth0794 18:59, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect I personally think a redirect to either clue or treasure trails (most notably the level 4 section when it comes out) would work. Korasi's sword Archmage Elune  TalkHS Void knight deflector fetus is my son and I love him. 01:31, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect otherwise Delete - Per all. 222 talk 09:11, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect - Per Psycho.Hunter cape (t) Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask 09:29, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect - Per Psychonub bad_fetustalk 09:43, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

Request for closure - redirect, delete, same thing. 15:02, July 17, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect - per obvious nature of unreleased and unconfirmed items... Amascut symbol Amascut Ia Morte 07:21, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

  • I would just like to point out the stupidity of the statement "There is the same amount of evidence for jagex releasing this as there is for jagex releasing intercontinental ballistic missiles." While it is is true that there is no direct evidence that an item by this name will be released, it is not out of the realm of likelihood. They've labelled the new trails "elite trails" instead of level 4 trails, so it is possible that the clue scroll for this trail will break the previous mold of non-denoted clues just like it will break the mold of level 1/2/3 trails. So to say there is no evidence whatsoever is patently stupid. Further, what if there is indeed an elite clue scroll released? Won't you all feel stupid for having wasted your time on some stupid policy-wanking while being under the impression that this page is a stain on the respectability of this website because it's sepculation. It is at least possible that such an item is going to be released, the question will be resolved by the end of this month, and it is possible that readers may find it useful in the meantime; as such it is nonsense to delete it now while it is uncertain instead of then when it will be certain. (wszx) 19:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

So then, its not stupid. Its a true, undesputed fact that there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDINCE that jagex will release this. You must not have noticed that we arn't talking about the "realm of likelyhood", we are talking about FACTS. Again, possible, not proven. Even if there WAS evidence, wikia deals with PROOF. And i will not feel stupid, as im not saying it wont come out. I'm arguing that THERE IS NO EVIDINCE FOR IT. So even if it does come out I'm right, THERE IS NO EVIDNCE NOR PROOF FOR IT.

Let me list the items that its "possible" for jagex to release: [redacted]

And 3rd age bowswords. Just because somethings possible, doesn't mean we have an article for it nor does it mean its likely to come out at all. Clear? 22:46, July 17, 2010 (UTC)
Stop using caps. It is considered shouting, which is rude, and doesn't make your arguments any stronger (and goodness knows how lacking you are in that category). I already acknowledged that there is no direct evidence that this item will be released. That doesn't mean that it's not going to exist, or that we must ignore any evidence which suggests it might exist. I am submitting that the evidence for its possible existence is compelling enough to warrant suspension of deletion until we know for sure. As for your embarrassingly false assertion that Wiki deals with "PROOF", take into account that Wikia as a company and the RS Wikia as a website does neither. This site is positively rife with speculation, opinion and what-might-be. (wszx) 23:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Your tone is FAR worse then shouting or typing in caps or whatever u think im doing. And- as a fact- wikia does not allow opinions or speculation. Stuff does get by, but in that case i or other helpful users will remove it, provided people such as you dont get in the way. But yes, IT IS A FACT, runescape wikia doesn't allow speculation or opinions. I suggest you read our policys if you are new. Also please point out speculation/opinions to me in an article. 23:38, July 17, 2010 (UTC)
FAR worse, you say? Well thank goodness I wasn't shouting my tone at you. Please also endeavour to make distinctions between Wikia and the RuneScape Wikia. Just like "wiki" does not mean "Wikipedia", "Wikia" does not mean "RuneScape Wikia". I would also appreciate your not patronizing me with an admonition to "read our policys [sic]" if I am new, particularly since I have been registered on this site considerably longer than you have. If you wish to reference a specific policy to support your argument, then do so. But refrain from a useless chastisement to read all of them. The policy I imagine you are most concerned with is RS:NOT#CRYSTAL, which reads: Articles are not the place for speculation about future updates. Future content should not be discussed in the article namespace, unless it has been explicitly mentioned on the official Jagex or RuneScape sites. Even then, coverage should not go into detail or speculate about the update's content unless it was given in the update. While this clause may support excising speculation, I submit that it does not mandate deletion of this article. Your only leg to stand on with regard to this article's being speculation is a technicality that the BTS only labelled the trail as being "elite", rather than the clue. If we ignore that technicality (not imprudent, since both clues and trails are currently referred to a level X clue/trail) this clause is dismissed because it provides for inclusion of explicitly mentioned content, which this is. Again, though, this is largely moot. There is no compelling reason for urgency, and I suggest we can wait until the update is released to see what actually happens, and make a more informed decision then. (wszx) 02:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I DO THIS ALL THE TIME IN DISCUSSIONS. It's called raging or going 'berserk', tyvm. Your logic is nullified by RS:NOT#CRYSTAL. Our policies do not allow us to write anything that is speculated. Case closed, --Coolnesse 02:34, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
While I'm sure 3AF is thrilled to count the eminent likes of you in his company of "ragers", simply because you see fit to behave indecorously does not mean it is acceptable. (wszx) 02:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
(Reset Tabs) I'd just like to point out that I don't think this is going anywhere. Neither of you are likely to convince the other of their argument/side. I think it would be better if you guys just stopped, but that's your decision. If they are in fact called "Elite clue scroll"s, the article may easily be changed from a redirect into a legitimate article. I don't see any information that is all that valuable in the article currently. User:Haloolah123/Sig 02:56, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect - Per above. Matthew2602 03:01, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

Request for closure - Redirect to clue scroll. Discussion has been open long enough, I'v gotten almost 100% support, and keeping it open further will just result is pointless arguing.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 3AF (talk) on 10:48, July 18, 2010.

Comment Don't you mean the article has almost 100% support not I've? Keg of beerAtlandyBeer 15:02, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
Idk, do I? Just close it please. 15:07, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Many arguments brought forward in favour of deleting/redirecting. Redirecting, in the case that people search for it. Chicken7 >talk 09:09, July 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 Merge to File:Range.png.


File:Range.png is better quality, and the shape of the images is exactly the same. Also, a stove is almost the exact thing as a range, exept the name. That's why Stove redirects to Range and isn't an apart page.

The two files it is about: File:Stove.pngRange

Delete (i agree with Gaz Lloyd) Merge - As nom (i didn't know when merging images history will be saved, i didn't even know images could be merged) JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 13:38, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - They look the same, I see no cosmetic difference between the two. ~MuzTalk 13:50, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Range.png was taken in high detail.

  1. REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 22:22, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Merge - Only one needed, merge to preserve history. Weird gloop @Gaz#7521 22:43, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - This isn't necessary, I'll just merge the histories and replace the uses. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 02:46, July 30, 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.

Burnt mushroom

This isn't really of any help to anyone, as all it tells you is that it is worthless, and it says that on the fried mushroom page anyway! -Real Not Pure 20:21, July 30, 2010

Strong Oppose - We have a an article for almost every single item. We don't delete them just because they are useless. User:Haloolah123/Sig 20:28, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per RuneScape:Granularity. ʞooɔ 20:29, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Moar oppose - Per cook, I had forgotten about that. Coelacanth0794 20:30, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Question - Does this RfD also apply to all pages/files/related media to Category:Useless items? User:Haloolah123/Sig 20:32, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Fair point(s). Will retract my previous statement. -Real Not Pure

Closed - Consensus was not reached. User:Haloolah123/Sig 20:38, July 30, 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.ChiamTalk 03:46, July 31, 2010 (UTC)


This template, as far as I can tell, is only used to start a table with no borders, but it is extremely limited in what it can do. In fact all it can do is change the width and background color. This same thing can be accomplished by starting a normal wikitable and using "style=border:none; background:red;". Also up for deletion are {{Col-2}} {{Col-3}} {{Col-end}}, as they are only created to be used with the main template. Col-end especially since its just "|}". Typing it manually uses less characters than typing the template name! Oh my head!

Delete all - As nom. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 18:02, June 5, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Delete all - Per nom. --Coolnesse 21:51, June 5, 2010 (UTC)

Delete all - Per above. Suppa chuppa Talk 21:55, June 5, 2010 (UTC)

Delete all - Rather useless template.Boxian77 21:20, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - I don't see how it's harming anything. Tables confuse me, especially with all the extra parameters. This is much easier than all the coding you've described above, in my opinion. Col-end may be slightly useless, but at least it adds consistency. All it is doing is making tables easier for people. Apart from the apparent "space issue", why delete? Chicken7 >talk 08:02, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Chicken brings up a good point. There are a lot of users out there who don't really know how to deal with tables, so I guess that makes me neutral on this. Suppa chuppa Talk 17:03, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Question - You want to delete the doc? Full slayer helmet Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon platebody 08:07, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Tables without borders aren't very useful at all. HaloTalk 17:09, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, they can be very useful in certain aspects. Sometimes we don't want to make a table, but just make columns. This template accomplishes that with ease, without the need for all the coding. Chicken7 >talk 05:42, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - I do not see how this can do any harm, and I can see that you can do this without using any templates, but then you can say you don't need any templates at all, as you can just put the coding on each page. The idea is to make it simpler, and this certainly does. bad_fetustalk 11:14, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - This can be very usefull.Hunter cape (t) Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask 10:10, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Chicken makes a good point. If you just want columns, then this templated can be useful to those inexperienced with tables. Clue scroll detail Deersindal talk HS Quest point cape equipped  18:29, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per above, there is a use for them.

