RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Archive 16

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

Archives
No archives yet Create next archive

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Withdrawn. --Liquid^Talk 03:28, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

RuneScape:Featured articles for cleanup

Since I closed Forum:Featured cleanup articles almost exactly two months ago, this page has seen very little activity. In fact, there has only been one new section to that page since its creation, which was created by Cook, who originally proposed the idea of this page, and was made one week after its creation. Since then, no one has nominated anything else or commented on Cook's discussion.

After this length in time, I think it's reasonable to declare the page inactive and remove it. The purposes that this page is supposed to serve can easily be moved to the talk pages for the articles to be improved. On the talk pages, the discussions will be more localized and have a stronger attachment to the article being discussed. --Liquid^Talk 00:31, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - As nominator. --Liquid^Talk 00:31, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - If people want to clean stuff up, isn't there a category for that? Coelacanth0794 Talk 00:51, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - I noticed that it fell inactive. --クールネシ^トーク 00:53, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawn - After I had a chat with Cook about this, I am withdrawing this so that Cook can have some time to advertise this page so that it can be used for its intended purpose. If it still remains perpetually unused, then I will renominate. --Liquid^Talk 03:28, January 24, 2011 (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. --Liquid^Talk 18:20, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Template:SeenEditcount

I think this template doesn't do what it should do anymore. It used to work for everyone: it didn't show up in monobook and it worked perfectly in monaco. Since the change to oasis, it doesn't show the correct thing anymore. A lot of users modified their CSS and because of that, everyone sees the hovering text on a different place. For the one it hovers over the user avatar, the other it takes up 2 text lines, for the other it even hovers over the user/talk/etc page (which is not allowed) so i suggest we just delete this template, as it doesn't work anymore. I don't think this can be fixed with all the different css'es either. Sorry to everyone who liked it.

Delete - As nominator JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 00:15, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

OK - Unfortunately, it no longer works. Fswe1 14:03, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - If it doesn't work anymore, there is no point of having it. User:LordDarkPhantom/Signature 09:43, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

Delete- You can see edit counts on userpages and user talk pages of any account, even IP's.99 i fail 19:29, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Well, actually the template is to show another editcount than the original, overall editcount. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 19:30, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - The template will be removed. --Liquid^Talk 18:20, January 26, 2011 (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 Modify to remove floating functionality, Delete if impossible. --Liquid^Talk 18:25, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Template:Transheader

While this template may look nice on userpages, it is in fact a violation of policy. This thread and this page both state that (and I'm paraphrasing) users may not have decorations, templates, images, etc. that make it difficult to use vital wiki functions. Well, check this out:

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/7130/screenshot3zh.png

That's the template viewed in Monobook. I understand that it looks alright in Oasis, but there are still users (such as myself) who use Monobook. Anyway, this is a pretty clear-cut example of impeding wiki functions; it's difficult to access the links that the template covers, and on lower resolutions such a template could even cover most of the top link bar.

Thus my proposition is that we either delete the template (hence this being an RfD) or modify it to conform to policy. Discuss. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 02:47, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Many Users, including myself use these template (See here). There are no policies that say this template needs/should be deleted. I request the Deletion template is removed from the page. MinigameGod Talk Clan 02:45, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

See above. It is a violation of policy. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 02:48, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

You can still see what the buttons say, and you are able to click on them. This complies with all policies and rules. I therefore suggest to remove the ability to be able to change the opacity and keep it at 0.5 (or 50%) permanently so you can see and click the monaco buttons. MinigameGod Talk Clan 02:55, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

The template makes it harder for myself and other Monobook users to access those functions. You have to hover your mouse on the very bottom edge of the tab to be able to click it. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 02:58, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, the majority of wiki users use the new wiki look. Secondly, it is not that hard to click on the buttons? I honestly don't know what your complaining about?: See here for an example. Lastly, this template is made for user pages. Why would you need to edit, delete or see the history of someone else's user page if it is against wiki policies anyway? MinigameGod Talk Clan 03:02, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Why should we degrade some users' experience on the wiki (which is easily avoidable) for some aesthetic changes on a userpage?  @Gaz#7521 03:06, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

One: The fact that the majority of wiki users use Oasis is completely irrelevant, as both are a valid wiki skin and will be equally supported unless and until the community decides otherwise. Two: You can clearly see in the screenshot above that the template covers most of the tabs. The fact that it's a little bit smaller on your userpage doesn't say anything about anyone else's, or on any project pages on which the template is used. And three: You can't seriously be suggesting that I have no legitimate reason to use the edit, delete, history, or protect functions on a page in userspace, can you? As an administrator, I use those functions all the time. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 03:07, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

It's not only on my userpage - All pages that have a semi-transparent transheader are the exact same, and you are able to see and click the buttons. I'm an admin on another wiki, and I have never once had to edit, delete or even check history on a user page. No user should be making edits to userpages unless asked by the user unless it's a spelling/grammar error. And you should never delete a userpage either. So, as an admin feel free to share when you use these buttons on userpages. I don't believe a transheader "degrades" a user experience - Yea, you might need a little more concentration to move your mouse a few pixels below the header - but I don't think it makes a difference?

Finally, I don't think this template should be deleted period. This discussion should have been made on the talk page, not on a request for deletion page. MinigameGod Talk Clan 03:17, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

How about viewing history as a way to quickly access the user's logs? Speedily-deleting subpages on request? Viewing userpage code in order to figure out how something is done? Adding userpages to the watchlist? There you go, several prime examples. I have already stated that the template makes it harder for me to use those functions, and you will simply have to take my word for it, along with the provided screenshot above. I cannot click through the template. It is an impediment to vital wiki functions. It is thusly a policy violation, not to mention a general annoyance, and must either be changed (which it appears this RfD is headed towards) or removed outright. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 03:26, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

What you do on whatever wiki you edit is largely irrelevant to how this wiki works. We aren't Wikipedia or any other wiki.  @Gaz#7521 03:38, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Maybe make a way it could be lowered, so monobook users can use the links while keeping the header? Coelacanth0794 Talk 02:51, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Would that work for Oasis as well? --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 02:53, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

I would assume so, I wouldn't see much of a difference. Coelacanth0794 Talk 02:58, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Can't we change the css so it works? like giving it the class "transheader" and then having in common.css something like .transheader {position:relative;top:-20px;} or something(as far as my limited knowledge of css reaches) Then there are no problems and people can still keep their header thingies. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 03:04, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Modify - Either outright remove the floating functionality , or change the code to a class controlled by snippets in common.css and wikia.css with it positioned lower down for monobook (via common.css). I don't think we need it completely deleted.  @Gaz#7521 03:06, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

I was unaware that with the MediaWiki 1.16.1 update coming soon, the WikiaHeader (bar at the top of the page with Wikia - Start a wiki - Entertainment - Gaming - Lifestyle in it) is moved up to the top of the page (e.g. w:c:glee, w:c:marvel), so this bar will obscure user links at the top of the page. Thus we can't change the position in just monobook any more. I don't think we can move it anywhere without it covering some links somewhere. In addition, covering those links are against the terms of use.  @Gaz#7521 03:38, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Modify - What Gaz said. A total deletion isn't needed if changes can be made to rectify the problems. 222 ^talk 03:12, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

I'm good with that. I just didn't know if it was possible. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 03:15, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Am I right to take off the RfD template? (The discussion can be made on the talk page of the template.) MinigameGod Talk Clan 03:24, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

No, you are not to remove the RfD template until this discussion is closed. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 03:27, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I believe the discussion for the deletion is closed (the majority said it shouldn't be deleted) - Which is what this page is for. The discussion for editing the template and Wiki coding can be made on the talk page (as I said above)? MinigameGod Talk Clan 03:30, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Cool your jets; this RfD hasn't even been open for an hour. Maybe there are others who have opinions to voice who haven't gotten to vote yet. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 03:32, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Give it another day or two and if the there are no more opinions to be heard the discussion can be closed and the template removed? MinigameGod Talk Clan 03:38, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Other than the fact that they're generally open for at least a week, yes. Also, please stop using bullets to format your posts; just use indents like the rest of us. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 03:46, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Support - This has, and definitely will be, in violation of Wikia Inc.'s Terms of Use.

“	Not intentionally block, remove, or otherwise obstruct the proper functioning and view of advertisements, and/or user interface and functionality by other users, including but not limited to changing or adding javascript or CSS changes to the Service that would prevent the proper display or function of advertisements and/or user interface and functionality.	”
	— Terms of Use Amended on September 28, 2010

With the upcoming upgrade to MediaWiki 1.16.1, the WikiaHeader will be moved to the top of the page, eliminating the 31-33px of white space it previously had. Either Wikia will remove it or we will. Do be aware though that even though one can modify it, it also affects every other skin and therefore isn't bulletproof. Ryan PM 03:41, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Wikia strikes again. Where does this leave us with regards to the existence of this template? Is it possible for it to exist as it is? --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 03:46, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

If you removed the floating functionality (so it would just be a semitransparent page header), it wouldn't be obscuring links so would be fine (is what I'm interpreting).  @Gaz#7521 03:49, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Modify - I have found it very annoying trying to click on links when the stupid floating box is sitting up there and blocking them. However, if it can't be modified so that it won't obscure the links, then I support getting rid of it. Suppa chuppa ^Talk 03:51, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Strong support - It is a nuisance. It makes it almost impossible for you to click on links, and does not improve anything. bad_fetus^talk 09:31, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Per all the other supporters. I agree with Chess, it doesn't improve anything.

