Archives |
---|
No archives yet |
Sixth Age conflict
The Sixth Age conflict page is wildly redundant, and has been a source of conflict with an edit war on the name. However, the real core of the issue is that the page itself has no reason to exist as a stand-alone page in the first place. Almost all information on the Sixth Age conflict page can be found on the Sixth Age page, having been outright copied and pasted from there, making this new page completely useless. Making matters even worse, the Sixth Age page is woefully under-updated, with a serious tone, grammar, and information issue as-is. Forking the page elsewhere just means the original page doesn't get the attention it needs. I believe that the Sixth Age conflicts page needs to be entirely deleted, and any work on that topic should be redirected to the Sixth Age page instead. Any "new" writings on the Sixth Age conflicts page, if there are any, should simply be ported over to the Sixth Age page.
'Delete' - As nominator Amascut Ia Morte 01:31, February 22, 2018 (UTC)
'Keep for now' - I don't completely disagree with Amascul/La Morte. However, other "wars" do have a summary page. I'd like to hold off until we can get a member of the Jmod Lore Council to give us a name for the whole The World Wakes to Sliske's Endgame time period. If Jagex/Lore council refuses to give a name/title, then delete. --Deltaslug (talk) 02:01, February 22, 2018 (UTC)
'Delete' - I have to agree, this page has not been given any attention. If there was battles,then it could have been kept. But due to little information, and the fact that these events don't really need to be here, there are more pages as well that requires to be deleted, like the battle for the stone of Jas. I think this page should be removed. It isn't given enough attention (as the invasion of Falador is missing) and it is an exact copy of the Sixth age page. I agree for it's deletion. If a Jmod does give the event that is happening within the sixth age a name, it can just be added to the Sixth age. Adventurerrr Talk
02:38, February 22, 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - We've got Gielinorian God Wars and Third Age after all. Rewrite it rather than delete it Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 14:31, February 22, 2018 (UTC)
- However the Third Age page covers the whole of the age, while the God Wars page covers a bullet pointed list of the events and conflicts of the God Wars, as well as a list of tactics, the various battles, and the end goal. The "Sixth Age conflicts" do not have that same continuity, and are a spread out series of random skirmishes over a variety of things, like anima, power, for fun, at Sliske's prompting, and for the Stone of Jas. Until we have an actual Second Gielinorian God War, there's no reason to group the events of the Sixth Age on a second page, when the events on the Sixth Age conflicts page are the same events as on the Sixth Age page. It's like Wikipedia having a page on all conflicts in the year 1994 as if they were a unified group of battles rather than separate events, when all that information is also covered on a page about the year 1994.
Amascut Ia Morte 23:53, February 22, 2018 (UTC)
Comment - as for the name of the page, here's some Word of God AnselaJonla
15:38, February 22, 2018 (UTC)
- Since there seems to be confusion here, this a comment only. I am neutral on this topic, and this is neither a support nor an oppose. Please stop assuming a position that I did not state.
AnselaJonla
14:44, March 5, 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - Per Ansela Maximus Gugu of Armadyl: Your Friendly Neighborhood Artist. 15:39, February 22, 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - I think per RS:GRAN it should stay. It could be updated definitely but if we delete it and just rely on the Sixth Age page it could get extremely long and tedious. I also believe that some of these other pages should not be deleted. There is a fair amount of lore that people would search for by the name. We could just redirect them, but where do we draw the line of what is necessary as a page? User:Zafryna/Signature 17:48, February 22, 2018 (UTC)
- Remember though, every one of those events has actually taken place in-game, and thus has their own separate page on the Wiki. If a player wants to know about Nomad's Elegy, they can *go to that page* and learn about it. The Sixth Age page makes sense as a location to discuss all of the Sixth Age events, since almost all of them thus far relate directly to the Gods and their various conflicts, and can direct you to the page about the actual World Event, Quest, Skilling Update, or anything else. Why do we need two pages covering the exact same events, with the exact same writing?
Amascut Ia Morte 23:56, February 22, 2018 (UTC)
- It could easily be a stub. That is just my thought. User:Zafryna/Signature 17:25, February 23, 2018 (UTC)
Closed - No consensus. --LiquidTalk 18:40, March 9, 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
Battle for the Stone of Jas
This page is unnecessary, there was no battle for this page to be continue as the only "battle" was within the the final stage, Seren, Zaros, vs Sliske, us vs his wights and him later on This page counts our fight with Nomad in the beginning, but it wasn't a battle, it was a two person fight. This page really doesn't need to be up, as the Sixth Age already gives us a small information about it. It is a waste of space.