  1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 15:57, July 28, 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.


This template just feeds the fire, as one might say. It sets the expectation that people are going to be uncivil and out of hand, when the expectation should always be that everyone polite and in control. I known there are those people who just love the WikiDrama, and this is one of the best ways to stir that WikiDrama up big-time. This template has no benefit and does nothing, if someone is out of hand they should instead be appropriately warned on their talk page. --Aburnett(Talk) 03:44, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - As nom. --Aburnett(Talk) 03:44, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Often times this CAUSES things to become heated/even more heated. User:Haloolah123/Sig 03:50, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Its like whoever puts this up is saying "the opposition is being a bunch of immature brats so I guess I have to put this up." kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 03:54, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Just infuriates and disappoints even more most of the time. Chicken7 >talk 06:47, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Delete Per all Keg of beerAtlandyBeer 14:12, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per Atlandy. Mining-icon Matthew2602 Talk Contribs Runecrafting-icon 10:38, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - I can see where you guys are coming from, but it still might help some users. bad_fetustalk 10:43, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

How so? User:Haloolah123/Sig 20:48, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per that illogical automaton. Full slayer helmet Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon platebody 10:45, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - Per Chess. --Coolnesse 23:15, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Slight, very, very slight keep - Per chess. 222 talk 06:53, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per HaloHunter cape (t) Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask 09:53, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Almost every discussion here has drama anyways, and this does nothing to even lessen that. Also, if you look through various proposals, there is usually an edit war over this whenever the template is added. This isn't needed, and tends to make the situation worse.

  1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 16:03, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Strong delete - Per everyone. --LiquidTalk 02:06, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per liquid helmet Smile Coelacanth0794 20:50, July 30, 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.ChiamTalk 07:15, August 3, 2010 (UTC)


This page has no use as far as I can see. The Guranteed Content Poll for the Hallowe'en 2010 reward has passed weeks ago, and the reward has been chosen as the "Bone Brooch". Jagex will most unlikely release "Squeak" in the next year's H'ween event.

Delete - As nominator. Spined helm SpineTalkBook of knowledge 18:57, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - I believe this can actually be speedy deleted. Also per nom. Ciphrius Kane 19:03, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Speedy delete - Per Ciphrius Kane. --Coolnesse 19:09, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Strong delete - Why did anyone even make this in the first place...? 19:54, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Strong delete - Per Ciphrius. 222 talk 06:03, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Jagex has posed this item/animal/bat/whatever as a possible future release. Even if it will not be released for a year, so what? If Jagex confirmed that RuneScape 3 was coming out in 2020, we'd obviously still make an article. I learnt something by reading that article, as I never voted in the polls. None of you have supplied adequate reasoning for deletion. It has a use: to supply information as it has done to me. In reply to Ciphrius, how does it pass as speedy? 3AF, someone made it when Jagex gave it as an option for a Halloween Event reward... It isn't fanon and isn't speculation. Chicken7 >talk 06:55, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's past and probably won't be reintroduced in the next poll (per nom) and it has most definitely not been confirmed. Just my thoughts. 222 talk 06:59, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per Chicken7. Mining-icon Matthew2602 Talk Contribs Runecrafting-icon 07:40, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Weak keep - Per James. bad_fetustalk 10:41, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Umm... lol? Jagex said its POSSIBLE, not confirmed. We cannot start making articles for everything thats a "possible" addition to the game -.-.... 17:40, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
We did for Dragon ore. Coelacanth0794 17:44, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
Didn't they confirm that? 18:11, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
About Dragon Ore, 1, we did create Dragon Ore because Jagex said it was possibly going to be released. 2, apparently they didn't confirm it enough. 3, it was deleted, as half the wiki rubbished and criticised me when they failed to AGF. I still think it shouldn't have been deleted.
In reply, if that item had won the poll, it would've been guaranteed to be released. Jagex must have had some prototypes or sketches at least of what it could be like; I'm sure they've done that with every idea they've heard (even this). That makes it a part of non-in-game history, which we strive to cover. To be honest though, I personally think we should cover information about all items Jagex has every mentioned. Lol But that's just me. Chicken7 >talk 06:41, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
Chicken, they're just gonna keep deleting these kinds of things. ([[RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Rocking Out]]) --Coolnesse 12:08, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - The wiki isn't exploding by having this article around. If and when it is confirmed that this will not exist, we can still keep the article as it is still information on what could have been an item.

  1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 15:58, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
If we keep this, we need articles for skeleton puppy, mummy costume, pumpkin seeds, colored pet rocks, colored crystal bow, colored robin hood hat, colored lunar, colored lunar staff, the angry chicken bar, the crystal unicorn bar, the gilded cage bar, the dusty barnical bar, all of the christmas event possibilitys, pet raindeer, icycle sword, elf costume, christmas present, mince pies, present boots, christmas stocksings, turning to snow and melting emote, being decorated like a christmas tree emote, opening a present emote, santa laugh emote, skeletol wyvern familliar, mammoth familliar, griffin familliar, kangaroo familliar, penance healer familliar, giant mole familliar, giant kebbit familliar, killerwatt familliar, all haloween 2007 possibilitys, imp shorts, venquilliquest (sp) dummy, good and bad conscience emote, cape twirl emote, and boo! emote because they, also, are all rejected poll results. Better get to work, this could take a bit. 18:38, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
Most of those things aren't even articles O_o kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 18:40, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
That's why he said to create them. User:Haloolah123/Sig 18:41, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
Ha. Oops. I misread what he said. I thought he meant "if we delete this we need to delete these". I rock at reading! Yay literacy! kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 18:55, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
Why don't we have articles on those? We are a wiki about all things RuneScape. Why does that not include items that Jagex was willing to make available, but never did?
  1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 19:32, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
RS:G and RS:UCS limits that. --Coolnesse 00:38, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
Wrong. Using the RS:G method, we can come to the conclusion that the item idea Squeak and the 2010 Guarenteed Content Halloween Poll are two separate things and should be split. RS:UCS differs from person to person, but my interpretation is that we want as much information as possible. RS:NIP does not say yes or no to this article, so it may be something worth bringing up on the Yew Grove (*shudders*). There is no policy that you can cite that states to delete this article, apart from your own wild interpretation of RS:UCS. We have had a RfD similar to this before: Keyboard control. While Jagex had committed to creating the feature, and stated ideas and planning was underway, they dropped it. Both that and this are part of RuneScape's history, and quite interesting pieces of information. In reply to 3AF, we should create articles for every one of those items. I'd do it right now, if I wasn't so despised for boldly creating articles since Dragon ore. Chicken7 >talk 07:55, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
Resetting... Well, my "wild" interpretation of UCS is that if we were to do this, we would have to go back to the polls in '03/'04/'05 and add content from there. It would be too much of a hassle. Are we entirely sure that Jagex is going to release these? Of course we aren't. Squeak is part of the poll. What I think you're doing/trying to do is not bold at all. --Coolnesse 14:11, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
Jagex will most likely never release this, however, it was designed by Jagex (in concept) as an item for use in the game. As such, by common sense we should have this article, as it is information about RuneScape.
  1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 14:13, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. This is like talking about MechScape, they are never going to release it, yet they partially developed and wrote concept of it. It is more like a project than part of RuneScape. Our goal is not to have content different from every other fan site. Technically we're not a fan site, but an unofficial "encyclopedia" abotu RuneScape. --Coolnesse 14:23, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
MechScape is a bad example. It's not an addition to the RS game, but a completely different project. And your last point is one of our arguments. We strive to be different to every other fansite. I hardly think they have articles or information about this. Most fansites are just guides and databases; that's it. Maybe helpful, but interesting? If we're an encyclopedia, we should be covering as much information as possible. This is information, not speculation. Chicken7 >talk 12:04, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
In addition, we are not promoting pages of pure speculation. Like all of our articles, any info on them will be fact only. As such, why are we deleting this? Or even proposing to?
  1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 13:42, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - It is not a Confirmed update. This is exactly like this and this, well not exactly but pretty close. Hunter cape (t) Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask 09:20, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Deleting the page does nothing to improve the wiki; in fact its harming us by removing information that pretty much only we have (compared to other fansites). I agree fully with Chicken. Weird gloop @Gaz#7521 10:55, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Delete Arguments that say "it is not hurting anything" are poor at best. If that is the case then most player articles and fan fiction are not hurting anything either. Also, if we are "everything runescape" then fan fiction, player articles, fan websites, you tube vids, etc..would all have to be allowed. Keg of beerAtlandyBeer 13:55, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

No, those things wouldn't be as they are completely different. Squeak is something that Jagex actually designed (at least in concept) for use in the game, however, they did not create it when it failed to win the poll. That is completely different for something which a user made up (fan fiction), an article on an in-game player, etc.
  1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 14:02, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - If we have a whole big article on DeviousMUD (unreleased) then we should have Squeak, also unreleased. Attack cape (t)Jdogy15 TalkDragonfire shield 14:22, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

DeviousMUD was released actually. C.ChiamTalk 13:45, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per Sentra, remake it in a year or whatever. User:Haloolah123/Sig 12:52, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

Strong delete - Since it is no longer going to be implemented, delete it. Recreate it if it might be released in the future. --LiquidTalk 23:10, August 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.ChiamTalk 07:18, August 3, 2010 (UTC)


I think this template should be deleted because its essentially a duplicate of Template:Stub, and Stub does the job better. Its less obtrusive since its at the bottom of the page, and it matches terminology used on Wikipedia and other wikis. The only way an article could be incomplete but not a stub would be if its not done being written yet, which is what Template:Under Construction is for. I think it should be redirected to Stub since incomplete is a logical redirect to stub anyways.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psycho Robot (talk) on 03:34, July 28, 2010 (UTC).