1. REDIRECT User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 09:42, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Since I use monobook, I can't click the links I want because the template it is in the way. --Azuris^{Problem, wiki?} 09:44, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Per Policy. User:TyA/sig 01:04, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Strong support - Per Gaz Llloyd. User:Tyilo/Signature 19:33, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

Support - User:Real Not Pure/Signature 21:15, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Support- Completely useless.99 i fail 19:26, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - This will be modified to remove the floating functionality if it's possible; otherwise, it will be deleted outright. --Liquid^Talk 18:25, January 26, 2011 (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. --Liquid^Talk 18:28, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Frozen floors

See previous discussion at RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Frozen Floors. --Liquid^Talk 17:31, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

I propose to delete the article for the frozen Dungeoneering floors as it seems pointless to have an article about just 1 set of floors and not the rest all thats listed on that page is listed on the floors list anyway so its basically a stub article thats not needed Rabbit Fear 00:15, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - As nominator. Rabbit Fear 00:15, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Can I move this to RuneScape:Requests for deletion? Evil1888 ^{Talk A's L} 00:15, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

sure i wasnt sure where to put this :S Rabbit Fear 00:17, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Redirect - Change the page so it simply redirects to floor#Frozen_floors, and also while we're at it, change Abandoned floors to redirect to floor#Abandoned_floor. The pages for a few of the other floors are already redirects.Guthix1110 00:31, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Strong keep - I nommed this for deletion a while back, and the discussion ended with consensus to keep. The original discussion appears to have vanished, but nonetheless I will oppose changing the consensus made previously. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 13:18, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

You can overturn previous consensus with new discussion and new consensus. Evil1888 ^{Talk A's L} 13:47, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying you can't change it, I'm saying that I won't support changing it. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 17:33, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Keep - And create articles for all other floors. Fswe1 18:24, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Keep - articles about everything ftw! JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 00:11, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Yes pretty much anything deserves an article but everything coverd in the article exists here so its a stub article that contains nothing more than whats already coverd on the Frozen floors section of the floors article Rabbit Fear 18:42, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

then expand JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 10:55, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

Keep Per above. bad_fetus^talk 19:18, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

Redirect - There's not anything new on the article. It's been a while and still hasn't gained that much more information, meaning it's just repeating stuff on another page with nothing else to add.  Lil cloud 9 ^Talk 20:48, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

Keep it! - But make sure that articles for all the other types of floors are made and that both this article and the others are given more content. —The preceding signed comment was added by I Am Me (talk • contribs). 16:29, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Delete- Be consistent. You'd either have to make a page like this for every floor, or delete this page. I vote delete this page, cuz this same info is on the Floor page.99 i fail 19:18, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - The community cannot agree on the proper course of action. --Liquid^Talk 18:28, January 26, 2011 (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. --Liquid^Talk 18:30, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Eye of the Mage

Along with Eye of the Ranger and Eye of the Warrior

These have been scrapped and contain very little information. What littleinformation there is could easily be merged somewhere else, if not already. Furthermore, all 3 are orphaned pages.

Delete - As nominator. Henneyj 08:45, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Removing information ftl. bad_fetus^talk 18:04, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

Keep - What's with deleting scrapped content? It should be kept, it's part of RS history. ɳex undique 19:14, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

Strong keep - Per the reasoning here. PS: I un-orphaned them. Or should that be "adopted"? User:Real Not Pure/Signature 23:09, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

Keep - If we delete content that Jagex made but never released, whats next? Deleting content that was removed from the game. Bye bye Romeo & Juliet,Bounty Hunter, Black hole, and all others.Guthix1110 23:18, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

Keep - This information can be covered most effectively in a standalone article. Granted, the page could use a rewrite and some minor expansion. Morian Smith 23:31, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

Merge - Merge the three pages into one article. Granted, I have no idea what such an article would be called... Nightgunner ^Talk 17:28, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it would be called "Eyes of Combat" or something like it.Guthix1110 20:11, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Keep and merge - Per Nightgunner. —The preceding signed comment was added by I Am Me (talk • contribs). 16:36, January 17, 2011 (UTC)

Delete- How would this scrapped idea help anybody?99 i fail 19:14, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Well when you think of it like that how does Chuck, or Sidney Smith, or Lizardmen help anyone? ɳex undique 19:19, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Per Guthix. 222 ^talk 03:44, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - The article will be kept. --Liquid^Talk 18:30, January 26, 2011 (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. --Liquid^Talk 18:37, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Player guide

This article appears to attempt to explain how to start off playing RuneScape, but it doesn't do a very good job of it. For starters, the title itself is confusing; it is too generic to accurately describe the contents of the article. The entire article is poorly written in a non-encyclopedic tone and is wrought with grammatical inconsistencies and errors, including some uses of shorthand and slang. The formatting is alright, but it has no images whatsoever. In fact, understanding the point of the article is itself a little difficult. A lot of tips and information have been thrown into the various sections with little or no consistency to connect it all. Overall the article is a poor representation of the quality of writing we look for on this wiki.

All of the above could be corrected by an experienced writer, yes, but would it really be worth it? It appears to be a much less complete copy of Beginner's guide|this article, which at a glance contains much more information. Few pages link to this article, and looking at its edit history, it is not very popular.

As such, I believe that this article has little or no redeeming value, and that we should delete it. Discuss. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 23:00, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Useless ripoff of the Beginner's Guide.

1. REDIRECT User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 23:20, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Don't need to scare new runescapians by telling them they could limit there skills. Main character or first character should not be restricted. Let them try every skill first. User:Tyilo/Signature 23:51, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

Strong delete - This is just an attempt at writing a guide, but it's a complete flop. It's effectively just bits of Combat classes, the skill training guides, and the Money making guides condensed and spliced together. Death to it. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 15:43, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Per Real. 222 ^talk 00:58, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - per all User:LordDarkPhantom/Signature 03:46, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Delete- There is already a Beginner's guide.99 i fail 19:33, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - Deleted. --Liquid^Talk 18:37, January 26, 2011 (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. --Liquid^Talk 03:41, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

File:Cape.gif

This is less of a request for deletion and more trying to decide how we feel about animated images of stills in general. We have conflicting consensus(es?) on these kinds of images, here and here. If we deleted this image we would also delete other animations that could be split into stills, like [[:File:Fremennik Citizens.gif|this]] and [[:File:God_capes.gif|this]].

Doesn't really care - As nominatrix. ʞooɔ 09:40, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral - I don't really know, nor particularily feel strong about it. I'll read the arguments of others and see if it pulls me in an directions. 222 ^talk 09:42, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

Keep 'em - The RfS for Cape.gif failed because the capes already existed as separate files, so splitting it was redundant. As for .GIF files in general, I see no harm in having them. It's useful to see the different colour options as a .GIF, as users can choose a colour they like without clicking around 10 different pages...the only time they shouldn't be used is where there is significant difference between the items shown. So, colour difference = yes, but large price difference = nonononono! User:Real Not Pure/Signature 15:38, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

Split - I like being able to see all the colors at the same time (see Cape's infobox). On the side of maintenance, more editors are able and willing to edit pngs - when the new vestment robes were released, no one added the new robes to the gifs. Since we will have the pngs anyways, these are redundant. Gifs are also sometimes lossy (even on inventory images), especially considering some image editors save the files poorly. Riblet15 16:09, January 12, 2011 (UTC)

Split - Of the policies concerning this, RS:G has the largest influence over it. It should go. --クールネシ^トーク 20:39, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

Like i said at my nomination at RfS: split(already has been splitted)delete. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 10:52, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

Keep- Displaying all capes without each color having a picture is helpful.99 i fail 19:24, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - No consensus; the image will be kept. The conflicting consensuses/consenses/consensi/whatever the proper plural is will remain in an uneasy truce until someone can find a way to supersede them. --Liquid^Talk 03:41, January 29, 2011 (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. --Liquid^Talk 03:43, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Category:XP templates

It's not just the category but also all the templates in it ("Template:Min XP for level X").
We don't need this, we have one template (Template:XP) instead of 99 plus they are outdated and doesn't include levels 100-120.

First RfD

Delete - As nominator. User:Tyilo/Signature 19:28, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

Keep - It's used in calculators according to the previous RFD, though we do need to add in 100-120 Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 19:37, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Previous RfD to keep due to calculators. ʞooɔ 19:44, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

Why can't you use Template:XP instead? User:Tyilo/Signature 23:06, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

And cooks argument in the first RfD about Template:XP to level is using it is making me lol irl stupid, because you can just replace

{{#expr:({{Min XP for level {{{2}}}}}-{{{1}}})}}

with

{{#expr:({{XP|{{{2}}}}}-{{{1}}})}}

and it will use the Template:XP instead. (forgot to sign) User:Tyilo/Signature 23:24, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

And finally for all of you that really don't get it Template:Min XP for level X is the same as Template:XP User:Tyilo/Signature 23:27, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Can you not be such a dick? ʞooɔ 02:37, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

Keep - --クールネシ^トーク 20:40, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Furry {{Talk}} 04:04, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - He is right about them being unnecessary (but going about it all wrong). It wouldn't be hard to replace the "{{Min XP for level X}}" with "{{XP|X}}". Evil1888 ^{Talk A's L} 05:10, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - If the templates should be kept can we then at least delete Template:XP? User:Tyilo/Signature 14:10, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

Isn't Template:XP used for the calcs? User:Real Not Pure/Signature 15:29, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, it isn't. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 15:37, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Per the first nom. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 15:37, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Keep- People would wanna use if they want to edit multiple/all of the pages in the category.99 i fail 19:31, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

This isn't an RfD for the category itself, it's for everything in the category. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 19:41, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Per the reason it was kept in the first rfd.

1. REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 05:57, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

The Template:XP does precisely the same as these. If you are referring to another argument, please tell me. User:Tyilo/Signature 15:40, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

...

1. REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 22:54, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Conditional strong support - As long as the calcs that use them are changed, per nom.

1. REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 22:53, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Anyone got another argument than "it is used in calcs"? If not then please read this 10 times or more until you understand: Template:XP does 99% as the Min XP for level X. The 1% difference is that the "Min XP for level X" is probably faster, but can we then please delete Template:XP? User:Tyilo/Signature 23:01, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

umad bro --Iiii I I I 23:05, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict, damn you 3i+i! ) Having one template do 120 things is better than having 99 templates do 99 things.

1. REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 23:06, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Not when having one template makes it go 100 times slower. ʞooɔ 23:21, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy303/matthew2602/orly.jpg

1. REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 23:26, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Extreme apathy - What difference does it make? It doesn't affect 99% of the wiki, and our calculators are so decrepit that no one uses them (I myself run to RuneHQ for their calculators). --Liquid^Talk 23:31, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Redirect - Redirect Template:XP to the other templates:

{{Min XP for level {{{1}}}}}

I can has permission? User:Tyilo/Signature 20:40, January 25, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral - Squabble amongst yourselves.

1. REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 06:18, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - We'll keep 'em. --Liquid^Talk 03:43, January 29, 2011 (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. --Liquid^Talk 03:45, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Weight reduction by processing

Your reason(s). As said on its talk page, it's completely useless. I mean, who would use this information?

Delete - As nominator. 99 i fail 19:10, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Useless. Not presented very well either. Samberen 19:14, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Why would I care for basic item weight reduction now? We have the rest feature. Coelacanth0794 Talk 19:17, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Lolwut. Why this wasn't {{D}}'d I'll never know. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 21:05, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - .............what............the..............hell............? --Liquid^Talk 21:07, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Axe it - worthless information, poorly presented. I would have speedy deleted this if it had been tagged as such. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 21:08, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Per Liquified First Noble Gas. 222 ^talk 00:59, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Call consensus- As the proposer. And everyone has the same opinion, and it's pretty obvious what it is. It's so obvious i should've tagged it for speedy deletion.99 i fail 02:15, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Hold your horses. It was only open for 7 hours when you said this. Things take a lot longer than that. ʞooɔ 11:02, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

NEVER MIND. KEEP GOIN.99 i fail 13:17, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

EXTERMINATE - Looks bad, and pointless Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 19:45, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - And this could be closed as speedy delete already, amirite? JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 19:50, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

I checked, I am the only editor other than tagging and adding 1 link, so I think this could be speedy deleted as author request. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 19:52, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Comment- Tagged for speedy deletion.99 i fail 20:00, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

I looked at RuneScape:Criteria for speedy deletion, and under the Inappropriate cases section it states: "A page that has existed for a long period of time but has not received many edits. This should instead be nominated for deletion." User:TyA/sig 20:02, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - User:TyA/sig 20:02, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose leading towards extreme neutral Strong delete - Per Liquid.

1. REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 05:47, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Honestly, that is insane. I wonder how many have actually *seen* this article before. User:Ejp10/Signature 12:54, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

1610 people. ʞooɔ 01:44, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Uh yeh, kinda useless. Sentra246 13:04, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - We'll axe it. --Liquid^Talk 03:45, January 29, 2011 (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. User:TyA/sig 05:12, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

RuneScape:Market

RuneScape:Requests for deletion/RuneScape:Market/Archive

After I closed the last RfD as no consensus, I was keen to see what improvements, if any, would come to this page. I was disappointed, though not surprised, to see that no changed had occured. This page remains perpetually underused, unacknowledged, and obsolete. In fact, I don't think it's advertised anywhere, so one would need advance knowledge of the page in order to find it and use it. There are many offers from 2009, and most of the buy/sell offers are time sensitive and several months old.

I hold no doubt that they have not been fulfilled.

To make a point, let me use a few examples... Axeman folly (m) buy offer from August? The highest quest woodcutting requirement is at most 75, so by now chances are Idria had gained the needed levels.

Mint cake sell offer from May for 200k each? In case no one noticed, they're worth about 2k now.

The only offers there that can still be considered somewhat valid are the item lending offers, though there is a good chance the owners already sold the items offered. The page is so obsolete that Stelercus's Halloween mask lending offer says that he's training Dungeoneering in 2009. The date of release was in 2010.

Now, one might ask, why does having this page negatively impact the wiki?

The answer is quite simple. Without constant updates and an active buyer/seller base, the market becomes a "storeroom" of sorts. The most negative impact is found for the sellers. To list their products here, they would have to forgo putting it up for sale in the GE so that the product is available for the wiki buyers who want it. The problem is, there usually aren't any wiki buyers. So, the products will be stuck in the bank ad infinitum until the seller finally loses patience and removes the offer. That's a lot of time wasted when a simple GE offer overnight may have sufficed.

The lack of updates also has a great potential for offers that cannot be honored. The mint cake offer mentioned above is an example, though the problem arises when prices shift the other way. If a seller offered an abyssal whip two years ago for 2 million coins, when they were worth around 1.7 million, and forgot about it until someone came along today and wanted to buy it for the same price, what will the seller say? Sorry, I changed my mind? Same thing with the buy offers. If someone offered to buy 10000 energy potions when they weren't dirt cheap finally got an answer today, what would he say? Sorry, they're now useless?

There is a thing called a "credit rating" that tests one's ability to honor financial agreements. The market page offers are an agreement of sorts, and if the only ones on that page are ones that can't be honored, then what is it good for?

Thus, to spare everyone headaches, I propose that this project be ended.

Support - As nominator. --Liquid^Talk 00:51, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Per my support on the previous RfD and the above text-wall. 222 ^talk 00:55, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Strong delete/support - Lolwut?

1. REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 04:36, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Aw, I thought my 20+ mintcakes might get me some decent money at some point. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 11:21, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Keep- can be useful.99 i fail 19:38, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Per original nomination. --クールネシ^トーク 23:35, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Delete it - and all its templates, subpages, auras, followers and worshippers. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 15:01, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - The page will be deleted. User:TyA/sig 05:12, February 1, 2011 (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 Discussion moved. --Liquid^Talk 20:38, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Template:Userbox/max trade limit

I believe that this Template is now useless and meaningless. It has no use, as the trade limit has been removed. Therefore, My position:

Delete - As nominator. Michagogo 20:15, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - Discussion moved to RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Template:Userbox/trade limit. --Liquid^Talk 20:38, February 1, 2011 (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 Discussion moved. --Liquid^Talk 20:40, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Template:Userbox/max F2P trade limit

I believe that this Template is now useless and meaningless. It has no use, as the trade limit has been removed. Therefore, My position:

Delete - As nominator. Michagogo 20:15, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - Discussion moved to RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Template:Userbox/trade limit. --Liquid^Talk 20:40, February 1, 2011 (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. --Liquid^Talk 03:59, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

RuneScape:Community Events

The pages has become basically redundant since RS:ET was made so I think it would be easier if it was just deleted.

Delete - As nominator. Sentra246 04:11, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Redirect Strong oppose - to RuneScape:Events Team. Per nom. Non-Events Team members cannot created events on RS:ET. Community Events is the place where users can create and advertise their own events to the Wiki. 222 ^talk 04:14, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - This was going to be my second RfD today after [[RuneScape:Market]] but I got sidetracked. I suppose you beat me to it. --Liquid^Talk 04:16, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - gf liquid helm --Iiii I I I 04:20, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Merge the histories It may prove of some interest sometime down the road. Shows how we evolved from one thing into another. Neat reflection on our community and all that.--Degenret01 04:29, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - According to Swiz, non-ET members can't use RS:ET for their own events. If we delete this non-ET people will have no place to make their own events. ʞooɔ 11:06, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

People never made events with RS:CE, it was always in there userspace, all RS:CE is, is a place to let people know you have an event on, although you would probably get more people find it out if you had a link in your sig. Sentra246 13:43, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the history of RS:CE, people made events there. Sure, not that many, but deleting it would be completely useless as it's not the same as RS:ET and there is absolutely no harm in giving people a place to advertise there. ʞooɔ 22:31, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

I see no events made there, they have just been advertised there. Sentra246 00:33, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

What is the possible downside of giving people a place to advertise the events they have in their userspace? Just because something is not used often that doesn't mean we should nix it. ʞooɔ 03:07, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Someone hears about how events on the wiki have had like 80 people to each one so they decide to make there own one. They see this page so they advertise it there thinking there will be lots of people and only 2-5 people show up. It will give them false hope of having a big successful event. Sentra246 03:25, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that's a terrible argument. Just because something doesn't attract people right now that does not mean that it can't change. We have a problem of deleting things instead of fixing them up. ʞooɔ 04:34, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

How would you fix it up then? Sentra246 05:12, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Events made by the community ≠ Events made by the ET. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 11:19, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Per Cook, pretty good explanation. --クールネシ^トーク 13:31, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

Delete- Redundant per nom.99 i fail 19:41, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

They have different purposes, as I said above. ʞooɔ 22:31, January 23, 2011 (UTC)

They serve different purposes in theory, but CE is just not used. People host their own events in the userspace and seem to be doing so for the foreseeable future. --Liquid^Talk 00:20, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

So what's wrong with giving people a place to see all of them an/or advertise? ʞooɔ 03:07, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - ET =/= CE, as already stated. It's not killing anyone to keep it there for the few people that pass by it. People want to host it in their userspace? Fine, but what about those who don't?

1. REDIRECT User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 15:29, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

People have to host it in their userspace anyway. Plus people can suggest events, which is how the trouble brewing event happened. Sentra246 12:27, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

The ET still has to organise and moderate it. On the other hand, events in RS:CE are hosted by the community. The ET is not the whole wiki. And by the way, what does the wiki gain from having this deleted? User:Real Not Pure/Signature 18:07, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - No consensus. --Liquid^Talk 03:59, February 4, 2011 (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 Combat pure. --Liquid^Talk 04:00, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

Obsidian pure

Wut. This is already at Combat pure...why is it on its own page?

Oppose strongly Delete - As nominator. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 16:27, January 23, 2011 (UTC) Redirect to Combat pure - Per Braaaaaaaains. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 21:09, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Merge/Delete/Redirect - Merge any new information to Combat pure. Delete the content. Redirect to the article section. 222 ^talk 03:51, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Merge/Delete/Redirect - Per Brains.

1. REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 03:56, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

Redirect - Per nom.99 i fail 18:26, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Strong support - Also, delete ALL pure articles. Or emrge them with pure. Fswe1 14:05, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Redirect - Per brains. User:Stelercus/Signature 14:22, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Wutz diz i dun evun - Keel it pl0x JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 14:59, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - The page will be redirected to Combat pure. --Liquid^Talk 04:00, February 4, 2011 (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. --Liquid^Talk 19:29, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

Hidden locations

I don't think this article is necessary. The information provided is not particularly notable, as the only interesting information one can derive from it is that "undefined" locations are close to each-other on the map. A long, drawn out article on the topic doesn't help to get that point across. User:Stelercus/Signature 19:16, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - As nominator. User:Stelercus/Signature 19:16, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral, slightly supporting- I'm not sure why it was created either as it was already on the Orb of oculus/Tips page, but seeing as this article could be deleted, I'll move back the info that I added. Krayfish 19:20, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

Redirect- Actually, it would be better if we turn this into a redirect page to Orb of oculus/Tips which has a list of these locations. Some people are rather curious as to what they can find with the orb.Krayfish 19:26, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - This is essentially the same as the RfD here one yaer ago, and was also the subject of the RfU here. Since Tien closed the RfD as delete and I close the RfU as undelete, the previous consensus still stands and another discussion is unnecessary. --Liquid^Talk 19:29, February 6, 2011 (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.

Orb of oculus/View

This is a rather useless redirect I personally think. It was the old name for the recently deleted article: Orb of oculus/Hidden locations.

Delete - As nominator. Krayfish 19:35, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

A user has requested closure for Requests for deletion/Archive 16. Request complete. The reason given was: Has been speedy deleted

Closed - Page was speedy deleted. User:TyA/sig 05:09, February 11, 2011 (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 Change. User:TyA/sig 23:17, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

Template:Userbox/trade limit

This will also affect Template:Userbox/max F2P trade limit and Template:Userbox/max trade limit.

I believe that this Template is now useless and meaningless. It has no use, as the trade limit has been removed. Therefore, My position:

Delete - As nominator. Michagogo 20:14, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Merged with your two other RfD's, since they essentially make the same argument. --Liquid^Talk 20:37, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Support - obsolayt JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 20:57, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - If this is deleted, someone will need to go through all userpages and remove the templates. Is this feasible? Also, ideally, a message should be left on the talkpages for each user who had this removed. How would/could this work? 89.139.11.16 21:07, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

A bot could do it. --Iiii I I I 21:11, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Which bot would do it? Would it be an actual bot, or an AWB-er? Mr. IP is right in that it's important to let users know about the removal. This might be a bit more complicated than I thought... Michagogo 21:31, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

By my count there are 344 userpages that use one or more of the templates. It won't be a problem. ʞooɔ 01:14, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

I can imagine you licking your lips in anticipation. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 17:11, February 8, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Per joezeph.

1. REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 06:10, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

Kewk infected you with the "Joey=Jozef" virus too? AAAAAAAAA!!!!! JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 15:32, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Just change it to say "This user obtained the maximum trade limit before the return of the Wilderness" or something. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 19:57, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

Change, don't delete - Like Real said, don't remove it, just change it. The max trade limit templates could say something like "this user had the maximum/maximum free to play trade limit before it was removed" and the trade limit template could be changed into something like "this user has x quest points" or "this user has x quest points and would have a trade limit of whatever if it hadn't been removed". —The preceding signed comment was added by I Am Me (talk • contribs). 01:12, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

Delete! - Obsolete template. Get rid of it. Chilled Socks 01:45, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Per I Am Me. bad_fetus^talk 12:52, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

Change or Delete - Per everyone else. If it cannot be changed, just delete it. (;

1. REDIRECT User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 17:46, February 8, 2011 (UTC)

Change or delete - Either put the words in past tense or axe it.99 i fail 03:07, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

Change - Don't delete it until it's no longer used, and we never know, they might just bring it back again. ^T_H^A_R^K_O^N 22:28, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - The userboxes will be changed. User:TyA/sig 23:17, February 12, 2011 (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. --Liquid^Talk 01:01, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Template:Kiss the frog

All other random events use Template:Random Events, i don't see why this should be a special case and have a specialized template. And all it does is add this table: {{kiss the frog}} and add [[Category:Kiss the frog]] to pages which i removed because all other randoms don't have their own categories.

Delete - As nominator. [Pharos] 12:16, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Go create templates and categories for other random events then, there is nothing wrong with making navigation easier. bad_fetus^talk 12:21, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Per Chess -- couldn't have said it better. Michagogo 14:43, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

Strong keep - If there's only one, make more. We really have a problem at this wiki, where we delete things instead of fixing them up. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 22:20, February 4, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Completely unnecessary, no need for it. Chilled Socks 01:41, February 6, 2011 (UTC)

Keep - What chess said. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 15:33, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

Keep & Expand - Keep it and either others should be made, or preferable one should be made to include all random event clothing. Or maybe even all Costume box items. ^T_H^A_R^K_O^N 22:32, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

I have started making more - see {{Freaky Forester}}, {{Mime navbox}} and {{Drill Demon}}. Haven't finished yet, I did those last night and I've only just got up. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 09:15, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - The template will be kept. --Liquid^Talk 01:01, February 18, 2011 (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 04:44, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

File:Bandos' face.svg

Epic svg but appears to be fan art. Evil1888 ^{Talk A's L} 04:01, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral - As nominator. Evil1888 ^{Talk A's L} 04:01, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose It isn't fanart, it was on the back of a hoodie in the Jagex store... Dunno if they're still selling it, though. S T Y G 04:14, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - As said above, this image was on a shirt/hoodie in the Jagex store around the release of the 150th quest, The Chosen Commander. Only a certain amount were made, so they aren't being sold anymore. The Last Pun ^Talk 04:31, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I can't find a image of this shirt/hoodie anyone on the internet. Evil1888 ^{Talk A's L} 04:34, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Request for closure - Found one! Evil1888 ^{Talk A's L} 04:36, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

---

Closed - It isn't fan art. The result was keep. Chicken7 ^>talk 04:44, February 18, 2011 (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. --Liquid^Talk 15:40, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Template:Dungeoneering keys

Previous discussion here.

Note: This proposal encompasses not only the linked template, but every individual key article (such as blue corner key and orange triangle key) as well as Template:Infobox dungeoneering key.

I would like to delete this template and redirect all the individual key pages to Dungeoneering keys. In the previous discussion, RuneScape:Granularity was most often cited as the reason for the overwhelming opposition to the proposal. However, I do not believe that RS:G should apply here. The point of RS:G is to ensure that anything that is worth having an article has an article, and I don't think Dungeoneering keys are sufficiently different that each deserves its own article. Quite literally, the only difference between the keys are their colors and their shapes. Each is found in the exact same fashion, and each has the exact same use. They cannot be substituted for one another insofar as you can't use a silver crescent key to unlock a red rectangle door, but that's it. That's the only difference.

Now, if there were fewer possible Dungeoneering keys, it may not be as much of an issue. However, there are sixty-four keys, and each has its own article. In my mind, this is ridiculously unnecessary. Our overly strict application of RS:G means we have an additional sixty-four pages on the wiki which must be kept up. What's more, these articles are virtually identical, with the following content:

“

The XXX YYY key is a key found in Daemonheim while training the Dungeoneering skill. It is used to unlock a XXX YYY door.

”

Aside from those two sentences and an infobox, the pages are empty. Is there really any benefit whatsoever to keeping these pages? They list nothing at all that a) Isn't blindingly obvious (like 'a green crescent key is used to unlock a green crescent door') or b) Couldn't be listed on the main Dungeoneering keys article (like 'Dungeoneering keys cannot be alchemised'). Most importantly, I believe that a new user who searched for a specific key would be better off being redirected to the main Dungeoneering keys article, which is far more informative than each individual key article.

With all the above in mind, it is my belief that application of RS:G to this situation does more harm than good.

Discuss. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 21:22, February 10, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Per nom.99 i fail 03:10, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

Merge - Merge them all into one page "Dungeoneering keys" or something like that and list all the keys and pics of them. Sentra246 03:12, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

Merge - While my mind hasn't changed. (FYI the positions of the doors can be exchanged.) Rewlf2 04:35, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

Damn straight The application of Granularity in this way is one of those things that really make me wonder why people turn their brains off and blindly follow a policy. Merging/redirects is of the most benefit to all. Maybe Granularity needs a rewrite.--Degenret01 05:03, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

Lolwut - A classic example of not using common sense. Death to 'em. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 20:09, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, according to RS:G, they should be merged. However, I do not see anything wrong with different articles for each, even if they don't really have any difference. Therefore, I oppose and I'll probably be the only one to oppose. bad_fetus^talk 21:07, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - The template will be deleted, and the articles merged. --Liquid^Talk 15:40, February 27, 2011 (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. User:TyA/sig 03:23, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Shoelacecrusher

Thok said that "adventurers buy bonecrushers just to save themselves from bending over occasionally" (or something similar). The shoelacecrusher was just mentioned as a joke about how lazy us adventurers are, buying bonecrushers to bury or bones (or shoelacecrushers to tie our shoelaces). And it's not like we have articles on everything mentioned in postbags that are not just jokes (Jasmine (evil Dave's dog, mentioned in postbag 41), Encyclopaedia Giganticus (mentioned by the Lumbridge sage, who appearently wrote the G section, in postbag 39) or Rodolfo (the ork travelling around with Balthazar Beauregard's Big Top Bonzana, mentioned in postbag 37), so why have an article on something that is only in a postbag and just a joke?

Delete - Per whatever I said above. —The preceding signed comment was added by I Am Me (talk • contribs). 22:09, February 9, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - We have pages for many things mentioned only in postbags. Trojan cow, Malignius Mortifer's Super Ultra Flora Growth Potion, Giuseppe Francesco Giovanni Vieceli, Golden Monkey of Tee-Tah-Toh (which had an unsuccessful RfD), Skuhavi, Karamja Box Company, Gazulibirds, Solomon Lamescus, The Seahound, Leviathan, Scorpionite, Quill of Armadyl, Hangsman's Plague, Edelweiss, Ali Cats, Abyssal Services Department, Carruthers, Landsbottom and Og, the books written by Lexicus Runewright, and Claudio are pages I can think of off the top of my head. Just because we don't have pages for other things from the Postbag, doesn't mean we shouldn't. ʞooɔ 22:19, February 9, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - We have to draw a line between items likely to exist and things mentioned only as probable jokes. This would be the latter. --Liquid^Talk 22:45, February 9, 2011 (UTC)

What about the golden monkey? That's a pretty clear joke. ʞooɔ 00:16, February 10, 2011 (UTC)

Not really. I could conceivably see it being a real item. (I mean, we have a Golden goblin ingame). I think another difference is that this is mentioned only in passing, not a direct reference as the Golden Monkey was. --Liquid^Talk 00:21, February 10, 2011 (UTC)

Keep - A joke it may be, but if it's mentioned, and there's information, it's an article. If there isn't pages for some things, create them User:Real Not Pure/Signature 21:40, February 10, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - A useless joke.99 i fail 03:11, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - The article is contains false information too. Thok does not own the item since it doesn't exist. He only says they might as well create it since people are so lazy. If articles of this level are allowed then we there are billions of other articles that are "missing". ^T_H^A_R^K_O^N 22:37, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Now to think of it, this article is just... nonsense. Articles like that box company or mentioned characters should be kept. Mark (talk) 22:47, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - My RuneScapian tennis shoelaces never lie.

1. REDIRECT User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 13:26, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Even as someone who's a major supporter of Postbag granularity, this page is just going too far. It's a joke, even in the context of the letter. The articles that Cook mentioned earlier are different because, unlike the shoelacecrusher, most of them can be considered part of the game's lore. The most mention I could see this getting is a note on the bonecrusher article. Morian Smith 18:01, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - There is no article for the bovimastyx head, which is mentioned in the same letter with the same, if not more, detail. ^T_H^A_R^K_O^N 15:27, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Thok - It's his crusher, it should be on his page Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 21:21, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Merge would be a good idea, but the article doesn't contain any information to be merged. Except maybe this: "The shoelacecrusher is mentioned in the 44th Postbag from the Hedge[1]." The line "It is owned by Thok, Master of Dungeoneering." is not proven and probably untrue, considering shoelacecrushers don't exist. ^T_H^A_R^K_O^N 01:01, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Just put a line about it in the trivia of Bonecrusher, it doesn't deserve much more. Sentra246 01:13, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Information ftw. bad_fetus^talk 18:24, February 20, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - The usual. --クールネシ^トーク 21:08, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

Add to trivia on Thok/Bonecrusher - Everyone wins. User:Haloolah123/Sig 21:27, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

Added to triva on Thok, Master of Dungeoneering - Thok thinks the Dungeoneering rewards make modern adventurers lazy as can be seen in the 44th Postbag from the Hedge{{CitePostbag |url=http://www.runescape.com/kbase/guid/postbag_44 |issue=44 |letter=Letter 3 |title=Postbag from the Heim |date=20:19, October 7, 2010 (UTC)}}, where he comments on the Bonecrusher saying he would not be surprised they'd ask for a shoelacecrusher to save them from bending over occasionally. ^T_H^A_R^K_O^N 12:57, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

Support - But add some trivia to Bonecrusher.

1. REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 05:48, March 1, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - The page will be deleted. User:TyA/sig 03:23, March 6, 2011 (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.--Degenret01 09:15, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

"Template:Helpme"

We have RS:UH for this topic now and that it's posted on welcome notices, so every new user can knows of it. This template is barely used at all, I don't think many people even know that it exists. If a user actually needed help, and used this template, I think it would take a long time until they got it. It should be deleted, it's obsolete and might hurt the wiki. An example is this, it went unanswered for nearly 2 years.