Delete - As nominator Adventurerrr Talk
- Comment To respond to most in here, The assassination of Guthix had more than one battle, and it was against several groups. This page, being a summary of the quest actually points out one battle. A two person fight is a battle, but most pages just like this records a big one, and puts in army that supported them in battle. If this is meant to be kept in the end then I suppose we can name change it. But this page only has one major battle, that is us fighting with Two gods, 7 legendary wights, vs Sliske and his army. The beginning was just a fight for point. Even if it is counted as a battle for some people it isn't one that deserves notice as a page. Over all if this page is kept, then it should be name changed to Race for the stone of Jas, Or something like that.
Adventurerrr Talk
22:02, March 5, 2018 (UTC)
Keep, possibly rename - It details a significant event in the Sixth Age. And yer logic can easily be applied to any page regarding a significant battle - the Assassination of Guthix page, fer example, contains the fight between the player and Kree'arra (a 2-person fight, which was part of the larger battle), and can easily be covered by Sixth Age. Is it a waste of space? Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 14:27, February 22, 2018 (UTC)
Keep - We need that kind of information spread across multiple pages to keep the readers entertained on various pages. You can rewrite or add information, there's no need to delete, really, as you said, Sixth Age give us a small information, not all of it. Maximus Gugu of Armadyl: Your Friendly Neighborhood Artist. 15:34, February 22, 2018 (UTC)
Keep - I agree with Ciph and Maxi. The Sixth Age page gives very little information about it. This expansion on the page makes it not a waste of space. Maybe the page is a stub. But that just means we should work to build the page up and not just delete it. User:Zafryna/Signature 15:45, February 22, 2018 (UTC)
Keep - Per others above. Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) 15:51, February 22, 2018 (UTC)
Keep - A 2 person fight qualifies as a battle in my opinion. Seeing as how the Sixth Age article only gives the reader a small amount of information about the subject; this article should definitely stay as the source for more in-depth information. I also feel that granularity applies here as this event is indeed a notable one. MAGE-KIL-R
00:39, February 23, 2018 (UTC)
Delete - This page is literally a summary of Sliske's Endgame, made further useless by the branching nature of the quest, making the whole page wildly vague. Not useful in any way, shape, or form, and won't even be easily found by players because anyone looking for the story of Sliske's Endgame will GO to the Sliske's Endgame page. Amascut Ia Morte 13:09, March 5, 2018 (UTC)
Closed - No consensus. --LiquidTalk 18:44, March 9, 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
Free-to-play Mining training/Former methods
This page was created to try and preserve information from the Free-to-play Mining training guide that has since been replaced with information about more effective methods (see here on the guide's talk page for full context). We do not and should not attempt to document information about ineffective/obsolete training methods in the mainspace. It is unnecessary and confusing when presented alongside the up to date training guides. While historical training information is sortof interesting, it is not practical to write about on the wiki. Are we supposed to have subpages for each time a method is changed in the guide? How do we go back and verify what methods were "popular" or efficient in the past?
Delete/move to userspace - IsobelJ
12:03, February 26, 2018 (UTC)
Accept verdict as article creator. Speedy delete it, or I can move it to my userspace. I don't mind hosting these nostalgic training methods at all — It'd be my honor in fact to keep this piece of history alive. Especially since some of them might have to be restored anyway once mining changes. (Hoping for a general buff that maybe forgets rune essence or nerfs it to what a level 1 "ore" should be. Air runecrafting in Daemonheim gives ~0.1 xp, comparably.) Note: I mustn't be the only one who considers this bronze pickaxe speed-mining thing a bug and thus refuse to (ab)use it. Clever use of gameplay mechanics though! Other notes: Although we are documenting Level changers now, so the line has been drawn well to the left from my history / archival effort, on the allowed article significance scale. Not exactly the same category of course. Note 3: How do we format these discussions again? I thought it was bullet points with votes in bold. But then bullets were discouraged. If this is even up for a vote. And do the comments go above, below, or in line? Hope this "one long line" is okay. I looked at another RFD for reference and it looked the same. Except shorter. Yes, I'll shut up now. 3ICE (talk) 14:03, February 26, 2018 (UTC) Delete - We can host it in the userspace. User:Zafryna/Signature 17:55, March 1, 2018 (UTC)
Closed - Article will be moved to creator's userspace. --LiquidTalk 18:47, March 9, 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
Tanning dragonhide MMGs
So, um... I was told to create this page: i.imgur.com/jccFU3n.png
These are the money making guides in question:
- http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Money_making_guide/Tanning_black_dragonhide
- http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Money_making_guide/Tanning_royal_dragonhide
- http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Money_making_guide/Tanning_green_dragonhide
- http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Money_making_guide/Tanning_red_dragonhide
- http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Money_making_guide/Tanning_blue_dragonhide
- http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Money_making_guide/Tanning_cowhide
It's the fact that they are misleading that I have an issue with. I'm 100% positive many players fell victim to it, and tried to buy hides only to realise they couldn't. Merchers/flippers have a hayday with them, and purposely abuse hide stock because of this. There are many players who have simply scrolled through the mmg list and looked at the gp/h listed within the table. This is what they see:
https://i.imgur.com/voX0HGY.png
They don't click on the guide link, and instead take what it says at face value thinking they can just mass-buy hides and make gp. This also helps contribute to the whole "anti-wiki" sentiment a lot of players have; the ones who claim info on the Wiki is questionable. This is something I've personally seen brought up many times, and took the liberty of defending against it.