Redirect - As nominator. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 03:34, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect - Per nominator. User:Haloolah123/Sig 03:37, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect - Per nominator. Mining cape The Last Pun Talk Aberrant Spectre Champion 03:40, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - I was thinking this myself right after I posted on the thread! But, I've thought of an issue. What about when it is used to say a list is incomplete? That should be different to a stub, and be directly above/below the list. Also, many passers-by wouldn't understand what a "stub" is, but moST likely would know what incomplete means. In my eyes, stub is more of a maintenance template for experienced editors to improve articles, and incomplete is more of a formal notice stating that something is missing. I suggest we maybe change this/create a new template to say the list is incomplete, or something along those lines. Chicken7 >talk 09:05, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

We have Template:Sectstub for a stub notice relating directly to a specific section. Also we could modify the message accompanied by both templates to make it clear to novice editors that stubs are missing information. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 09:08, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
I still don't know. I think a stub and incomplete list are different things. Chicken7 >talk 09:56, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - If anything you should redirect Template:Sectstub to this, one it is a much better template, 2 users can see and notice this one. Also stub and incomplete are completely different things stub is completly different to incomplete, if an article is 2 lines it is a stub, but if there is a list and there are only like 2 things in it then it is incomplete. That's just my 7 cents. Hunter cape (t) Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask 10:03, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Strong keep - Per Sentra. --Coolnesse 17:07, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

A stub is not different than incomplete, a stub is an article that's missing information, and an incomplete article is... missing information. I don't think it should matter if the information is missing from the list or from the body of the article. But to address your concern, what if we just change the messages to "This article/section is a stub or is incomplete. You can help by expanding it."? I don't think the difference, and I still argue there is none, is enough to benefit from differentiation. Consider the purpose of the templates: to identify an article as incomplete and to direct editors interested in expanding articles to it. And in that respect, its actually a nuisance to differentiate like this, as it makes editors have to look in two different places instead of one. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 17:27, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think a stub is missing any information, it's just a short article, unlike a long article. You know what I'm saying? --Coolnesse 00:50, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Strong keep - Stub and incomplete are different. Stub is that it has the basic but could have more, while incomplete is like "Go to the Varrock, then tele from Ardy" There is a part missing. Full slayer helmet Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon platebody 01:51, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

If its missing a part, then is it not under construction? kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 07:56, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
Under construction is for when you or a group of people are making big changes/updates to the page, incomplete is if you know its not complete but don't know what to put there and is kind of like asking people to update it.Hunter cape (t) Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask 09:23, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Strong keep - Per Sentra and Evil. 222 talk 07:51, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Infinitely Strong Keep - Per Evil and Sentra.

  1. REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 09:26, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per above. bad_fetustalk 10:48, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Stub ≠ Incomplete. ʞooɔ 00:52, July 31, 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 Redirect. C.ChiamTalk 07:18, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Specialty shop

The article is uninformative and the information it contains is self-explanatory.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wrathanet (talk) on 18:14, July 28, 2010 (UTC).

Neutral - The article has some potential, but the question is: can it really become a full-fledged article? Wrathanet talk edits Guthix mjolnir 18:20, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to Shop - I don't know that the distinction is enough to warrant a separate article. I think it will be fine with a section on Shop. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 18:21, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - What? You make a request for deletion, and yet you are neutral? I'm confused. User:Haloolah123/Sig 18:22, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually, another player nominated the article for speedy deletion, but I felt that it didn't meet those criteria.
Wrathanet talk edits Guthix mjolnir 18:28, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense. User:Haloolah123/Sig 18:36, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to Shop - Per Psycho (edit conflict ftw this time). User:Haloolah123/Sig 18:22, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to Shop - Per Psycho. --Coolnesse 02:37, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to Shop - Per Halo and Cool. Hunter cape (t) Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask 09:24, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to Shop - Per Psycho

  1. REDIRECT User:LordDarkPhantom/Signature 09:32, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to Shop#Types of shops - "Types of shops" is more specific because it lists what the article defines as a "Specialty shop".

  1. REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 09:37, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to Shop - Per above. bad_fetustalk 10:49, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to Wiki:Shop#Types_of_shops - Per Matthew Yakhunta 22:57, July 31, 2010 (UTC) -> How do I link to another page on the Wiki? I'm a new user, please bear with me.

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 Redirect to Bandos platebody.


This page will just annoy players looking for an article on the Bandos platebody. I say the redirect should be removed. Delete - As nominator Alandar995 01:18, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Isn't the item Bandos platebody, and it actually exists. Why would we delete a reasonable redirect to an actually page? ~MuzTalk 01:25, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not referring to the actual article just the redirect that takes you to the Bandos Chestplate.. Alandar995 01:29, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
Okay, the way it was worded sounded a bit strange, but I got it now. I was just about to change it, but it appears I was too slow. I think that the redirect is fixed now, it should redirect to the platebody article now. ~MuzTalk 01:34, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to Bandos platebody - I'm changing it to that, as the nominator says that it hinders people trying to reach Bandos platebody. If anyone objects they can change it back, but I don't see why they would. ʞooɔ 01:26, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Closed? - Issue has been resolved, nothing more to discuss here. ʞooɔ 01:45, August 6, 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 redirect to fansite 05:10, August 13, 2010 (UTC).

Runepoli/Any Fansite Article

I don't think we should have articles for platnum RS fansites, as User:C Teng. That opens the door for us to have articles about any fansite and is not directly related to RuneScape. I don't see any place for it here on the wiki.

Delete Merge - We don't need an article on every platinum fansite, but I can settle for a section of the fansite article. User:Stelercus/Signature 01:23, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - It does not open a door. I think that anything not directly related to RuneScape should not have an article here, unless it has gotten significant mention by Jagex. We only need to include the Platinum-level fansites, which is only five. Even if we decided to include the Gold and Silver levels as well (which we won't), it still wouldn't be that many. User:C Teng/sig 01:26, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that once it starts, it won't stop. User:Haloolah123/Sig 15:35, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - We are not trying to advertise other fansites, nor are we the RuneScape Fansites Wiki. --LiquidTalk 01:27, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

It is not an advertisement, it is an encyclopedic article. I am not trying to make this the RuneScape Fansites Wiki; these are notable websites, and there are only five. User:C Teng/sig 01:31, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Delete Redirect to Fansite - There's no point in having this article since there's no useful information to be conveyed about the topic. The runepoli website and community are not notable in terms of the game as a whole. Information concerning runepoli doesn't help users understand the game, its history, or the community any better. I understand that its not an advertisement, but its not necessary either. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 01:34, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Delete Merge into Fansite - Like said by Liquidhelium, we are the RuneScape wiki, and there is no reason to have an article on another fansite that, like Psycho Robot said, isn't significantly tied to the game. Mining cape The Last Pun Talk Aberrant Spectre Champion 01:37, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to "Fansite" - How about that? Compromise Man, AWAY! Full slayer helmet Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon platebody 01:40, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

The fansite article is out of date, as it alludes to a list of registered fansites, which has now taken its current form in the list of recognized fansites. Slayer-icon Gangsterls Divination-icon talk 01:48, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
Gee... we could, oh I don't know... update it. Full slayer helmet Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon platebody 01:53, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
And in doing so, acknowledge that there are other quality fansites? I'd love to update it, but it would be better to have a consensus on how we are going to treat other fansites first. Slayer-icon Gangsterls Divination-icon talk 02:05, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - The selected fansites which have been specifically recognized by Jagex do directly relate to the game. Not only do they have a significant influence on the game and play host to much of its community, but Jagex has stated that they will receive benefits including exclusive material and scoops on updates. In addition, Jagex themselves advertise these fansites via Facebook and Twitter. The slippery slope argument is also invalid in this case, considering there is a fixed list of recognized fansites. Slayer-icon Gangsterls Divination-icon talk 01:46, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

But will each fan site have enough information which is actually relevant to the wiki to justify an entire article? Or should each fan site just get a section on the Fansite article? kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 01:49, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
An article doesn't really have to be long and detailed to justify its existence. Some topics are meant to be covered briefly, in which case either separate articles or subsections on the Fansite article would suffice. Still, even a summary of the features of a fansite should provide a solid paragraph. I don't think that the wiki can be boiled down into a sentence or two, and I'm sure that the other major fansites can't be, either. Slayer-icon Gangsterls Divination-icon talk 02:08, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
But where is the benefit in them having their own separate articles when they could so easily be covered on one page? On the contrary, I would argue that the benefit is in having them all one one page. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 02:49, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
There is no problem in having a short article. Letting them have their own separate articles opens the door to expand them easily, without having length problems. Then we can create infoboxes, categories, etc. Having it on one page will get extremely messy, and psychologically some users may think not to add further information as the page will get too long. I can think of no downside to having separate articles for notable/platinum fansites. Chicken7 >talk 08:16, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
Well then, why don't we merge all articles like Black key red I like Chicken's example below, Red cog. into one article? Or all those very short music pages. User:C Teng/sig 13:33, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
Honestly, I'd totally be on board with that. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 07:57, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per Gangsterls. --Coolnesse 02:36, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Changed to below.