Delete - As nominator. ɳex undique 01:17, March 5, 2011 (UTC)

Support - UH is a lot better than this. Sentra246 01:20, March 5, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Per nom.

1. REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 03:46, March 5, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - --クールネシ^トーク 21:57, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - 222 ^talk 08:37, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - Deleted People do not even notice when someone asks for help with this.--Degenret01 09:12, March 11, 2011 (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.

Category:Monster examine images

Unnecessary, to put it simply. We have all the information from the monster examine, in the infobox. It's just useless fluff. Oya, keep one of them for the Monster Examine page, obviously. ʞooɔ 19:04, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Bah. ʞooɔ 19:04, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Useless pictures of duplicate information. Keep one for the monster examine spell page though Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 19:12, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

support - what cook said. --Iiii I I I 19:14, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Strong support - (editconflict x2 ) get rid of them pl0x. They could also easily be inaccurate, as the lifepoints change along with the lifepoints the monster has then, so if the image is made somewhere halfway, lifepoints are inaccurate, and the max hit is often inaccurate too, as it only shows the max hit of one attack style, but often bosses have specials, and different attack styles, so the monster examines are useless, and not guaranteed to be true. Just keel them pl0x JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 19:16, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Keep one, as Ciphrius says, though, possible one of a monster most people know. User:Ejp10/Signature 19:18, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Ye, File:Abbydemon full and 1hp examine.png should stay as example. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 19:21, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

I was more thinking of [[:File:JadMonsterExamine.png]], as it was also taken after the Constitution update. User:Ejp10/Signature 19:26, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - If you see an image of a monster examine somewhere, please add the [[:Category:Monster examine images]] to them, thanks. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 19:21, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Deeleet - Humbug?

1. REDIRECT User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 20:00, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Keep one, delete rest - Really only needs one image, as the jungle wyrm shows every result the examine gives (basic info along with slayer monster and poison immunity) keep it for the examine article, delete rest though.  Archmage Elune  ^Talk_HS fetus is my son and I love him. 07:52, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - --クールネシ^トーク 21:56, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - 222 ^talk 23:56, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - As per everybody. --Henneyj 07:07, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - If we don't delete them, are we going to get monster examine images for every single monster?Guthix1110 00:13, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - All images, except [[:File:JadMonsterExamine.png]], as well as the category will be deleted. Sentra246 05:31, March 15, 2011 (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.

Daemonheim/Pre-release

I think the information in this article is a bit redundant now. It was a historical article, but almost all of the contents of this page seem to already be on the Daemonheim article.

Delete- As per nominator. Krayfish 00:53, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

Keep - It represents what we knew about the castle before the release of the skill, and is interesting for that reason. It's not causing any trouble as is, so I can't see any reason to delete it. User:Stelercus/Signature 00:57, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

Keep - If it's on Daemonheim, so what? Information can be in more than one place. This is notable to warrant an article. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 17:10, February 8, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - It's interesting and useful. Sentra246 00:42, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Pages like these are the very reason why this wiki is such a fantastic fansite. Deleting it would be stupid. User:(wszx)/sheeeeple 00:04, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Per Steler and Wszx.

1. REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 03:45, March 5, 2011 (UTC)

Keep - History ftw --クールネシ^トーク 21:56, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - It is an interesting historical article, and should be kept for that purpose: history. 222 ^talk 23:54, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - Daemonheim/Pre-release will not be deleted. Suppa chuppa ^Talk 04:51, March 16, 2011 (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. User:TyA/sig 00:43, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

RuneScape:Off-site/TeamSpeak

I don't like deleting content, but this is completely defunct, and has been since the closure of Forum:TeamSpeak status. Since we also removed the page for the YouTube channel (or hid it, I can't find it anywhere), I propose that this page be deleted too.

Delete - User:Real Not Pure/Signature 23:13, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Historical page... --クールネシ^トーク 23:29, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

A historical page is a reference point. All this does is tell people about a connection that doesn't exist. If someone missed the note at the top to say that the server's gone, they'd be trying to join it and getting confused. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 15:46, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

Then make it a bit bigger, so people can't miss it. Deleting it is just not needed (Oppose) JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 18:41, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Historical. Evil1888 ^{Talk A's L} 18:56, February 16, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - I honestly have no idea what you are trying to accomplish by keeping it as it is historical. This is not an article, a reader is not going to go read it because it is interesting. It also is not an archive, since it simply is not a discussion. There is absolutely no reason to keep it. bad_fetus^talk 21:10, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - AFAIK [[RuneScape:Off-site/Ventrilo]] is defunct yet the page exists. Evil1888 ^{Talk A's L} 23:23, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

Then delete that too. bad_fetus^talk 19:06, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - This page serves no purpose other than keeping it there to confuse people or just to prove it existed before. If someone wants to re-incarnate the service, undelete it, but right now there is no reason to keep it. 222 ^talk 23:56, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - The project pages for TeamSpeak and Ventrilo will be deleted. User:TyA/sig 00:43, March 17, 2011 (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. --Liquid^Talk 02:19, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Drained Pauline Polaris

Who the hell thought that this was at all worthy of it's own article? I am not even suggesting a merge here, because EVERYTHING stated here is already in her main article... aside from the examine info, anyway.

Delete - As nominator. Nightgunner ^Talk 08:52, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Different name, different examine, different picture, different purpose.

1. REDIRECT User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 08:53, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - RS:G says split, so we should split. The info on the Pauline Polaris article should just be on the "drained" article, and we should definetely not have 2 pages on 1. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 08:58, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? Seriously?! I am all for granularity, but this is just ridiculous. Just because they add "Drained" to her name does not make it a different name. Ditto for the examine, which can be put into the infobox like we have for EVERY SINGLE OTHER object and NPC in the game that has multiple examines. As too her purpose... IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME. In both forms she STILL gives Livid farm rewards and tells you about the area. WE DO NOT NEED TWO ARTICLES FOR THIS. Nightgunner ^Talk 08:58, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

Err, and even if this somehow ends up kept, the information on Pauline should definitely NOT be moved to the drained article. You will only ever see Drained pauline for a few moments. Nightgunner ^Talk 08:59, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

The articles just need to be cleaned up is all. Drained could do with some more information, like the different ways to encourage her or how the farm is effected by her drained state - then it'd be fine. (:

1. REDIRECT User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 09:06, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

The farm is not effected at all by her drained state - literally, not at all. There is absolutely, positvely, NO REASON for this second article. RS:G might allow it, but none of the 'rules' are set in stone... there is actually a rule that says that, too. It's called common sense. Nightgunner ^Talk 09:15, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, RS:G doesn't allow the split either.

1. Does item A have the same purpose/use as item B? Yes, running the Livid Farm and cashing in Produce Points.

2. Can item A be substituted with item B? Yes, she can't do anything when drained that she can't do when not drained or the other way around. —The preceding signed comment was added by I Am Me (talk • contribs). 17:33, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

1. Kinda/yes. Also has a minor other purpose of being a distraction for the other activities there, and making it a little bit harder to do.

2. No. You can't use the restore spell on the regular pauline. If it would be substitutable, that would also be possible on the regular pauline.

Also, I'm not sure, but I thought you can't complete the lunar diplomacy quest with the drained pauline, but you can with the normal pauline. This is also a difference in purpose, making 1. a no. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 18:18, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

But you can't complete it with the Pauline at the farm at all. And Pauline doesn't look the same in the town as at the livid farm. She doen't help with the Livid farm in town, doesn't exchange produce points in town and can't be energised or drained in the town either. But I don't see anyone who wants to Pauline Polaris into two articles (which, actually, makes just as much sense as keeping this split), do you? —The preceding signed comment was added by I Am Me (talk • contribs). 23:17, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

Epicly strong support - Keeping these split is just as stupid as splitting potions by doses (a slight change in the name, examine and look is the only difference) —The preceding signed comment was added by I Am Me (talk • contribs). 09:28, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

How stupid is this wiki? A separate article for the same person in a slightly altered state is insane. It is the SAME person. Then you interact with her, and she is RESTORED to the original form! Why do people insist on making things as bloody difficult as possible? Please, take granularity out of the discussion. If you cannot come up with viable reasons on your own, then granularity does not mean crap. What works best for the players and how they need the information is number one. What works best for the players. Everything else is moot. EVERYTHING. We are here for THEM. People keep forgetting that that is why we have this encyclopedia.--Degenret01 10:02, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Not enough differences between the two to qualify for two seperate articles. The only differences between the two are one word and the ability to cast a spell every few minutes. Turn the drained page into a redirect.Guthix1110 01:26, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

One more really good point We keep the Kalphite Queen on one page. Each form is different, must be fought differently, attacks differently, and has a different appearance. But it is the same NPC, so is kept on one page. We used to make sense, let us keep on making sense.--Degenret01 02:11, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Or we should make these articles: Cyrisus (unconsious), Cyrisus (slightly better), Cyrisus (quite better), Cyrisus (really better), Cyrisus (healed guy) and Cyrisus (While Zaros Naps). Fswe1 14:26, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

Strong delete - I don't normally support RfD's, but this is ridiculous. Seriously, it's the same person. Per Degen. bad_fetus^talk 11:14, April 24, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - The page will be deleted (or rather, redirected to Pauline Polaris). --Liquid^Talk 02:19, May 1, 2011 (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 all. --Liquid^Talk 00:02, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

RuneScape:WikiProjects/Fishing

If you've been following Recent Changes in the past week or so, you will have seen that I, and a few others have been creating many of the portals which no one seems to have started even though it is evident Chicken won't be coming back in the near-future. If you take a look at the 40+ portals the wiki will have, it is evident we do not have the editors to run 40 separate projects for each portal. I have designed each portal to require as little maintenance as possible, as a result projects such as this are not required and as said above, will never get off the ground. This RfD also covers the entire "WikiProjects" group of pages, including [[:Category:WikiProjects]] and [[RuneScape:Page maintenance/WikiProjects]], which are essentially dependent on page similar to WikiProjects Fishing.

Delete - As nominator. 222 ^talk 08:27, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - not gonna help anything. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 08:46, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Per nom.

1. REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 00:45, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Or change it to WikiProjects/Portals. Fswe1 14:24, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

Keep - I really don't see how it hurts us to keep this.

1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 14:27, April 21, 2011 (UTC)

It's a project that has never been started, and has already been replaced by something else. Of course it doesn't hurt, nearly nobody knew of it's existence until now, but it doesn't mean that it should linger. 222 ^talk 01:02, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Obsolete is obsolete. Very unhelpful. --クールネシ^トーク 11:44, April 23, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - All the WikiProject pages will be deleted. --Liquid^Talk 00:02, May 5, 2011 (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. 222 ^talk 03:53, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

Category:Santa costume

Way too specific for a category.