So, I'm really hoping these could be either deleted, or maybe edited on the table somehow to say "read description", or something. The gp/h it claims to make, is absurd - but possible, given you properly prepare and follow the guide as stated. The majority of other guides listed on the money making guide page can be taken at face value; this plays a part in why these tanning hide ones are misleading.
Comment - I agree on the fact the guides are rather unrealistic at times. Maybe rework the guides into taking account the fact there's a 4 hour limit? If that ends up unpopular, then it would be better to remove for now. --Jlun2 (talk) 20:07, March 4, 2018 (UTC)
Comment - It is a bit unrealistic due to the 4 hour buy limit, so maybe have the money making reflect that? As for GE prices and such, there are warnings saying that GE prices change and the profit can change depending on those prices. These warnings are on all prices and also at the top of the mmg page. --User:KelseW/Signature 20:09, March 4, 2018 (UTC)
Comment - Put it into the recurring maybe? User:Zafryna/Signature 15:57, March 5, 2018 (UTC)
Closed - valid concerns raised but there's no clear consensus on how to address them. If anyone wants to propose a solution then a discussion can be made again in future. IsobelJ
18:21, March 23, 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
Treasure Trails/Guide/Scans/Former locations
We discussed this [[RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Treasure Trails/Guide/Scans|previously]] when Chaos Tunnels scans were removed and decided to keep their information on a historical subpage. Since White Wolf Mountain and some outlying desert and Khazari Jungle scans have now been removed as well I think that this needs to be reviewed again (in the meantime I moved White Wolf Mountain scans to the former locations page and the outlying images are sitting in Special:Unusedimages).
The main argument for keeping historical information last time was that Chaos Tunnels scans remained in game for people who had already obtained them. This is not the case for White Wolf Mountain scans; as stated in the update post/patch notes the scans were completely removed and replaced by Menaphos scans. Given some time has now passed we can also assume that very few, if any, Chaos Tunnels scans still exist also. Therefore I do not think it is necessary to keep the full information about all possible clue locations; the images will increasingly bear no relation to maps/ingame graphics as the game is updated and will be of little interest to readers. A mention of particular locations being removed and when they were removed in the main page's trivia section is sufficient.
Delete - As nominator. IsobelJ
13:04, March 5, 2018 (UTC)
Delete - Per Isobel, if it comes to light that they carry enough historical significance we can host it in the userspace. But it seems kinda of silly to keep information on something that no longer exists ingame and will not make a reappearance. User:Zafryna/Signature 16:32, March 6, 2018 (UTC)
Delete - Same as Zafryna said. No point keeping an article that doesn't (currently) have any historical value NYX TRYX | EDITS
15:03, March 21, 2018 (UTC)
Closed - the page will be deleted and a mention of the removed locations will be added to the scans page. IsobelJ
18:37, March 23, 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
RuneScape:Events Team/Safe event
Legacy page used for transclusion on super old event pages. Pretty much the same as Template:Safe.
Delete - As nominator. https://i.imgur.com/xHR7zpA.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/6encXAo.png 04:29, April 15, 2018 (UTC)
Uh... - Not really sure why this needs to be a discussion to be honest. I'll poke the ET members, if they don't need it we can just speedy delete this. --LiquidTalk 05:18, April 15, 2018 (UTC)
Closed - The Events Team said they don't need their own template. Page will be deleted as soon as it's replaced. --LiquidTalk 05:33, April 15, 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
Hangazha
No indication of significance, nor that the subject of this article even appears in game. If it does appear in game, and someone can prove it, I'm happy enough for this rfd to end there.
Delete - As nominator.