Merge - Per Azaz. --Coolnesse 14:04, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Delete/Merge into Fansite - The only knowledge gained from these articles is the existence of other fansites (of which our audience is well aware). If we must have these listed here, I'd rather keep the list on the fansite article.-- 02:47, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
That's not true. There is far more information about fansites than their existence. This individual article is only short because it is in a foreign tongue and its hard to get information from the site. Lol Chicken7 >talk 12:10, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
We can write pages upon pages of text regarding fansites however, ultimately it's all irrelevant. If I care to know of the wonderful history of so and so's website, I can go to that site, any information provided here benefits me none. Should a user come here to know if a fansite is safe? Jagex already has a list for that. Should a user want a list of alternate sites, we're not a directory or hub to find our competition. Want to learn more about a particular site? Then there's no reason not to visit it. A list of them on the fansite page is as far as I'm compromising my position of of complete deletion without so much as a redirect.-- 05:17, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - These fansites are all related to RuneScape. We are the wiki for all things RuneScape. Consider for a second that not everyone is here for walkthroughs and guides. Although many are, people are interested in other topics such as RuneScape history (both in-game and engine/out-of-game), storylines, items, player community, mechanics, etc. Our overly strict article policies are just stunting our growth and expansion. There is no problem with getting bigger, and we can still monitor the creation of articles and make sure they are not fanon or nonsense. Also, which do you think users are more interested in learning and reading an article about RuneHQ or Red cog? We need to start using common sense and offering more from this wiki. I don't see how it is an advertising opportunity, as I'm sure the platinum websites get more than enough attention. Chicken7 >talk 08:16, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Delete and don't redirect - Come on chicken, nobody would visit a website to learn about another website. Also, Red cog is much more interesting then RuneHQ, I've read it a couple times, I would never bother read about another website unless I feel like checking grammar/spelling. If someone wants to learn about another website, they should go to that website, and they will, nobody would visit these completely unnecessary articles. bad_fetustalk 09:08, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I think people would be interested. A lot of fansites are fairly messy and have hidden features, such as ours. Not everything can be accessed from the sidebar or main page. Plus, we can offer statistics or technical info (like the Alexa rank), which fansites don't usually offer about themselves. We can also supply a summary of the websites history. How/when it was founded, problems it faced, etc. And you've only read red cog a couple of times because it is such a common example when talking about stubs and short articles. Plus, your first statement is incorrect. Wikipedia has hundreds of articles about other websites; and they're very popular, supplying both summarised info about the site, and information that the site itself does not supply easily. You can't prove that no one will visit these articles. I can't prove my side either; only if they're created. Chicken7 >talk 13:45, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to fansite - Per chess & Evil but we should redirect them all to the Fansite page. Hunter cape (t) Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask 09:13, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

If it's redirected to fansite, will there be information about platinium websites there, or will they only be mentioned in names, as platinium? bad_fetustalk 09:16, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
I don't know, i think we need a policy on this sort of thing though. Hunter cape (t) Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask 10:15, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Merge into fansite - Per Azaz129.

  1. REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 09:19, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Merge We are opening a door that may never get closed allowing separate websites articles. Keg of beerAtlandyBeer 13:52, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Merge - We don't need articles on every other fansite.

  1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 14:07, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
Keep - Because someone might be curious, and we are not hurting anything by having it (them).
  1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 15:50, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to Fansite - I must say-I was pretty freaking annoyed when I heard about these. Merge any...useful info into fansite, then redirect to fansite. User:Haloolah123/Sig 15:18, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Keep/Merge - This would improve the wiki's diversity.  Tien  15:33, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

I think it would encourage people to leave personally. And I don't think it would improve diversity at all. User:Haloolah123/Sig 15:37, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
We are likely the only fansite with articles about music tracks, dates, history, and (maybe) fansites. That's what makes us different.  Tien  15:41, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - We already have the fan site article which describes the role of fansites in the community. This article could use some improvemnents, as it is out of date. Most notably, it is missing information about Jagex support and a link to the "Fansite support information" thread. We also have RuneScape:Links, which contains a list of affiliated sites (both wikis and non wiki sites). I do not believe that creating additional articles about fansites would do more than divert traffic away from this wiki, something that should be avoided.

There is still no fair measure of determining which sites deserve articles and which ones don't. Many players question the legitimacy of Jagex's recognized fansites. There are low ranked sites and even unlisted fansites that are more popular or more comprehensive than some of the Platinum level sites. Certain Platinum level sites have also had keyloggers or promoted real world trading in the past. Because of these reasons and because we are not a Jagex run site, we should not use their list as a measure of notability. Additionally, including articles about only the biggest fansites would go against NPOV. Some users prefer smaller communities, and we normally include articles about lesser known topics (items and NPCs that are rarely used or discussed for example). This in turn would lead to articles about fake, personal, or rulebreaking websites and eventually individual players, clans, programs, Youtube videos, or even forum threads. There is no logical place to draw the line. Keeping this article and creating similar ones would begin our wiki's dangerous transformation from an encyclopedia to a blog and a tabloid. Dtm142 22:04, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

We've already said where to draw the line. Only platinum or gold websites. I completely agree that Jagex really needs to get it right about which sites and the most popular and efficient. But the list is official, and official information is great for keeping things neutral; there would be no fight over which sites get an article, it'd be one simple one-sentence rule. The fact they had RWT ads or anything should make littler difference. This is a problem Jagex and that individual site is facing; not us. We're supplying the information, not the RWT. It is highly unlikely we'll see a large influx of articles about lesser-known fansites that don't match the guidelines; if there is some noob who doesn't read the rules, he is going to create his article one way or another. And I fail to see how we'd become a blog or tabloid from this. As you said, we'd only supply neutral information; no reviews or criticism. And in regards to your comment about being an encyclopaedia, although we strive to be encyclopaedic, there are many aspects of us that are not. Our walkthroughs, guides, forums, CC, IRC, GEMW, calculators, etc. We would lose a significant amount of our viewership if we didn't have those things. Chicken7 >talk 07:52, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
Using Jagex's list to determine notability does in fact violate neutrality. It implies that Jagex's perception of a good fansite is correct, which is one sided. If our wiki always used Jagex's opinions as a measure of notability, we would not have articles on riots, glitches, leaks, or controversies. Yet, we are not affiliated with Jagex and as such, Jagex do not decide what our articles should be about. There is nothing neutral about using their list to determine which sites deserve articles.
A site’s history of promoting RWIT is indeed relevant, and it should be cause for serious concern. I would not feel comfortable on a moral level linking a user to a website that could cause them serious harm, and I am sure that an incident of this nature would significantly impact our wiki’s credibility. And even if a fansite article is written in a neutral way, it still serves as an advertisement. It would let others know about the site via word of mouth. It is human nature to visit the website after reading about it. This is the primary purpose of an advertisement. If our aim is to improve relations with other fansites, we should consider expanding affiliation, not advertising them in articles.
Although we do have some community features, they are kept separate from mainspace content. Official discussions about improving articles are never made on the forums or through clan chat. Because we aim to be encyclopaedic, user pages are also kept separate from articles and editors do not sign pages that they improve.
Setting arbitrary criteria about which fansites deserve articles will inevitably lead to a slippery slope situation (eg. if we allow gold, why not silver? If we allow silver, why not bronze?) The entire internet is available for fanmade material. It does not belong here. Dtm142 23:04, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Delete/Redirect - Per Dtm. I totally agree that this opens the floodgates, and Dtm brings up a great point about NPOV. Just have them redirect. ʞooɔ 22:08, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to Fansite - Per above. The goal of the RS Wiki isn't to present information about other fansites. Suppa chuppa Talk 08:02, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

It's to present information. And this is information... Chicken7 >talk 12:06, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
Well, it really does matter what kind of information is being added, and I would argue that that adding information about fansites doesn't exactly follow that goal. People don't come here to find out information about other fansites, they would logically go to the fansite page and look for an "about us" section. Suppa chuppa Talk 16:49, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
Their 'About Us' section is always written as an advertisement. Even ours is, riddled with things like "you can help too!" and other phrases like how we're one of the main competitors against other fansites. No way is that neutral; extremely biased, which is great and how it should be. But not neutrally informative or encyclopaedic, which we could offer in our articles. Users could not find the same information and content in the site's "About Us" page and our (potential) articles. Chicken7 >talk 12:52, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per Chicken. There is a nice official list of 'safe' fansites, and we provide no information on any of them. I really don't see why not. If we keep them well written (using page protection if necessary), we can document the sites without it being an advertisement. If anything, this will promote a stronger community with other fansites, which I think is an excellent thing. Weird gloop @Gaz#7521 12:23, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect/Merge/Delete - Per all. 222 talk 00:53, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect - per all

