RuneScape:Requests for merging/Archive 4

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 merge of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was keep separate.

Distracting soul

I'm not sure if there's an actual difference between the two objects or not. Figured I'd bring it here to find out instead of just doing it. They seem to be pretty much the same thing? It also wouldn't hurt to pick just [[:File:Distracting soul.png|one]] of these instead of having both.

Merge - As nominator Samberen 05:03, December 15, 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - They're two different NPCs with two different roles in the game. The name is just a coincidence. Even if they were both called "Distracting soul", they'd still be split. Haidro ^(talk) 04:05, December 16, 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - They are very different. One of them is an obstacle during a section of the quest, the other is part of the quest rewards. It just so happens that both articles happen to be garbage. Fswe1 17:37, December 16, 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - as far as I can see, Distracting soul is an actual (obscure) quest NPC while Distracting Soul is a sortof effect thing that comes from the quest reward. They are different and shouldn't be split. Per RuneScape:Granularity#Image granularity they should have separate image files if they are separate pages. Though I do think if someone could do a decent transparency it could be uploaded for both, since they use the same model. IsobelJ 21:45, December 16, 2016 (UTC)

Could we rename these articles? I really don't like this whole "one's uppercase, one's lowercase" thing. --Henneyj 21:49, December 28, 2016 (UTC)

Closed as unsuccessful. Kept as separate articles per Isobel, and moved to more specific page names per Henneyj. --Iiii I I I 22:01, December 28, 2016 (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 merge of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Warpriest was merged with Mal'koss.

Warpriest

Mal'koss and The Warpriest are literally the same character, just as a shapeshifted version. Much like Enakhra can turn into a human, it's just another form of the same thing.

Would also tidy up infoboxes.

Merge - As nominator Scuzzy Beta 14:32, December 28, 2016 (UTC)

Merge - Sure. Fswe1 12:22, December 29, 2016 (UTC)

Neutral - Meh. Would allow Warpriest page to link to the armour I guess. Wahisietel (Talk) 16:17, December 29, 2016 (UTC)

Redirect Warpriest to warpriest armour - Either merge the NPCs or move it to (Children of Mah), doesn't matter to me.  @Gaz#7521 18:55, December 29, 2016 (UTC)

Merged - Warpriest was merged onto Mal'koss and is now a redirect to warpriest armour again. Salix of Prifddinas ^(Talk) 08:18, January 11, 2017 (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 merge of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was merged.

???

Since ??? and Efaritay are the same character, I suggest to merge ??? onto Efaritay.

Merge - As nominator Salix of Prifddinas ^(Talk) 08:12, January 11, 2017 (UTC)

Merge - Since spoilers aren't a thing unfortunately. Fswe1 16:54, January 11, 2017 (UTC)

Merge - Been saying this since day 1. --Scuzzy Beta 17:03, January 11, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - Content of ??? has been merged to Efaritay and made into a redirect. IsobelJ 17:40, January 26, 2017 (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 merge of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was keep separate.

Mudskipper Point

Looking at Talk:Thurgo's Peninsula, it has been suggested before that this page be merged with Mudskipper Point many years back but this never happened. As far as I can see the whole area in-game is referred to as this (on the world map) - I'm not sure what the separate Peninsula page is based on.

Merge - unless someone can explain what the distinction is based on. IsobelJ 20:08, March 8, 2017 (UTC)

Merge - Agree that they are very similar - Sparky Kitty the Wikian 20:10, March 8, 2017 (UTC)

Merge - Sure Salix of Prifddinas ^(Talk) 20:16, March 8, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose-ish - It must be surprising to see me oppose something like this for those who remember my RfD streak in my formative years. At any rate, I think the distinction is that Thurgo's peninsula is is the whole peninsula south of Port Sarim, since the article states that the Asgarnian ice dungeon is in the middle of the peninsula and Thurgo's hut is to the south of the peninsula. Thus, Mudskipper Point is simply the southernmost part of Thurgo's peninsula, not the whole thing. I don't think there's anything wrong with having them as separate articles. Perhaps remove a few references to things simply on Thurgo's peninsula from the Mudskipper Point article.