Support - As nominator. Fswe1 13:07, May 14, 2011 (UTC)

Support - If we have this we should also have categories for other holiday costumes Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 13:10, May 14, 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletehammrz - yup. JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 18:59, May 14, 2011 (UTC)

Wth? - Delete nao.

1. REDIRECT User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 23:06, May 14, 2011 (UTC)

WAT - We might as well have a category for individual items if this stays. Smuff ^{[cite your sources or die]} 23:08, May 14, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - A bit too specific for my liking. ɳex undique 23:09, May 14, 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete - This is not what the category system is meant for. If no one objects, I will delete this within the hour. 222 ^talk 03:10, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - No objections to above. 222 ^talk 03:53, May 15, 2011 (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.

Insight Venture Partners

An article about an American venture fund who invests in Jagex Ltd. is unnecessary. It does not have any direct relation to our encyclopaedia about RuneScape. An article like this should instead be on the Jagex Wiki. Furthermore, if we were to create such articles, why don't we have articles on Gower's mother? She could be influencing the game through her son as much as the investment company could be influencing through Jagex. Being a comprehensive encyclopaedia has a point where things aren't relevant anymore, and I think this article crossed it.

Delete - As nominator. 222 ^talk 04:33, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

Strong delete - I agree. While the article is an interesting read, if we have this kind of article then we'd have to have an article for things like Cambridge or England or whatever. --Liquid^Talk 04:46, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Cambridge and England are far too broad topics to have on the wiki, and they are not in charge of the decisions at Jagex, nor are they the subject of multiple press releases on the part of Jagex. ʞooɔ 04:51, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

Your argument makes no sense. IVP is so behind the scenes and so far removed from RuneScape that it doesn't belong here. Take it to another wiki if you really want it. Cambridge is probably more related to RuneScape than IVP is, now that I think of it. --Liquid^Talk 04:53, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

Like I made quite clear, they control two of the seven seats on the board of directors. That hardly makes them "so far removed" from the game. ʞooɔ 04:55, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

The board handles the business aspects of the company. That's pretty far removed from the actual game. The effect on the game is minimal. IVP has about as big an effect on the game as the River Cam does. If the latter floods, Jagex is shut down until they get the water cleaned up. If the former floods, Jagex's investors lose money and likely will have to sell their stake. What are the chances of either happening? Very small. They're so small that it's insignificant for the RuneScape wiki. Add a note to the Jagex article or take it to the Jagex wiki. --Liquid^Talk 05:00, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to continue arguing with you because your argument is completely ridiculous. ʞooɔ 05:02, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

It is not completely ridiculous. Your creating so many useless articles on the wiki that they don't belong is egregiously ridiculous. --Liquid^Talk 05:03, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I lied. I'll continue to argue with you. Every non-ingame article that I've ever made on this wiki has been based on the notability of an earlier article. This is based on the pages for the other Jagex employees who had no bearing on the actual game. As can be seen by looking at Special:Mostvisitedpages, those pages are quite popular and this one will be as well. Trying to delete a well-sourced, informative and useful article for such frivolous reasons is absurd. ʞooɔ 05:09, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

Jagex employees who had no bearing on the actual game? If they actually did work on RuneScape, they would have an impact on the game. --Liquid^Talk 05:12, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

They did NOT work on RuneScape. They were businessmen, like I've already said. They had nothing to do with content. ʞooɔ 05:14, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

Category:Jagex and Category:People list only those who actually are related to RuneScape. --Liquid^Talk 05:19, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

How is that hard to understand? Geoff Iddison and Constant Tedder had nothing to do with the actual game. ʞooɔ 05:21, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

Yes they did. They were integral to the game's early development, and their names actually slowed up in prominent places on the RS website. --Liquid^Talk 05:25, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

No, no, no. Tedder was involved in the early development of Jagex. His duties officially were "Business, marketing". Nothing about development there. ʞooɔ 05:29, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

Development as in history. Not as in adding content to the game. When you're a threesome, it's hard to believe that he's not involved in Jagex's development. Plus, his name showed up in prominent places. --Liquid^Talk 05:35, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

See, there's some nice unsubstantiated speculation. Also, "prominent places"? Like a press release? ʞooɔ 05:37, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

That's not a prominent place for the RuneScape wiki. Your link would nicely support the notion that it belongs on the Jagex wiki. Try a link that starts with www.runescape.com next time. --Liquid^Talk 14:08, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

(tab reset) Again, there is no reason we cannot branch out slightly into the side of Jagex as a business. ʞooɔ 18:20, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

Strong keep - No. The Jagex board of directors now consists of seven people, two of which are from Insight Venture Partners, two from The Raine Group, and two from Spectrum Equity. The lone Jagex person? The CEO, Mark Gerhard. If these venture capital firms make up 86 percent of Jagex's directors (and this particular one owns between 35 and 50 percent of Jagex Ltd.), you better believe that they're relevant. IVP was already mentioned on the Jagex page, and for that reason as well we should expand on it. The Gower brothers and Constant Tedder left the board of directors as a direct result of IVP as well as two other firms.

There is no reason whatsoever that we cannot delve at least somewhat into Jagex on the wiki; in fact, we already have. Constant Tedder and Geoff Iddison, for example, had very little if anything to do with the content and gaming side of RuneScape; they were businessmen, and yet we still have fairly popular articles on both of them. If we were seriously only about the content part of RuneScape and not about Jagex as you seem to claim, we would not have a multitude of pages that are about the corporate side of Jagex, or at least the non-RuneScape side. Additionally, IVP as well as the other investment firms are talked about somewhat regularly on the RuneScape Official Forums, defeating the idea that they are not relevant.

Once again, your analogies are off by a mile. The Gowers' mother has nothing to do with RuneScape, but that's not the point. Just because this firm does not have a direct impact on the content of RuneScape (which in itself is debatable), we have never been, and nor should we be solely about the content of RuneScape. ʞooɔ 04:49, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

Strong keep - Per Cook. If you think they have nothing to do with the game - think again. Two months after they were elected on the Board of Directors, the wilderness and free trade were returned to the game, something the Gowers vowed never to bring back. Umm HELLO, these people have a direct impact on the content of RuneScape, the decision-making processes of the developers, and what goes on at Jagex. Do a little research, these guys are all over the RSOF, they deserve an article on here so people can get some information on them.

1. REDIRECT User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 05:08, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

And how do you know it's not a coincidence? According to the newspost, Jagex claims it actually has some weapons against RW traders. If the original reasons for removing the wilderness are gone, then there should be no reason not to add it back. This is not a good reason without solid evidence that IVP directly led to the return of the wilderness. --Liquid^Talk 05:12, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

Because I do my research, it's not all about citing and quotes. Some common sense and connecting of the dots is involved. The article is well-laid-out and has lots of nice information, there's no reason to delete it.

1. REDIRECT User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 05:14, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

The number of confounding variables in this case is so great that it is not possible to draw a proper conclusion from the correlation. I'm not necessarily in favor of deleting the information, but it definitely does not need its own article. --Liquid^Talk 05:19, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

That by itself is terrible. If the four paragraphs and five sources should be anywhere, it should be on its own article. ʞooɔ 05:21, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

Its own article is the definite place that they should not be. It's so loosely linked to the game that a passing reference on another article is sufficient. --Liquid^Talk 05:25, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

So you are neutral on keeping the large amount of information...but you don't want the page? What is the deal with you and merging pages that don't belong merged? ʞooɔ 05:29, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

Post 3
Posts 6, 9-a few pages back, major discussion
Posts 3, 4 and onwards, more discussion like above
Posts 7&8 and a few more after
Need I go on? the point is that people are into this information. The article has the information. Therefore, we need the article to provide the factual information.

1. REDIRECT User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 05:38, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Keep - Per Cook. User:Haloolah123/Sig 05:26, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

Keep it - Quote from the Jagex page we have on the wiki, on which the article to be deleted is found "This category is for articles strictly involving or related to Jagex as a company. RuneScape articles, etc should not be included." So I don't see a relevant reason to delete this. Tabrez 2007 05:32, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Per Cook. It's very relevant since they are on the board of directors. Andrew ^talk 15:51, May 22, 2011 (UTC)

Comment under the {{Rfd bottom}} nub —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RuneScape wiki's consciousness.

Keep - And if this somehow does get deleted, delete Category:Jagex too, because that's not really about the game either. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 17:44, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Keep - A company that has twice invested in Jagex and had a 35% stake in Jagex last year is definitelty detremental to the decisions Jagex make. That stake is thought to be lower now thanks to the investment from Raine Group but my point still stands. TheJoycething 17:56, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - Article will not be deleted. Suppa chuppa ^Talk 18:43, May 29, 2011 (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. ʞooɔ 04:18, May 30, 2011 (UTC)

Ian Gower

The article is not suitable for inclusion on this wiki. The only info on him that I could find on him on reliable sources was that he converted the quests Goblin Diplomacy[1] and Fight Arena[2] and a phrase about the Meltdown arcade game, but this is trivial and certainly not enough to establish notability. No reliable source states that he helped create an early version of RuneScape in 1999 or anything of that sort. In addition, this article is an unsourced one on a living person. Smithing 21:04, May 19, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Although he could be considered one of the founders of RuneScape, he is just too insignificant to have an article on. I personally see him as being more notable as Paul and Andrew's brother, and that isn't significant enough for me to want it Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 21:13, May 19, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Any information should make the article suitable, especially since he's one of the founders (albeit the most insignificant one). Furthermore, for a game like this, we have to realize that the obscurity of some of the subjects precludes our ability to cite everything. As long as the claims made are not that far-fetched and do not incite a reasonable level of suspicion, I don't see a problem. --Liquid^Talk 21:19, May 19, 2011 (UTC)

First and foremost, can you prove that he is one of the founders, because I can't find any. Second, we have to realize that we can't have info that is incorrect and/or could unreasonably harm the living person. If the info cannot be found in trustworthy sources (as none of the info currently can on Ian Gower's article as far as I know), it shouldn't be trusted as it could be incorrect, inaccurate etc. You have to consider that not all info that is correct etc. will be suspicious and far-fetched, some of the info may not be that at all but still be incorrect etc. Smithing 20:17, May 20, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - He is one of the founders of the game this site is based on. Keep the information on him, however large or small it is, as historical.