  1. REDIRECT User:LordDarkPhantom/Signature 15:18, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Request for closure - As Redirect to Fansite. I'm not neutral and it's contested enough that I won't close. ʞooɔ 04:16, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean redirect to fansite or merge to fansite. The distinction is very important, since if we redirect, the content of the article is not added/integrated into the fansite article, however if you mean merge, then it is. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 04:22, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
A simple redirect. However, (at least in my view) we could spruce up Fansite to have a list of the (recognized) fansites. Hmm, I don't know. ʞooɔ 04:25, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Redirected to fansite. Andrew talk 05:10, August 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.ChiamTalk 09:56, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Company

This template is featured on a single page, namely Jagex, meaning it can easily be replaced with the default infobox template which will only increase the page with 1000 bytes or so. As seen on for example Karamja Volcano, we usually use the Infobox template for infoboxes that are used on 1-3 pages. So in conclusion, the template is irrelevant and is just used on one page.

Delete - As nominator Mark (talk) 00:56, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - We simply don't need an infobox that's only used once. ʞooɔ 01:09, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - I agree. Unless another company buys the rights to RuneScape, I don't see why it should stay. Alandar995 01:41, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per all. Chicken7 >talk 07:21, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - But what of Sony in an alternate timeline, eh? Ryan PM 07:53, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per nom. 222 talk 00:56, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per above. User:Haloolah123/Sig 00:58, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - If a template is only used for 1 page really its not worthy of being a template. Hunter cape (t) Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask 11:00, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - No reason to keep a single-instance box. Farming cape (t) Lil cloud 9 Talk 10:20, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - per Tedjuh

  1. REDIRECT User:LordDarkPhantom/Signature 10:24, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per all. --Coolnesse 19:51, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Only using it on one page defeats the purpose of having a template for it! kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 19:53, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Request for closure - Snow anyone? 222 talk 06:49, August 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. --LiquidTalk 16:31, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Template:Warningbox & File:Warning Yellow.svg

Used on only a single mainspace page, unnecessary and not very appealing.

Delete - As nominator -- 03:39, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Not aesthetically pleasing and isn't really in use (basically per nom). User:Haloolah123/Sig 03:53, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per nom. --Coolnesse 11:18, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per nom. I've never actually seen it before. 222 talk 01:00, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Delete but transpose it onto the page - I think it is very important for it to be there for real-life medical reasons, but because it is only used on one page there is not much use of a template.Hunter cape (t) Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask 11:04, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Medical reason? What, like colour blindness? I have no idea. 222 talk 07:22, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
Its used on the Killerwatt Plane page Twig Talk 772kZGs.png 07:33, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
Epilepsy from the strobe lights.Hunter cape (t) Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask 07:35, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
Read this: Wikipedia:Epilepsy. Full slayer helmet Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon platebody 07:39, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Subst: it and delete it! - Good for one thing and one thing only. Full slayer helmet Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon platebody 11:19, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Don't subst it. Its just stupid and ugly. We can use Template:CustomNotice or copy the alert from Slang dictionary/Urban Dictionary. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 07:25, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary idea sounds good and it looks even better. 222 talk 08:41, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per nom Farming cape (t) Lil cloud 9 Talk 10:18, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Revised, now Delete - per nominator User:Kytti khat/sig 19:02, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

It just seemed like it had a right to be documented before it was sent to the bit bucket. User:Kytti khat/sig 19:04, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per above. Not aesthetically appealing at all. Suppa chuppa Talk 19:13, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per nom. Real Not Pure 17:52, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per nom. Michagogo 11:29, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per nominator. --LiquidTalk 16:31, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - The template and images will be deleted. --LiquidTalk 16:31, August 22, 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. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 02:25, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Template:Don't wikify

This template implies that the article is done, and has no need to be further improved. If not deleted, it needs to be worded differently at least..

Delete - As nominator User:TyA/sig 00:59, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - There really is no point to that template. It's kind of sad, actually.

  1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 01:03, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per above. User:Stelercus/Signature 01:10, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - I don't see how it is very useful, either... Coelacanth0794 01:12, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - What is this? I don't even... Full slayer helmet Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon platebody 01:23, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Consensus isn't needed here. There is absolutely no way we can every definitively say that an article has enough links. Even if the existing text has enough wikilinks, there is always the addition of new text which could do with wikilinks, not to mention the addition of new content in the game that causes more links to be necessary. As such there is no possible way this template could be used. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 02:14, August 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 Speedy delete. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 03:18, August 24, 2010 (UTC)


This is a low quality animation that shows the inventory images of all Boaters, the still frames of which can already be seen on the article. We normally split these without issue, but since I seem to have tagged this image for deletion twice already, I'm using Rfd.

Delete - As nominator Riblet15 06:23, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Very little use. User:Haloolah123/Sig 06:26, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Be bold and tag it! - I find potential in this image, so just put {{Separate}} on it, then put {{Sd}} on the stills. No reason to delete. --Coolnesse 06:48, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

The images are just the inventory images without outlines. Even something like this, taken from the GE website database is bigger. Plus, splitting it still involves this image being deleted. Riblet15 07:00, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Meh, what's the point of making it an animation anyways? bad_fetustalk 10:12, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

To show all of the boaters in one file. Hunter cape (t) Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask 13:34, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but what's the point of that? bad_fetustalk 11:24, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
For something like, well i can't find any example at the moment but it used to be on the Treasure trail rewards page for things like the heraldic armour where it would go through all 5 pieces and only taking up 1 slot instead of 5 (ie. to save space). Hunter cape (t) Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask 11:04, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

I've added a border just to make it a little better. I think we have a lot of animated images that are composites of other inventory sprites. How is this one any different than the others that we have (other than the border, which I fixed)? ʞooɔ 18:59, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Since there are pictures of the individual ones.

  1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 03:04, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - This doesn't need to go through RFD. Its a duplicated image and there's absolutely no reason to have it. So I will replace all uses with the individual images and delete this. Also, what happened was it was in fact deleted when you tagged it, but Joel uploaded it again anyways. I'll have a word with him to make sure it doesn't happen again. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 03:19, August 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 Request withdrawn.. The page will be moved to a more appropriate location. --LiquidTalk 19:47, August 25, 2010 (UTC)


This quotes database is a relic from older days when the IRC was more popular. The last addition to the list was in March this year, and the one before that was in April of 2009. This is much too old to be useful. If one looks at the vote count for the quote added by Chicken (in March), one will see that the vote count is extraordinarily low. The top of the page talks about some hits list that obviously has never been made. The page that this is a subpage of, RuneScape:Chat, doesn't even exist anymore.

However, in the spirit of RS:DDD, I do agree that deleting it outright is a bit unnecessary. So, I am proposing the following: we add the archive template to it and treat it as an archive, fully protect it, and remove the polls (while keeping a record of their results). Actually, scratch that. It's not a discussion, so I'm going to move forward with a full deletion.

Delete - As nominator. --LiquidTalk 01:49, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Never even heard of the page Twig Talk 772kZGs.png 01:51, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Neither did I. I just found it five minutes before I wrote up this proposal when I was going through each link in the monaco sidebar. --LiquidTalk 02:03, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per nom. Suppa chuppa Talk 02:27, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Strong delete - Per nom. --Coolnesse 02:55, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per nom. User:Haloolah123/Sig 03:51, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Agreed, per nom - Wildy Medic 09:05, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Combing through the wiki for hidden pages, are we? Full slayer helmet Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon platebody 09:07, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - It was fun to read through when i did but it is pretty much useless. Hunter cape (t) Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask 11:28, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Question - Can we instead move it to some user's subpage? Some of those are hilarious. bad_fetustalk 11:30, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Keep/Move - Most of your reasonings are that you haven't heard of it. I'm sure there's heaps of other things on this wiki you haven't heard about; that isn't a reason. As I said below, many of the voters haven't used the IRC a lot, which may influence why you haven't heard about it. Also, there is no reason to archive. People can add to it still if they like. Chicken7 >talk 13:49, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

We do not have to keep everything and improve them. They can just be deleted. --Coolnesse 17:23, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
What? So let's delete all articles with the under construction templates, incomplete, stubs, outdated, etc; we don't need to improve them, they can just be deleted... Chicken7 >talk 07:59, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
Quit being a smart alec and misinterpreter. You know what I mean. --Coolnesse 08:29, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
Tbh, I'd rather keep this than a normal stub article. bad_fetustalk 10:11, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - It serves no purpose on a project space, but I've copied it into my userspace :3 Never mind none of them are funny.