However, this is predicated on Thurgo's peninsula being an actual thing. I don't think there's any official references to Thurgo's peninsula ingame or in any Jagex materials. As far as I can tell, it's a name User:Funlu came up with in 2007; he's had no edits for over a decade so I doubt we can track him down and ask him about his sources.

Basically, my position is that I don't think there's anything wrong with having the two separate articles if Thurgo's peninsula is an official name, but if it isn't then we can merge the two and remove references to Thurgo's peninsula. --Liquid^Talk 20:30, March 8, 2017 (UTC)

Per Update:New graphics for Port Sarim, Rimmington and Thurgo's Peninsula it was at least once an official name for the area south of Port Sarim, but I'm not positive this hasn't been retconned since the release of Mudskipper Point. As far as the world map is considered they are separate map tiles: [1]. — Heaven Sent (talk) 18:35, March 9, 2017 (UTC)

In that case, since there is an official reference to Thurgo's Peninsula, I oppose the merger. The page could do with a bit of a rewrite though to emphasize the difference between the peninsula and Mudskipper Point. --Liquid^Talk 02:33, March 10, 2017 (UTC)

Following this discovery and the discussion above I'm changing my statement to oppose. Salix of Prifddinas ^(Talk) 08:32, March 10, 2017 (UTC)

I concur. Fswe1 12:50, March 10, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - since a source was found for the separate pages, they should not be merged. I have cleaned up the pages to remove the duplicated information and make their distinction clearer. IsobelJ 19:49, March 10, 2017 (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 merge of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Merge.

Automaton Guardian/Strategies

Previous discussion

Automaton Guardians don't need their own strategy page. It'd be no trouble to include them in Automaton/Strategies – I'm happy to do that myself.

Merge - As nominator Temujin 11:20, April 5, 2017 (UTC)

Sure - Why not? Salix of Prifddinas ^(Talk) 15:08, April 5, 2017 (UTC)

Support - Powers38 ^おはようヾ(´･ω･｀) 16:18, April 5, 2017 (UTC)

Support - User:TyA/sig 16:22, April 5, 2017 (UTC)

Merge - strategies are similar and a combined page is more useful for helping players choose which type to kill, e.g. in a slayer task. IsobelJ 16:24, April 5, 2017 (UTC)

Do it. No, like really. Don't wait - Being such a minor thing (meaning a subpage not a main page) there is no need for this request, you can just go ahead and do it. Degenret01 (talk) 16:28, April 5, 2017 (UTC)

I'd link to Be Bold and UCS but saying it should be enough.Degenret01 (talk) 16:29, April 5, 2017 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion with no consensus. Besides, we've used RS:RFD when getting rid of other strategy pages. Temujin 07:09, April 6, 2017 (UTC)

Yea, but there wasn't any opposition either. If you want to wait, wait. Degenret01 (talk) 17:25, April 6, 2017 (UTC)

{{Closure|Discussion is done. {{Signatures/Temujin96}} 15:34, April 10, 2017 (UTC)}}

Closed - Article will be merged. --Liquid^Talk 17:30, April 11, 2017 (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 merge of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Merge.

Summer Beach Party (2015)

This page literally has the same information as Summer Beach Party (which has info about both years' events, not just 2015). I don't see why we have more than one page for the same event.

Merge - As nominator https://i.imgur.com/xHR7zpA.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/6encXAo.png 01:58, April 24, 2017 (UTC)

Merge/comment - support. probably need a disambiguation page since we've had 2015, 2016, and one planned for 2017. --Deltaslug (talk) 02:22, April 24, 2017 (UTC)

Support merge --Scuzzy Beta 16:13, April 24, 2017 (UTC)

Support merge - Salix of Prifddinas ^(Talk) 10:11, April 25, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - Pages will be merged. --Liquid^Talk 19:16, May 1, 2017 (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 merge of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Merge.

NPCs of Keldagrim

This page is inconsistent with every other location page, where the inhabitants of the location are simply listed in a section on the page. This dedicated page fluffs out the standard list of NPCs by describing each NPC, unnecessarily duplicating information from the NPCs' pages. I suggest that we cut the descriptions and integrate the list of NPCs back onto the Keldagrim page.