NYX TRYX | EDITS
15:40, May 20, 2018 (UTC)
Edit: I am aware that RS:GRAN is a thing, but as I said, there's no indication that it's even in the game, either currently or in the past.
NYX TRYX | EDITS
15:41, May 20, 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - It's mentioned in The End of Gara-Dul. While it's not certain what it is, and that article certainly needs to be reworked to reflect that, I think it should stay based on that. ɳex undique 15:58, May 20, 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - as per this update the page now has an indication of significance, and thanks to Nex Undique, has a reference too :D NYX TRYX | EDITS
16:06, May 20, 2018 (UTC)
Keep - Nominator has withdrawn the nomination. User:KelseW/Signature 16:17, May 20, 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
User:WittyPleb/120 Calcs/Kayla
No longer need this page
Delete - As nominator. WittyPleb (talk) 17:23, July 1, 2018 (UTC)
Closed - I'll close this in a sec, but you don't need to RfD user pages. Just add {{D}}
to the top of them as they fall under speedy delete criterion. https://i.imgur.com/xHR7zpA.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/6encXAo.png 17:24, July 1, 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
User:WittyPleb/Prices
No longer need this page
Delete - As nominator. WittyPleb (talk) 17:23, July 1, 2018 (UTC)
Closed - You don't need to RfD user pages. Just add {{D}}
to the top of them as they fall under speedy delete criterion. https://i.imgur.com/xHR7zpA.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/6encXAo.png 17:26, July 1, 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
Mature grotworm/Strategies
Your reason(s). The average RS player does not require a strategy guide for grotworms
the article is just straight up confusing, what is this prayer equipment setup?
Delete - As nominator. Mistydarkness (talk) 23:46, June 13, 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - Anyone can edit it to make the guide better. Doesn't mean it needs to get deleted.--User:Elven_Core Talk me
00:34, June 14, 2018 (UTC)
I also want to add that, even if you start up a new account and get to this point, you can still not know what type of equipment/armour you need (true story). That is why guides like this is needed, to help refresh your memory.--User:Elven_Core Talk me
16:41, June 18, 2018 (UTC)
Closed - There is no consensus to delete the page. IsobelJ
14:59, July 6, 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
Bloodveld/Strategies
Your reason(s). Not something that deserves a strategy guide
Delete - As nominator. Mistydarkness (talk) 01:28, June 14, 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - These strategy guides aren't hurting anything. --User:Elven_Core Talk me
03:40, June 14, 2018 (UTC)
Delete or Merge into article - I do agree that not everything now requires a strategy page (good Guthix, it's been 6 years now since EOC). Bloodvelds are mid level and no unique mechanics. Basically, it's "range them" or "if you don't range, bring a little bit of food and super set". And this holds true of a LOT of npc's these days. Even Mutated bloodvelds aren't much of an increase in difficulty. A better compromise would just be to move the "strategy" into the rest of the article. It should make the article that much longer. --Deltaslug (talk) 22:09, June 17, 2018 (UTC)
Closed - There is no consensus to delete the page. IsobelJ
15:10, July 6, 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
Realms
Delete page, and add a redirect to Cosmology when searching "Realm" or "Realms", due to the information provided there encompassing everything on this page. "Realm", "Dimension", and "Plane" " do not have currently defined terms in-game. Category:Realms also exists for those who wish to see each abyssal bubble. Currently the page serves no purpose.
Delete - As nominator. Elf of Seren (talk) 16:01, August 9, 2018 (UTC)
Comment - is the term "cosmology" used anywhere in game? IsobelJ
06:41, August 10, 2018 (UTC)
- Cosmology does not seem like a term that actually comes from the game, while realms does (correct me if I'm wrong). Based on this realms would seem to be a better page name, and I'd argue that cosmology should be the page to be deleted.
IsobelJ
22:08, August 22, 2018 (UTC)
- Have you even checked each page and looked at their content, references, and Talk pages? Elf of Seren (talk) 23:59, August 22, 2018 (UTC)
- I have and I still am none the wiser about where Cosmology as a term came from, although perhaps that's because the original was apparently unsourced. However, I find the page to be better than realms while essentially tackling the same topic. I would therefore suggest merging the content into Cosmology, deleting Realms and then finding a better name for Cosmology (perhaps Multiverse?). I also have no idea where the image at the top of Cosmology came from - is it official? User:Cqm/Signature
- Merging is essentially what I suggested, and I've been considering merging Multiverse as well, but wanted to see how this did first. The image is official, from RuneFest 2017. The video is hidden on YouTube for some unknown reason, according to Mod Raven https://discordapp.com/channels/303835144073248770/474586781803741184/482161201363812357 . There are some references to its content, however: https://old.reddit.com/r/runescape/comments/72v3ex/tldw_350_the_lore_marathon/ Elf of Seren (talk) 12:29, August 23, 2018 (UTC)
- None of the sources on the page mention the term "Cosmology". On the talk page of Cosmology there is a link to a TLDW of a RuneFest 2017 lore talk which had section titled "Cosmology of RuneScape". I asked because I thought you might know of a better source for the term than this; but if this is solely where the use has come from then I don't think that it's an acceptable thing to base the page name on.