1. REDIRECT User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 00:49, May 20, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - This states that Gower worked freelance on graphics and modelling; it seems to be from very early on, and is quoted elsewhere which makes me think it was mirrored from an antiquated official source. This also shows that Ian was one of the original shareholders in Jagex Ltd; we have pages on all of the other shareholders (with the exception of IVP, which could soon change). Furthermore, the RuneScape Wiki does not have a BLP policy like en.wp does, so using that as an argument doesn't help your case. ʞooɔ 07:43, May 20, 2011 (UTC)

Let's see. OOCities is definitely an unreliable source that was mirrored from a site that allows users to freely create a website. And besides, that site refers to Jagex staff, which is not RuneScape, and there's not sufficient evidence to prove it does come from an official or reliable source. Cambridge Clusters doesn't state anything about Ian Gower (except in one of the comments in the blog itself, which definitely isn't reliable). In addition, I hadn't previously referred to Wikipedia in this topic. Smithing 19:59, May 20, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - We might have little information about him at the moment, but the information we have is enough to make him notable, possibly because he helped found the game? 222 ^talk 07:47, May 20, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I'd imagine he was mentioned in the runefest stuff too, might be worth a look. --Henneyj 09:00, May 20, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Can someone please provide a reliable source that proves Ian Gower was the co-founder, because I'm really doubting that claim is correct. As I've said, the only info related to RuneScape that I could find on him (on reliable sources) was that he helped with the conversion of two RuneScape quests. I seriously don't think that makes him notable. Smithing 19:59, May 20, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose, what a lovely article, why again are you trying to delete it? I see absolutely no good reason stated above.

1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 20:17, May 20, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I should clarify that. None of the info on the article may currently be correct or is likely to be correct as it is unverifiable (and unprovable) as far as I know, and could harm the guy Ian because of this. That's the main one. Smithing 20:25, May 20, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - OMG let's also get rid of main page it could harm someone bad_fetus^talk 11:47, May 21, 2011 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that inaccurate information about a person cannot harm them? Smithing 11:51, May 21, 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that saying someone helped creating an early version of RuneScape can not harm that person. bad_fetus^talk 13:57, May 21, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely can if it is not true or it is not a fact (do I really need to provide examples of this?). Unless some reliable source publishes it, well then we can't know if it is a fact (there is a lot of info that could be put on articles that is not suspicious and/or bias at all but is completely incorrect and/or not a fact, and this is the only way to verify if info like in the article is one). Keep in mind we also have to regard other people's privacy. I'm taking this seriously. Smithing 16:02, May 21, 2011 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath but I actually asked on the forums [3]. Let us hope for an official answer, or what the **** is the point of being "silver supported" for anyhow?--Degenret01 13:13, May 21, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Smithing 16:02, May 21, 2011 (UTC)

Comment 2 - RS:SG says "Do not try and claim "facts" such as "player x was the first to complete this task" without any verifiable proof." if anyone is interested. Smithing 17:25, May 21, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - In the devblog cited in an answer to Degen's forum thread, it says that Ian worked part-time on graphics in-between studying for A-level exams. So he definitely worked on the original version of RS, therefore he's article-worthy. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 06:51, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

Where are our dev blogs? It would be great if we could link to that blog on Ians article, and I think that should be enough to erase any doubt whether or not he gets one. Not as a founder, but as a part time helper. I do wonder if he wishes now he did more, then he could be one of the top richest dudes in the UK.--Degenret01 07:02, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

Developers'_Blogs bad_fetus^talk 16:34, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

This is the one mentioned on the forums: Update:Blog - History of RuneScape: The First Four Years --Henneyj 01:02, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

Runefest vids (Andrews comments) - Re:devious mud - "all the graphics drawn by a combination of myself and Ian"[4]. He also mentions Ian re:RSC graphics (Although apparently his mum even helped out with some graphics D: )[5]. I get the impression he basically just drew some pictures which could be scanned. --Henneyj 01:54, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

Withdraw - per additional reliably sourced information. Smithing (talk | contribs) 03:39, May 30, 2011 (UTC)

A user has requested closure for Requests for deletion/Archive 16. Request complete. The reason given was: Nominator withdrawal

--クールネシ^トーク 03:54, May 30, 2011 (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. ɳex undique 18:35, June 4, 2011 (UTC)

Template:Skill Icon

Basically Template:Skill clickpic but adds a text link right after the image, does not fail safely (does not default to something when parameter is misspelled), can only display images the follow <skill>-icon.png which some of Template:Skill clickpic files that do not follow that will display, requires 2 file redirects (File:Combat-icon.png and File:Quest-icon.png), and can easily be replaced by {{Skill clickpic|<skill>}} [[<skill>]].

Delete - As nominator. Evil1888 ^{Talk A's L} 08:22, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Doesn't seem to be adding anything of importance to the wiki. If the creator of the template can explain a reasoning behind this template, then maybe I'll change my vote, but otherwise, no need Ben Ryfos^Talk 08:25, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete - Per nom.

1. REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 22:25, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

Strong support - useless and duplicate. Get rid of laziness JOEYTJE50TALK pull my finger 00:15, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Doesn't do anything new. ʞooɔ 20:38, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

Keep - As editor who added the template. The template as you have stated, works by adding text next to the icon which is, as you say, similar to the Skill clickpic template, but it does add value: it is much easier to add {{si|skillname}} than {{Skill clickpic|<skill>}} [[<skill>]]. And the code is much lighter too: in the case of Defence it is 15 with "si" against "39" with the old template. It also allows to use the icons on text easier, as well as in lists without the need for two columns. You say it is duplicate, it is not, it adds a usability function, as it is easier to implement. There is also the Template:Skillreq template which is basically the same as my template but adding a number to the requirement, there was no complaint there as far as I know, and there shouldn-t be any here either, as I asked the nominator and the birthday-person for time to implement more features!find more uses to this template. The double redirect issue can be easily fixed by either an extra parameter on the template (it is just that i do not how exactly) or by moving the original files to the names I used, which make more sense in my opinion. Finally, I believe it is better that it doesnt "fail" safely, as a red link would be easierly spottable by the person editing the page or anyone reading, to fix; as why would I want the Statistics icon to show next to the Attack link? But if this is really an issue, someone can just edit the template so it also "fails" safely by showing the image, but I don't know how to do it. I request to the previous voters to add a check if they have read my response in order for the vote to be valid, as I was struggling to find the page and respond until another user redirected it to me. Thank you so much for your read, User:Sam 3010/sig 20:50, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

Examples of current use: Skills, Quests. A sign of good faith from me: Strength (current) (my version) vs. (old version)

I really am not a code person, but from what I can gather, your template does this:

Hunter

Instead of {{Skill clickpic}}, which does this:

Is that correct?

1. REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 20:59, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that is what it does, adds text.User:Sam 3010/sig 21:13, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

Read Forum:Using Skill clickpics as it relates to using them in mainspace. ʞooɔ 21:18, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

I have, thanks for the link. I will moderate my uses so they don't go stamped on the text breaking the flow, and maybe I will "revive" the issue at a later date with rules of course as to it not having the same issues as the proposed use. I believe an issue with that suggestion was that it was difficult to add the skill clickpic template and the link. This template would solve that. User:Sam 3010/sig 21:48, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

Keep. The template looks useful, so I think that it should be kept, or at least modify the other one so that it can support this. imo this has uses outside of the mainspace as well as inside.

1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 22:56, May 9, 2011 (UTC)

Delete both We should in every case be using the Skillreq template and phasing out the Skill click pic when that gets done. Adding one more item that should be phased out when Skill req gets done is just useless. Anyone adding the skill click pic should be informed to only use the skill req.--Degenret01 03:10, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

? There is use for the pic alone in some articles, but anywhere we would use the pic and the word I believe we also want the level requirement. Are there any places where this is not so?--Degenret01 04:44, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you are saying, that sounds like you are supporting all three templates as long as we use them adequately depending on the case. Is that right? User:Sam 3010/sig 04:57, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

Comment:So you really cannot find any use on any template? You all prefer to be here discussing how to delete a non-harm template that will make things easier in several situations instead of fixing articles that are just plain incomplete and unorganized, (i.e. 80% of the wiki's article)? Seriously, that wasn't flaming or me having anything against this wiki, I love it, it helped me a lot for the first two years when I started in the game, but I have seen the quality of the main namespace articles fall down (from about the time Dungeoneering was released) gradually to a point of me needing to random page more than 10 times to find a well-made (actually, edited) article. I don't know much of the behindthescenes area of the wiki and I know that the Wiki events are very well done, but as I said before, the quality of Mainspace articles is what needs to be looked at now. User:Sam 3010/sig 04:04, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

That's not what we're getting at. The outcome of the thread about using skill clickpics was that we decided not to use them because they really interrupt the flow of regular text. Now, it appears that you and I have differing opinions on what constitutes making an article "better" because I personally don't like how they've been used. In any case, because they aren't to be used frequently, the use of the shortcut should be inconsequential. No one has made any claim whatsoever that you were flaming or trying to bring the wiki down, but the fact is that the template is essentially a duplicate, and as per procedure, we generally delete duplicates. Suppa chuppa ^Talk 18:54, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I know you (anyone) weren't saying I was flaming, it was an "in-case-you" comment. To be a little more specific on the "unorganized" pages, It seems some of them are lacking essential "number information" like experience gained, level needed, etc. As well as having "strategy" or "high-level use" notes above information like how to access that piece of content, etc. I do not know what oyu mean about shortcut. And you are using the term "duplicate" too broadly, the fact that the template allows for better usability, more code simplicity and being a more "new editor" friendly makes it "not" a duplicate, besides having more uses. User:Sam 3010/sig 19:56, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - We have equivalent and somewhat superior templates in existence. 222 ^talk 10:06, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Seems like an unneccessary duplicate to me Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 18:07, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

A user has requested closure for Requests for deletion/Archive 16. Request complete. The reason given was: discussion has died down

Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 18:42, May 31, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - The template will be deleted. ɳex undique 18:35, June 4, 2011 (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. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 03:38, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

:Money making guide/Looting in the Wilderness (P2P)

I don't think Rune Wikia should be encouraging or supporting by providing instruction on an action ('looting') so frowned apon by the Runescape community, and that of the PKers especially.

Delete - As nominator. XAleXOwnZX 05:05, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Although it maybe frowned upon by the RS community, it does not violate any rules. Each person has their own opinion and morals personally, but those do not speak for everyone. If something works for someone in game that does not break the rules I don't see why it would not be allowed on this wiki. xScoobsx Talk Contribs 05:09, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Keep As per Scoobs Cursed Pyres 05:10, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Fix the grammar if you do not want it deleted. It is very, very, very poorly written, and I couldn't make myself get past the first paragraph.--Degenret01 05:23, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Keep it - What Mr. Scoobs said.

1. REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 06:26, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Atrocious quality, but keep - It's a legitimate article. The Wiki seeks to provide information on RuneScape, not what is considered to be "good" practices in RuneScape. However, it does need a massive rewrite, it's far below the standard of even our slightly messy Money making guides, let alone other articles. 222 ^talk 09:41, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Keep, rework, improve, move info - The article might be low quality, but that can change, and nothing else is wrong with it, actually. Well, except that some of the info might actually be better off on the Looting page. The introduction would be better off on both and the "Perspective" part should just be moved to Looting. —The preceding signed comment was added by I Am Me (talk • contribs). 13:22, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - The fact that it is frowned upon by PK community does not enhance its eligibility for deletion, as it is said in article, and it is not frowned upon by the entire Runescape community, there are thousand of looters in wilderness, and it is not a forbidden behavior (anything that violate any rules) and generally it is not considered a "bad" practice. Richard ba 17:30, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Keep, I like it :3

1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 23:14, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

You like everything.

1. REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 06:23, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

Delete Per alexownz, it only serves to encourage and teach more noobs how to cause legitimate pkers (like me) great grief. If we were to keep this article it should be on the condition that any information teaching how to loot should be removed and the remaining content in the article should solely discourage looting. Zezzima ^{Talk • Edit # • Skills}File:Turmoil.gif|Yay turmoil! 06:28, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

We can't do that.

1. REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 06:34, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, so just because you don't like it, we should delete it? Nice logic there. bad_fetus^talk 16:24, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

Keep Why would you delete this, as it is breaking no rules, it just has bad grammar, like this, and also has a little bias, which could be fixed, so what is the point of deleting? I am a newb to Wikia, though. Overrwatcher 07:39, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

Keep - This article only needs to be improved, not deleted. The topic seems notable. Smithing (talk | contribs) 15:22, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

Speedy close and keep - Since the arguments that are brought with this discussion (even the nomination one) are somewhat filled with POV, this RfD should be ceased, as being frowned by pk-community is not a crucial reason to delete it, the subject itself is notable and is so popular as the authentic pk itself. If we follow this idea skill pure article should be deleted as well, because they are regarded as useless by the majority of common players and they often frown upon skillers calling them noobs. Articles within wikis does not encourage anything, they just provide a background and encyclopedic content. See WP:NOT in wikipedia, rules that Wikia follows. Richard ba 16:38, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

Requesting Closure - xScoobsx Talk Contribs 19:29, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

Notice of intent - I'll give this another day to make sure everyone who's spoken their mind is going to, and then close it. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 20:26, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - The article will not be deleted. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 03:38, June 15, 2011 (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.

File:Microtransaction confirmed.png

I figure this will get more attention here than on the talk page. Basically, this is an image of someone impersonating Jagex, claiming they will be officially recognising microtransactions. It's fake, as extablished by [[:File:Djw.PNG|this announcement]]. Therefore, it should not be on the wiki as it has no actual purpose whatsoever. P.S: It's also unused in the mainspace, with almost zero chance of ever making it into an article. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 15:56, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Strong delete - As nominator. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 15:56, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete - If it's fake, then it should be taken down. Even been confirmed by Jagex. Coelacanth0794 Talk 16:00, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - I'm just going to delete this. I don't know why I said I don't know what to do with it, it's fake and deserves speedy deletion. Apparently it wasn't even made by Jagex. Sorry for wasting any time. ɳex undique 19:15, June 22, 2011 (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 Cheats and scams/Password scams)  @Gaz#7521 22:16, June 23, 2011 (UTC).

Fake/Scam Websites

I originally speedy deleted this page as not needed, but it was contested, and the person does have a point - while they aren't expert enough to know this, it could be argued that the page should be kept via RS:G. Anyways, instead of taking some sort of arbitrary course of action that would leave someone sad, I'll bring it to the attention of the community here. Thanks,

1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 04:42, May 29, 2011 (UTC)

Edit: It should be moved to a page title without a slash in it >.>

1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 04:44, May 29, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral - As nominator.

1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 04:42, May 29, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I tagged it for speedy deletion again, but I guess it'd be best to merge the information on this page to here (or wherever the most suitable place will be). I don't think it warrants its own article, unless we were to create separate articles for every cheat and scam in the book. The pictures might be alright to keep, so people might be able to see the signs if they don't notice a different link..

1. REDIRECT User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 04:48, May 29, 2011 (UTC)

Merge - With scams or RWT? Fswe1 12:07, May 29, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Adequate information is already on the main article so having a sub-page is unnecessary. Any extra content provided by this sub-page I wouldn't say would be the 'highest' of quality.

1. REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 09:26, May 30, 2011 (UTC)

So improve it.

1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 13:42, May 30, 2011 (UTC)

Merge - Per Urbancowgurl. The sole purpose of scamming websites is to obtain passwords (also heavily emphasized in the article) anyway.  Tien  17:22, May 30, 2011 (UTC)

Merge with scams - The first photo, although showing the old Runescape layout, does show what to keep an eye for when your browser doesn't show the address bar. Also even though the article does state how to prevent falling for this scam it does not show what to do if you are a victim of it. User:Exor Solieve 16:54, May 31, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - If there is any thing worth keeping it could be merged but I just dont think there is much to keep. --User:Team6and7/sig 21:16, June 3, 2011 (UTC)

^

1. REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 01:30, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - I believe this page is actually created because of following a link from my userpage to this site (I stated it was obviously fake, by the way). Anyways, I think it should be deleted or maybe merged as it isn't about actual in-game content. Kwekko^Talk 16:35, June 18, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - The useful images have been merged into Cheats and scams/Password scams and the article redirected there.  @Gaz#7521 22:16, June 23, 2011 (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. Iiii I I I 01:27, July 8, 2011 (UTC)

Emoticons

I've been considering nominating this page for deletion for a while. There are two main reasons that I feel this page should be deleted:

1. We don't allow non-RuneScape slang entries in slang dictionaries; why allow a whole page containing random/miscellaneous emoticons?
2. The page is utterly dumpb/pointless. Most of the "emoticons" are really stupid. Examples:

"[]D [] []\/[] []D [] []\[] - Pimpin'"

":::::::::::[[ 8 ]]::::::::::::[[ 8 ]]::::::::::[[ 8 ]]::::::::::::::::::[[ ]]::::::::::::::Police Chase"

"Q(^.^Q) or Q(^_^Q) etc. - Boxing Kirby"

Hopefully you get the point.

Strong delete - As nominator. Suppa chuppa ^Talk 21:28, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Strong delete - "=d and :d Edit =d and :d Players may also switch the "P" with a lowercase "d" making the tongue point upwards. Some players consider this offensive, however, as it depicts a person eating/licking their boogers/nose." Do we really want this published on our wiki....

1. REDIRECT User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 21:29, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

EDITCONFLICTComment - Why not redirect it to RuneScape:Emoticons? Coelacanth0794 Talk 21:31, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

I guess. But I believe that an RfD process would still be necessary to remove the information and make the redirect, right? Suppa chuppa ^Talk 21:36, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was implying. Coelacanth0794 Talk 15:06, June 23, 2011 (UTC)

Strong delete - "<(_&^(|) - Homer Simpson ~(_8(|) - Another variation of Homer Simpson @@@@@@@:) - Marge Simpson \m/(-_-)\m/ and !,,! >.< !,,! \,,/ !,,!; - "Rock on" @(>.<)@ - Monkey" Uhhh....

1. REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 21:33, June 22, 2011 (UTC)Per nom.
2. REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 21:25, June 30, 2011 (UTC)

Complete Remake or Delete- This page is quite useful, as it can tell people what certain emoticons mean, making communication in game easier but it wouldn't hurt to delete this page, as people can learn emoticons from other sites. I suggest that this page be remade, and all the police chase and boxing kirby nonsense be removed, or else it be deleted.|http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/7237/jedik.png Yoplorian 21:38, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Strong delete - What the? Why was this page allowed in the first place? Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 21:43, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Neat page, and within the scope of article pertaining to RuneScape imo.

1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 22:22, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Yea, could use a rewrite too >.>

1. REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 22:23, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Remove the nonsense - But keep the article. A complete rewrite would probably be good too. Just because the page is poorly written it doesn't have to be removed, right? —The preceding signed comment was added by I Am Me (talk • contribs). 12:24, June 23, 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite - Per ajr, it has the potential to be useful. bad_fetus^talk 15:01, June 23, 2011 (UTC)

Delete or remove nonsense - Nobody uses emoticons, per ajr and Yoplorian. User:TyA/sig 15:10, June 23, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - This thread states that all non-rs terms are to be removed from slang dictionaries. As I see it, the page is nothing more than an extension of the slang dictionary, and absolutely all of the terms are non-rs related nonsense. Suppa chuppa ^Talk 02:31, June 25, 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Just remove nonsense, which is half the article. Seriously, leave NO TRACE of the Simpsons WHATSOEVER!!! O_o Fswe1 13:30, June 26, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Or at least remove the boxing Kirby thing, it's really stupid. Rock Eater 21:14, June 30, 2011 (UTC)

I removed the crap.... I just couldn't stand it anymore...

1. REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 21:25, June 30, 2011 (UTC)

Delete - Nobody uses most of these in rs and as suppa said, this is just an extension of the slang dictionary and are not "rs terms", so they should be removed. Sentra246 12:04, July 2, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - i deleted it. gf --Iiii I I I 01:27, July 8, 2011 (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 Move images to Orb of oculus/Tips.

1. REDIRECT User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 21:25, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

Dondakan's mine (Gallery subsection)

This section just contains images of areas that can be seen with Orb of Oculus but have nothing to do with the mine. This is just a property of the way the game is coded, they choose to put several completely different areas in the same "game space" or whatever you want to call it. It is of no relevence to the mine.

Personally I don't even think it's worth mentioning (except perhaps a small section on glitch about the general phenomenomenon), let alone a gallery for it.

Delete - As Henneyj 21:24, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

Move - That gawd-awful gallery to this gawd-awful gallery. If not, then delete.

1. REDIRECT User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 21:26, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

Move - Personally I asked Joey if I should post it there and he agreed to do so, since now I know this page exists, I agree that it should be moved. Spine^Talk 00:45, July 23, 2011 (UTC)

Move - Same reasoning as Spineweilder. Ch1lled Socks 04:55, July 25, 2011 (UTC)

Move - --クールネシ^トーク 16:19, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

Move - Also same reasoning as Spine. D1D ^Talk 14:35, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - The gallery will be moved to Orb of oculus/Tips.

1. REDIRECT User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 21:25, August 3, 2011 (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. 222 ^talk 11:08, August 10, 2011 (UTC)

RuneTabber

“	RuneTabber's site / wiki page hasn't been updated in months, only 5 likes on Facebook, seems utterly unused.	”
	— User:D1D

Support - What is this I don't even... Fswe1 11:14, August 2, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Doesn't seem popular enough to warrant its own page. User:LordDarkPhantom/Signature 15:59, August 3, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Yes.

1. REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 07:44, August 4, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Not notable. There appears to be no secondary reliable sources regarding it. Smithing (talk | contribs) 19:05, August 5, 2011 (UTC)

Support - It was created by a random user and moved from his userpage into the mainspace. Most of the edits are by him or are of typos. Idk what this even is.

1. REDIRECT User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 19:28, August 5, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Never even heard of it before. --クールネシ^トーク 00:58, August 7, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - RuneTabber will be deleted. 222 ^talk 11:08, August 10, 2011 (UTC)

---

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