  1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 02:51, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Request withdrawn. --LiquidTalk 19:47, August 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 Replaced. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 18:07, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

File:King Vallence.svg

Since this is a chat head of another npc there's not much of a point to have this even if the two are related. This would also call a deletion to the other silhouettes of others for npc's that are not seen. (File:Mystery king tyras.png, ... Please add if you see more) Full slayer helmet Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon platebody 00:30, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - As nominator. Full slayer helmet Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon platebody 00:30, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - We usually don't allow images that are doctored up a lot. I think these two qualify. We don't have chat heads for Horatio or Jayna Harrow because they don't exist in game. ʞooɔ 00:35, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

Well, it turns out both of those are real images that have been very slightly altered to be nicer to our eyes.[1][2] Can we just have the images that Jagex uses in the manual with no alterations? Changing to Keep if we can do that. ʞooɔ 06:07, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Delete - Per nom. We gotta start firin' teh lazors at SVG fan art images. --Coolnesse 01:25, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - I've already been firing the first shots at the rune images. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 02:05, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per omnomnom Coelacanth0794 02:07, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

Question - Wait, one of the summaries says "replacing game guide image". If there is a Game Guide image, that means it is genuine. Regardless of whether it is a silhouette of another NPC's chathead, if that's what Jagex has supplied as the chathead, then it should be kept. But if someone has made it from scratch and just guessing, delete it. Chicken7 >talk 06:34, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

The game guide image that it is based on can be found here. I realise that its based on a real image, but its still constructed from scratch instead of taken in-game. That means that its fan art. No way around it. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 06:38, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

Replace/Keep - Okay, the SVG is created from scratch, therefore being fan art. We can delete that, but the PNG/GIF in the link that Psycho supplied above is genuine, so should be kept. I support reuploading the image. I don't think we can restore it, as the files seem to have vanished. Chicken7 >talk 09:32, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Um, I had no problem on it being a svg (they're great), I want it deleted because he's not in-game and a silhouette is as useful as a rat flail. Full slayer helmet Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon platebody 09:43, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

Because he is not in-game makes little difference. We have heaps of images that are not from in-game. As the Game Guide is the only choice, we must take the image from there (I think fair use is when there is no free alternative available). And, the silhouette is official, so it is useful in that it is supplying official, real, sourced imagery. Chicken7 >talk 09:10, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
Comment on Comment: now i'm totally wanting to replace my bronze(p++) with a rat flail, which rat drops it? User:Kytti khat/sig 18:27, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - What's the point of replacing it? The SVG's exactly the same with the existing png/gif/jpg image, except that it's of higher quality as it's a svg. I'm not going to support it's deletion just because it's better. bad_fetustalk 09:39, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the file type. It's the fact that (we thought) the image was fake, and was made from something else. That is true of the Tyras image, which is created from Lathas's image. ʞooɔ 01:05, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
Making an SVG isn't the same as changing the file type from png to jpeg, an svg has to be made from scratch, so it is fan art, even if it is made to look identical to an existing image. If I do a realistic painting of an abbyssal whip, is that not fan art? Its the same image in a different format, but its still fan art. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 01:21, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
It's not fan art if it looks exactly the same. bad_fetustalk 10:47, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
May I add that in Inkscape, I was able to paste a PNG in click a button and it converted it to an SVG. Therefore, the author did not draw it from scratch, nor did the computer. Chicken7 >talk 08:00, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
While it's possible to convert the formats, you can't turn a pixel-based format into a vector (an infinitely scalable image based on lines rather than pixels). My guess is that Cflm traced the outline of the lossy .gif, or something. Riblet15 02:17, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
Its true, an svg format is fundamentally different than a raster format. Its based on vectors and nodes, not pixels. That said, there's no way an svg could have been produced unless there was significant original artwork produced, whether it was by clfm tracing over the outline or by inkscape doing that for her. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 19:47, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Replace/Keep - Under no circumstances should it be deleted and not replaced. User:Haloolah123/Sig 12:50, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

I honestly feel that RS:IAR (though renamed, the principle still applies) should be used here. We have a choice between a low quality .GIF or a high quality .SVG that, for all practical applications, has no differences from the .GIF besides the quality. It can be argued that the .SVG is fanart, like Santana60's Catherby, which is an example of fanart that may look better than the official thing. But where I find the defining difference between this .SVG and Catherby is in that the .SVG in question is not an artist's rendition, but simply a touch up. Dragon helmChiafriend12Granite body (old)Loon is best buttlord 19:29, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

Its not just the simple fact that an svg has to be made mostly from scratch, but the fact that very few people posess the ability to edit an svg. In addition, they're a huge pain in the ass. I see people uploading svg's they think are transparent only to find that they're not transparent when they upload. I also see people adding transparency tags to svg's which appear transparent to me. The browser compatibility is clunky and inconsistant. That said, would anyone care if I uploaded a PNG version of this image? If you really wanted I could touch up the edge a little. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 19:47, August 12, 2010 (UTC)
I think a .PNG version of the .SVG in its standard size would be just as fine. Dragon helmChiafriend12Granite body (old)Loon is best buttlord 00:13, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Now that the Fan art problem has been solved, you still understand that this is only a silhouette, ja? --Coolnesse 19:38, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

and? Chicken7 >talk 11:02, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
Quoting one of your statments, just because it is real, sourced imagery doesn't mean that it is actually of any use. In my opinion, I find it 100% unnecessary. ¥en much? --Coolnesse 18:34, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Replace/or Keep - however if kept i recommend minimising the size of any use of it since it is of limited value only. If it were of no value i'd vote delete. i'm just sayin'... User:Kytti khat/sig 18:27, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Request closure - Nomination has fallen inactive. --Coolnesse 05:59, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Image will stay but will be replaced with a non SVG version. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 18:07, August 28, 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, so delete. --LiquidTalk 22:52, September 1, 2010 (UTC)


For the same reasons as RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Template:Hasdialogue. It's the exact same thing except with images. I realize I could probably just delete it, but I'm doing this as a courtesy to the people who worked hard on this page. By the way, this would also go for the images found on the page.

Delete - As nominator ʞooɔ 01:26, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Per nom. When I saw this being made I thought "RFDfodder". Full slayer helmet Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon platebody 01:33, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Why? Why would you possible want to delete this? How is it hurting the wiki to have? I, for one, took an interested look at it when I saw it nominated for deletion here. All it takes is one person to look at something, and it is worth keeping. It takes up more db space to delete it. Why do you even want to delete it?