- I have and I still am none the wiser about where Cosmology as a term came from, although perhaps that's because the original was apparently unsourced. However, I find the page to be better than realms while essentially tackling the same topic. I would therefore suggest merging the content into Cosmology, deleting Realms and then finding a better name for Cosmology (perhaps Multiverse?). I also have no idea where the image at the top of Cosmology came from - is it official? User:Cqm/Signature
- Have you even checked each page and looked at their content, references, and Talk pages? Elf of Seren (talk) 23:59, August 22, 2018 (UTC)
- Realms does not have sources, but the sources of the cosmology page mention the term realm/plane being used in game. As I said this would be the better page name and I think that the good content from Cosmology should be incorporated to the Realms page (i.e. remove the information about what cosmology is as it doesn't appear to be a concept in game) so that that page can be deleted. Looks like clean up is needed to fix some potential inaccuracies/add more sources based off the latest talk page. The lore talk is available on YouTube by the way https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi3W3IeiJL0&list=PLMjuVhi1Lg6cEXxeMZ3vgcdBqhR6UW1By&index=7 around 35:45. Multiverse existing as a separate page is fine as well, it is an in-game term and there's sufficient information on it to merit a dedicated page. Obviously the pages should explain how these things are linked.
IsobelJ
14:08, August 23, 2018 (UTC)
- Cosmology deals with realms, planes, dimensions, the multiverse, the void, the abyss, the periphery runecrafting and divine energies, and the structure of the universe. Plugging it all into the realms page vastly deconstructs everything that it has, and would require the creation of several new pages to hold all of the information. Instead of creating three or more new pages, I'm suggesting merging two or three into one, with redirects, for clarity and ease of access. Le me reiterate a final time. Your solution of merging all of it into Realms would result in new pages having to be created. Either we merge realms into cosmology, or we leave them as is, and I rewrite the entire realms page. Thank you for the lore link. Elf of Seren (talk) 15:11, August 23, 2018 (UTC)
- Realms does not have sources, but the sources of the cosmology page mention the term realm/plane being used in game. As I said this would be the better page name and I think that the good content from Cosmology should be incorporated to the Realms page (i.e. remove the information about what cosmology is as it doesn't appear to be a concept in game) so that that page can be deleted. Looks like clean up is needed to fix some potential inaccuracies/add more sources based off the latest talk page. The lore talk is available on YouTube by the way https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi3W3IeiJL0&list=PLMjuVhi1Lg6cEXxeMZ3vgcdBqhR6UW1By&index=7 around 35:45. Multiverse existing as a separate page is fine as well, it is an in-game term and there's sufficient information on it to merit a dedicated page. Obviously the pages should explain how these things are linked.
Oppose - I've checked the sources, and the only places where cosmology is actually used is either unverifiable second hand sources or fanmade terminology. Realms, dimensions and planes, on the other hand, are all used ingame Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 12:05, August 23, 2018 (UTC)
- Source is from RuneFest 2017 Lore Marathon. It is hidden on YouTube for some reason, according to Mod Raven https://discordapp.com/channels/303835144073248770/474586781803741184/482161201363812357. There are some remnants of it on reddit, however. https://old.reddit.com/r/runescape/comments/72v3ex/tldw_350_the_lore_marathon/ None of the terminology on the page is currently fanmade. Elf of Seren (talk) 12:24, August 23, 2018 (UTC)
Closed - There is no consensus to delete the page at this time, and the nominator is blocked indefinitely. https://i.imgur.com/xHR7zpA.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/6encXAo.png 09:13, August 25, 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
User:Merdalhas/Sandbox2
Unnecessary, made it as a move from the wrong namespace.
- REDIRECT User:Merds/Signature 00:54, September 6, 2018 (UTC)
- Hello, you don't need to make a RfD for your own userspace. You can just put
{{delete}}
instead. I have deleted your page. - Jr Mime (talk) [VSTF] 00:56, September 6, 2018 (UTC)
Closed - Not a RfD. --LiquidTalk 01:32, September 6, 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.