Tag: sourceedit |
Tag: sourceedit |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
* '''Delete''' - I agree. This page seems unnecessary. {{Signatures/MAGE-KIL-R}} 12:15, August 12, 2017 (UTC) |
* '''Delete''' - I agree. This page seems unnecessary. {{Signatures/MAGE-KIL-R}} 12:15, August 12, 2017 (UTC) |
||
*'''Oppose''' - While I'm generally in favor of decluttering things, I have to oppose this. From a policy consistency standpoint, we very recently decided in [[Forum:Reevaluating nonexistence]] (and [[RS:NP]] has been updated to say this) that cutscene-only items can have their own articles. I don't really have an opinion one way or another on the policy itself, but since it was passed, I can't support making single exceptions for things based on who gets RfD discussions. Granted, the discussion was mostly in the abstract, so if this is an issue, a broader discussion on the topic of cutscene only items should take place in the YG, with concrete examples supplied of cases that people think should not have their own articles. I would really like to avoid a situation like the strategy guides, where which ones stay and which ones go really depend on low-participation RfD discussions. From a substantive point, I'd also have to oppose this, since we have information on the page that's hard to work into the main Hazelmere page. I can't think of a good way to get the hat's examine information there. I don't think having a separate page with this information is all that bad. {{Signatures/Liquidhelium}} 14:31, August 12, 2017 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose''' - While I'm generally in favor of decluttering things, I have to oppose this. From a policy consistency standpoint, we very recently decided in [[Forum:Reevaluating nonexistence]] (and [[RS:NP]] has been updated to say this) that cutscene-only items can have their own articles. I don't really have an opinion one way or another on the policy itself, but since it was passed, I can't support making single exceptions for things based on who gets RfD discussions. Granted, the discussion was mostly in the abstract, so if this is an issue, a broader discussion on the topic of cutscene only items should take place in the YG, with concrete examples supplied of cases that people think should not have their own articles. I would really like to avoid a situation like the strategy guides, where which ones stay and which ones go really depend on low-participation RfD discussions. From a substantive point, I'd also have to oppose this, since we have information on the page that's hard to work into the main Hazelmere page. I can't think of a good way to get the hat's examine information there. I don't think having a separate page with this information is all that bad. {{Signatures/Liquidhelium}} 14:31, August 12, 2017 (UTC) |
||
| + | * '''Erase it''' No legit reason for this to exist. [[User:Degenret01|Degenret01]] ([[User talk:Degenret01|talk]]) 18:27, August 14, 2017 (UTC) |
||
<!-------- All posts must be made above this line --------> |
<!-------- All posts must be made above this line --------> |
||
{{Rfd bottom}} |
{{Rfd bottom}} |
||
Revision as of 18:27, 14 August 2017
Hazelmere's hat
Does this really need its own page? I think at some point in time this may have been an actual NPC: the page is using {{Infobox non-player character}} and has a trivia point about the hat formerly having a combat level. However this no longer appears to be the case. The hat is briefly part of the scenery in a cutscene of While Guthix Sleeps but mostly the page just notes how Hazelmere is often seen wearing the hat. The content of the page seems like it could be more logically be incorporated into Hazelmere's article, which already has a Personality and Appearance section. 
IsobelJ
12:07, August 12, 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - As nominator.
IsobelJ
12:07, August 12, 2017 (UTC) - Delete - While a funny page, don't think anyone would find this page useful and can be incorporated into the Hazelmere article --User:KelseW/Signature 12:13, August 12, 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - I agree. This page seems unnecessary. MAGE-KIL-R 12:15, August 12, 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - While I'm generally in favor of decluttering things, I have to oppose this. From a policy consistency standpoint, we very recently decided in Forum:Reevaluating nonexistence (and RS:NP has been updated to say this) that cutscene-only items can have their own articles. I don't really have an opinion one way or another on the policy itself, but since it was passed, I can't support making single exceptions for things based on who gets RfD discussions. Granted, the discussion was mostly in the abstract, so if this is an issue, a broader discussion on the topic of cutscene only items should take place in the YG, with concrete examples supplied of cases that people think should not have their own articles. I would really like to avoid a situation like the strategy guides, where which ones stay and which ones go really depend on low-participation RfD discussions. From a substantive point, I'd also have to oppose this, since we have information on the page that's hard to work into the main Hazelmere page. I can't think of a good way to get the hat's examine information there. I don't think having a separate page with this information is all that bad. --LiquidTalk 14:31, August 12, 2017 (UTC)
- Erase it No legit reason for this to exist. Degenret01 (talk) 18:27, August 14, 2017 (UTC)