  1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 01:35, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, wojy filled me in. I still think it should be kept though.
  1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 01:41, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Wow, it feels weird to type those four letters rather than "Delete", but I honestly do think that this should be kept. It is an informative article that aids us in fulfilling our purpose of being a RuneScape encyclopedia. It violates no policy that I can come up with, especially since it's a part of the game. I see little to no reason that this should be deleted. The copyright issues aren't a big deal, in my opinion, because we already take direct content from the game on many of our articles on books. Most of them have the text of the book verbatim. That's why I created the {{FromGame}} template a while back. I think that would serve our purpose here. --LiquidTalk 01:52, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Uber Strong Delete - Everyone wants to keep these, but they are "illegal", per consensus. --Coolnesse 01:58, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I should clarify the difference between this and the dialogue pages deletion (which I supported). The dialogue pages took every single bit of dialogue that a NPC said and placed it on the page. That is 100% of the content, which is obviously not fair use. In this case, I think fair use can apply because we are merely taking one line out of Juna's entire dialogue. Even though the dialogue may be repeated with many different outcomes, the bottom line is that it is still one sentence. That's much less than the 20% threshold generally held for fair use issues. Thus, they are not illegal. --LiquidTalk 02:00, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Please read here before posting any further, particularly the last 3 sentences of the first paragraph. --Coolnesse 02:16, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
50-100 words or 20%. I see that this meets neither of those criteria. Each dialogue stems from an entirely different conversation, so it is each textbox's part of the entire conversation that matters. If we have 50 lines, then we need to consider 50 different conversations. At that large amount of text, these quotes comprise a very small amount of the actual text. --LiquidTalk 02:22, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
Even considering all the other things Juna says, i think a list of all those one-liners, even if they are just one liners, is far more than 20% of the total amount of text that Juna can say and be told. I would argue that its far more tahn 50%, even as close as 2/3rds, but that's not important as it is certainly far more than 20% kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 02:31, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
Please tell me you're kidding. Juna says a LOT of stuff. I can have a VERY long conversation with her right now about Bandos and Zanik, about all the shimmering creatures in the cave, about the Guardians of Guthix, etc. When you take all of it together, that one line is lucky to be even 5% of a complete conversation, which is far LESS than 20%. --LiquidTalk 02:32, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
I realise that, but that's just about the only long conversation she has. There are a lot of these brief exchanges and I really do believe they add up to a far greater portion of the possible dialogue with her than you suspect. Also bear in mind that they aren't all even documented yet. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 02:36, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
Well, let's go through the dialogue, assuming that the player is able to play Tears and has no weapon or shield equipped, and doesn't right click "Tell-story Juna". So, first is "Tell me a story, I'm bored". Second, the player says "Okay...". Third, the chatbox says "you tell Juna some stories about your adventures". Fourth, the player concludes the story. Fifth, Juna replies. Sixth, Juna says "Your stories have entertained me. I'll let you in". Seventh, she gives players some advice about playing. The fourth and fifth dialogue pages are what we're interested in. We only have the plain text for one of them (the fourth page is shown as a picture.) That's 1/7, or 14% of that conversation. Now, if you add in the dialogue from all the other conversations, then it would be way under the 20% fair use margin. Even if you counted the fourth page, that's 2/7, or 28%. Alone, it's barely over the fair use margin. Add the other conversations in, and it's under. --LiquidTalk 02:42, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
In your calculations you seem to be counting the "tell me a story" part of the dialogue for every individual story she tells, but "tell me a story" isn't written once for every story, its written once, and then a switch is used to pull up a random story. You have to think of it as one "Tell me a story, I'm bored.", one "Okay...", one "You tell Juna some stories about your adventures", a hundred different conclusions, a hundred different replies, and finally, one "your stories have entertained me" and one of whatever the advice dialogue. you can't weigh the copyright breaking dialoue against the way its displayed, but in the way its written, where it is almost 100% of total. THEN you can add in everything else she says, which pushes the amount down a lot, but not below 20%. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 02:50, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
If one line changes, then it's a whole different conversation. So, we have 100 "tell me a story", 100 "okay", 100 of those random statements, etc. --LiquidTalk 02:55, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
Every single one of the "tell me a story" lines come from just one line in the code that is repeated in each instance. We should be basing our copyright decisions on what proportion the quoted portions are of the total written dialogue code, not the total amount of displayed words. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 02:59, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
It's insanity to think that all of that is less than 20% of Juna's dialogue. ʞooɔ 06:48, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Delete This is illegal because it isn't one line, it is many lines from different conversations all involving her. Also, the player's dialogue too, we can't forget that, we don't own the players or what they say, jagex does. Also, the original juna page was deleted for the same reason. ZFCNBucket detailrwojy 02:03, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I feel like the status quo is to delete all dialogue pages, so (correct me if I'm wrong) we'd need consensus to keep for it to stay. ʞooɔ 06:46, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Aw, I quite liked that page. Suppa chuppa Talk 07:46, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
That is true, Cook. However, since you started this RfD you're going to have to wait until this is finished. If there is a consensus to keep, then we keep it. Otherwise, you get to delete it. --LiquidTalk 12:26, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I wasn't going to delete it Big smile ʞooɔ 20:39, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - I personally like it, but I understand that we should probably delete it as a dialogue page. User:Haloolah123/Sig 18:27, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Might as well delete as all of the previous information was (and most of the information was lost and had to be re-recovered), but only keep the relevant dialogue that adds to cannon of respective content. Ryan PM 21:09, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral- Wouldn't it be a good idea to put each of the conversation lines under the trivia section of their respective quests? Krayfish 03:50, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per Helm. Also, so what if it's copyright violation? Jagex doesn't mind it, which means they won't be pressing charges, which should mean it's okay. bad_fetustalk 06:38, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Keep Those who say delete are mistaken. The page says it's copywrited, so it Jagex would know it isn't plagerized. Secondly, as no money is beng made, Jagex would have no reason to sue. If they did, it would be published. It would rather hurt business if they sued over nothing. Finally, they have said they don't mind, so just relax, it's not gonna bring a lawsuit on this wikias head. Unregestered user. 19:48 August 31, 2010 (EST)

Request for closure - We've been over this more times than I can count. The current status quo is to delete pages like this. As no one has given any reason why the images are any different from the text, I'm requesting closure as no consensus, which means we defer to the status quo, as I mentioned above. To the unregistered user above, I have some things to say. First off, per RS:COPY, we release any material on the wiki under the CC-BY-SA license. Therefore, the fact that we say it is copyrighted means absolutely nothing. Also, Wikia Inc. is making money off of the wiki, as it is a for-profit company. The idea that no one is making money off of this is wrong. And as we said in the previous thread (which I hope you've read), Jagex would likely have us shut down, and not sue, but that is beside the point. Under no circumstances are the dialogue pages legal, and saying "they won't care" isn't sufficient reason to break the law. Also, if you can show me where they've said they don't mind, I'd love to see that. But that won't mean anything, as it is still illegal, and even if they did allow it, I doubt they realize it is being released into the public. I made this RfD as a courtesy to those who worked on it, and because the images possible could have been treated differently than text. The same issues brought up in the RfD for Template:Hasdialogue are being brought up here. I think everyone would agree that there's no consensus here, and that the status quo is to delete pages like these. In fact, we've already deleted Juna/Stories once before. ʞooɔ 08:49, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus here, and a consensus is unlikely to develop. So, we will defer to wiki precedent and delete this article. --LiquidTalk 22:52, September 1, 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 redirect to Land of Snow Weird gloop @Gaz#7521 13:49, September 4, 2010 (UTC).

White Lands

The creator of this article clearly misunderstood the Quest's title. The White Lands refers to the Land of Snow, and there is already an article for that. Thus, this one is a bit redundant.

Delete - As nominator Armadyl symbol Nightgunner Talk Illuminated Book of Law 22:20, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to Land of Snow - Probably why he made it anyways. Honour Coelacanth0794 Talk Square sandwich 22:29, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Be bold and redirect - This doesn't need discussion. Hunter cape (t) Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask 01:26, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

Speedy redirect to Land of Snow - Per Sentra. --Coolnesse 12:18, September 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 Merge with Dondakan the Dwarf. --LiquidTalk 13:04, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Granite boots

Granite boots violate RS:NIP. We have absolutely no indication from Jagex on whether or not they will be released. It seems that they can be purchased, but since they do not show up on the GE and since all previous attempts to buy granite boots have failed, the logical conclusion is that they are not a real item in-game.

Furthermore, deleting them would be consistent with some of Dondakan's other unobtainable items. We do not have articles for the mithril, adamant, or rune cannonballs, so why should we have an article for Granite boots?

Delete - As nominator. --LiquidTalk 18:18, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect - To Nonexistence. Per what I said on crystal halberd. User:Haloolah123/Sig 18:57, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to Nonexistence - Per Halo. (edit conflict btw) --Coolnesse 19:04, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to Nonexistence - Per Halo. --Spined helm SpineTalkBook of knowledge 19:31, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect - Per Halo. Hunter cape (t) Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask 10:01, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Doesn't hurt anyone, and is interesting and useful. bad_fetustalk 10:08, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect Merge - Per Halo and nom. Per all. 222 talk 07:24, August 20, 2010 (UTC) EDITED 07:00, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect - Per Halo. @ Chess: Even if it doesn't hurt anyone, it still should be deleted/redirected, as it doesn't hurt anyone to have a page about the thing the Strange Old Man wears, the thing this, this, this and this guy wield. As that is never gonna happen, there should just be no article about an item that an npc wears, but never is going to exist, or is not based on any facts and things said by Jagex(remem: rswiki aint a crystal ball) JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 19:35, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Dondakan Instead of deleting the article, let's merge it with Dondakan, we could add a section to Dondakan about his granite boots. Turok Obama

Weak redirect Merge with Dondakan - Per above, although I'm sad to see it go.

  1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 03:03, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Dondakan - The only reason a player would search granite boots is if they just got finished talking to Dondakan and wanted to see if he would, in fact, ever sell them. As such redirecting to nonexistance would not answer that question and is not a suitable method of dealing with the article. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 03:14, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Dondakan - Per Psycho Robot. A simple line on Dondakan's article would suffice. (:

  1. REDIRECT User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 03:17, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Dondakan - Per above. Knuckleball talk Fishing 06:04, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Dondakan - This seems like the most sensible solution. ʞooɔ 07:43, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Dondakan - It's still of interest whether the boots can be purchased or not since this is a conversation you can have with Dondakan. It's not hurting to have the information available to those who are interested. The cannonballs are only visible but not part of the conversation or part of a discussion about purchasing or owning.

Closed - Will be merged. --LiquidTalk 13:04, September 5, 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 Redirect to Template:NoPP. --LiquidTalk 16:44, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Template:No Personal Images

Well my main reason is that Template:NoPP has more information on it. But also, this mentions biased/pointless pages. And NoPP looks slightly more friendly with File:Information icon.svg instead of File:Octagon-warning.svg.

Delete - As nominator

  1. REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 07:17, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect - Per below.

  1. REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 22:00, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to NoPP - I have never seen this before and it looks like just a worse copy of Template:NoPP. Hunter cape (t) Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask 07:36, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to NoPP - It wouldn't hurt to have it redirect to the same thing but with more info. Full slayer helmet Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon platebody 07:46, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to Template:NoPP - Per Evil. Never hurts! --Coolnesse 12:44, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect - To NoPP. Or we could just delete it, and put NoPP on the 9 pages it's on...but redirects are cheap. User:Haloolah123/Sig 13:20, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect - Per above. bad_fetustalk 09:22, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect - That octagon is an eye-sore and should be plunged off a cliff to die. The template looks uninviting... Ryan PM 21:15, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect - Per all. Coelacanth0794 21:18, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect - The red octagon is ugly. 222 talk 07:02, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Redirected to NoPP. --LiquidTalk 16:44, September 6, 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. --LiquidTalk 16:46, September 6, 2010 (UTC)


Reason: The information on this page is already contained on each individual page with a better explanation and in greater detail. Now that there is a template for dungeoneering bosses, this can be taking off of the miscellaneous section of the dungeon template. {{Dungeoneering}}{{Dungeoneeringbosses}}

Delete - As nominator Farming cape (t) Lil cloud 9 Talk 00:39, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

You'll need a reason first. Coelacanth0794 00:40, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to link a template, bah. Farming cape (t) Lil cloud 9 Talk 00:46, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
You use Template:T or write [[Template:(name of template)]] as you would link to another page. User:Stelercus/Signature 01:19, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - It has information about each boss that is worth keeping. I don't see any benefit in deleting it. User:Stelercus/Signature 01:19, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - It's not hurting anything. It's somewhat useful to some people, so no reason to delete it. User:Haloolah123/Sig 01:24, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - This can be improved upon to actually make a good general info page, as well as containing links to each boss, so it could be thought of as a "hub" for the pages. Icecold531 01:26, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Delete the information, but keep links to each individual boss's page - That way, we delete this useless page and keep the links to wealthier information for whoever wants to see. --LiquidTalk 01:29, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per Icecold. 222 talk 07:14, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - I find it useful when trying to spell some boss names >.<

  1. REDIRECT User:LordDarkPhantom/Signature 07:24, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - I find this page useful, as it's shows the main critical information to kill the boss you encounter. Spined helm SpineTalkBook of knowledge 12:27, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per Steler/Halo. --Coolnesse 16:45, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Weak keep - Per above. bad_fetustalk 11:22, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per above.

  1. REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 01:15, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite - Remove information about strategy. Just make it a list of bosses by level. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar 01:20, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Keep Everything we do should be based on helpfulness to players. This page is extremely helpful for rushing small levels fast, having all the bosses in one spot saves people time from hopping page to page, all they want is a one or two line strategy and boss weakness. Personally, I keep this page and Dungeoneering/Herblore open every time I Dungeoneer. And I am a fairly typical RuneScaper.--Degenret01 01:57, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per above. Perhaps keep a brief description of each boss, with minimal tips such as what to pray or attack with, if you're itching to get rid of some of it. (:

  1. REDIRECT User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 02:04, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per above. Mostly like everybody says, a much shorter description of each boss. Bmareel 11:22, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Very useful during a Dungeon. User:TyA/sig 01:14, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - There is use for this page, and it shouldn't be deleted.

  1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 03:05, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - This is very useful to have all on one page when you are Dungeoneering. Knuckleball talk Fishing 06:00, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - The page is very useful as a basic overview and list of all bosses. MarkGyver 04:29, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Request closure - Consensus achieved, no recent replies. --Coolnesse 13:11, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Article will not be deleted. --LiquidTalk 16:46, September 6, 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. --LiquidTalk 16:50, September 6, 2010 (UTC)


I think this page should be deleted because technically it is a duplicate of the page Primal equipment. I don't think we need a category for Primal items as there is only 18 Primal items in existence. Another reason is that theres no category for Celestial or Sagittarian items, and that is why I think this category should be deleted.

Delete - As nominator. Spined helm SpineTalkBook of knowledge 14:11, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Keep - It's a category. Categories don't hurt anyone. It's also certainly not a duplicate of Primal equipment since that page gives info but this is a list of Primal stuff. I also support creating categories for Celestial and Sagittarian items. bad_fetustalk 14:50, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Say someone wanted to find a quick list of all the Primal equipments (terrible grammar). Say someone wanted to run a bot and do maintenance on those pages. There is no reason to delete this, IMO.

  1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 14:52, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - You do realise that every other Dungeoneering armour has its own category? --Coolnesse 22:48, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - If you do this how about you delete all category's of metals. It is a category and people search for the page but will go to the category if they see it on the bottom of a page. Hunter cape (t) Sentra246Blue hallowe&#039;en mask 09:59, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Create articles for sagittarian and Celestial - Meele biased!!!!!!!!!!@@@@@@@@@@@@@@##$$#@#@#$@@!@ Third-age robe top 3rd age farcaster Third-age druidic robe top 02:43, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Keep and create sag/cel - Per above. User:Haloolah123/Sig 18:23, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Strong strong keep - Per all. 222 talk 07:04, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per 222. User:TyA/sig 22:22, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Category:Primal will be kept, and categories for celestial/sagittarian items can be created by users who want to. --LiquidTalk 16:49, September 6, 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. --LiquidTalk 16:50, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Alt code

Yeah okay, alt codes are a universial tool for windows that players can just happen to use with runescape. But does it really need it's own article? Players can use their computer mouse with runescape. Sure, but we don't have an article on it do we? (Exaggeration noted) In my opinion it's not that notable that we should have an article about it.

Delete - As nominator

  1. REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 11:41, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Keep - It has some history (crashes, etc), and I'm guessing it is a common search. E.G. - guy sees someone making a special character, tries to find out how, some guy says alt keys, searches fansites-finds our article on them. Also...we have an article on mouse keys. It's because they are used to powerskill. Alt keys allow you to make special charcters. Not everyone knows how to use/set-up either of them. A mouse...anyone playing runescape can clearly use. User:Haloolah123/Sig 16:59, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Strong keep - This is used for many purposes. I personally find nothing wrong here. --Coolnesse 17:43, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Keep or Merge with 'Chat' - I say keep it or at least give it a section in the 'chat' page per Halo and Coolnesse. SlayerAlandar995TalkMagic 19:22, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I have actually found this page to be useful. Hunter cape (t) Sentra246Blue hallowe&#039;en mask

Oppose/Keep - It has uses, history, and information that can be used in RuneScape. However, I would like to see it expanded and made larger or reformed to emphasize certain functions rather than the limited range it uses minus the RSOF link. Ryan PM 10:20, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Keep - Halo basically summed it up perfectly. Michagogo 11:37, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - I am another user who has found this page useful in the short time I have been on RuneScape wiki. jHoyle 19:53, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - But it does need improvement... JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 19:42, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per Halo. I never actually knew this page existed before. 222 talk 09:07, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Even if just one person looks at it a year, then it is worth having as an article.

  1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 03:02, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per Halo. User:TyA/sig 03:07, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Request closure - This has been out for enough time, with consensus achieved. --Coolnesse 13:09, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - We are a wiki about all things RuneScape, not about all things to deal with computers. Anyone who wants the historical information can go visit Server blackout or something like that. --LiquidTalk 22:45, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Alt code will not be deleted. --LiquidTalk 16:50, September 6, 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. --LiquidTalk 16:53, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Arrow stealing

I think this page can be deleted, or at least merged with the scams page, ranged page, etc. It contains little information, and is somewhat out of date due to the fact that valuable arrows will no longer be seeable by other players.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 3rd age farcaster (talk).

Merge with Ranged - arrow stealing is part of player culture and is not a real event that is important enough to deserve its own article; it does exist though so let's just merge it with the ranged article and call it that. Dragon claw Zezzima Talk Edit # SkillsFile:Turmoil.gif|Yay turmoil! 03:07, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Leave alone - This page is not a stub and would increase the size of an already full article. While it is not a major issue, especially with the release of Accumulators in 2007 it is still a fact of life for those that chose to train range on monsters that are a little higher than they should be on especially in areas where newer players tend to frequent. Quest Darrik Ash US serv HS ALDarklight detail 03:37, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Someone might be interested in it. Just make sure it is in a neutral point of view.

  1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 03:38, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per Ajr. User:Haloolah123/Sig 18:23, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect - Redirect it to a section of the ranged article. 222 talk 03:40, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per Ajr. --Coolnesse 13:13, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Keep - Per that noob. bad_fetustalk 06:33, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Merge with ranged - It's not important enough to warrant its own article, though I do agree the information should be kept. --LiquidTalk 22:46, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Arrow stealing will be kept. --LiquidTalk 16:53, September 6, 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. --LiquidTalk 17:00, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

File:Monkey Guard Glitch.png

Most likely the yellow dot has been edited. It seems very unlikely this glitch really occurred, and the shot looks well prepared(facing the camera, him saying "Glitch", him being next to the gorilla etc.)

  • Question - What's the glitch? --Coolnesse 01:58, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'm not sure why the uploader thinks this is a glitch. I've just tested it myself by attacking a monkey guard and running out of the palace where they spawn at. He followed me as any attacking monster would. It's not a relevant picture at all.
  1. REDIRECT User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 02:15, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - It's not a glitch. I doubt that the uploader actually did what Urbancow did, considering that the guard is unlikely to face the camera with him. It's much more likely that he asked a friend to put on a gorilla greegree, took a screenshot, and colored the dot yellow. --LiquidTalk 14:12, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - Meh, I guess I'll go with it for now. --Coolnesse 14:49, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per above, there's not much glitch here.
  1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 03:07, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Moar Delete! - I can't even believe this needs a discussion... Real Not Pure 14:59, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Closed - File will be deleted. --LiquidTalk 17:00, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.