Merge - As nominator IsobelJ 21:38, May 16, 2017 (UTC)

Ahem - Personalities of Varrock Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 21:41, May 16, 2017 (UTC)

I would say the same applies to that page. I looked for anything starting "NPCs of...", but pages of "personalities" did not occur to me. They do seem to be the only two as far as I can see? IsobelJ 21:52, May 16, 2017 (UTC)

Aye, just highlighting that page exists so 2 birds 1 stone Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 21:54, May 16, 2017 (UTC)

Kill them all :@ IsobelJ 21:57, May 16, 2017 (UTC)

Merge both pages --Iiii I I I 05:52, May 17, 2017 (UTC)

Keep - For people just looking for a list or overview of NPCs of Keldagrim/Varrock, this page is particularly helpful, as they wouldn't have to individually browse each page in Category:Keldagrim or summat. Information is inherently duplicated, yes, but that isn't necessarily bad, and especially inthis case since it's just one tiny paragraph per NPC. I'd say having this article is considerably more useful than just a very long list of bullets on the main Keldagrim article without any descriptions whatsoever. I'd move it to Keldagrim/List of NPCs, thuogh. Fswe1 06:18, May 17, 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment - Come on people, more guys have to care. --Liquid^Talk 04:25, May 23, 2017 (UTC)

Merge - While I can understand part of the logic of having separate pages just because of the sheer # of NPCs there. They don't really need personal descriptions since we link the character name to the NPC's Page. for more info on character, click on 'em). Plus if something happens to the NPC, it just becomes 1 less thing to have to edit later. --Deltaslug (talk) 20:50, May 23, 2017 (UTC)

merge - but make it a bit shorter as the separate pages are very long. (I only care a little, sorry Liquid)  ThePsionic  08:04, May 24, 2017 (UTC)

Merge - If a page like this existed for all of the cities, I might feel differently. Since I'm keen on similar article consistency, it's unusual and pointless to have a list of NPC's for only 2 of them. MAGE-KIL-R 11:46, May 25, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - NPC pages will be merged into the town. --Liquid^Talk 08:33, May 27, 2017 (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 merge of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was See Yew Grove.

Template:Slayer helmet variants

Proposal: Merge loyalty recoloured slayer helmets with the uncoloured slayer helm pages with switch boxes, similar to broken, used, and new equipment items.

The loyalty recolourings do not affect the function of the slayer helmet, and having separate pages for all of these items based on colouring does not add any additional value, and is prohibitive of any updates to content, as any updates that affect one slayer helmet need to have corresponding updates made in the related pages for each of the different colours.

This merge would essentially turn 120 separate pages of slayer helms into 30.

Merge - As nominator Aescopalus (talk) 21:52, June 19, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - We're currently discussing this topic at Forum:Slayer helm merge. Please refer discussion there. --Liquid^Talk 22:04, June 19, 2017 (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 merge of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Keep.

Voting hat (red)

This is essentially the same item as Voting_hat_(blue). Its just as different as Abyssal whip from Abyssal link paint (White). These pages are merged, for example.

I suggest both Voting hat (red) and Voting hat (blue) be merged onto Voting hat.

Merge - As nominator  Internetboxwiki ^talk  14:20, November 3, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - The abyssal whips are *not* merged. I don't think merging the voting hats is a good idea either. See Forum:Reevaluating item granularity for the discussion that led to this. Side note: where are you getting the name "Abyssal link paint (White)" from? ʞooɔ 05:21, November 4, 2017 (UTC)

Abyssal link paint (White) was a redirect towards abyssal whip when abyssal whip (white) was merged into abyssal whip in 2012. They were unmerged in 2016 but the redirects werenae fixed until recently Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 06:05, November 6, 2017 (UTC)

My memory was of it being merged from back then. I guess it was, indeed, undone. Ironically, this is still the example used on the documentation for Template:Rfm. -- Internetboxwiki ^talk  22:22, November 8, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus to merge these articles. https://i.imgur.com/xHR7zpA.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/6encXAo.png 17:05, November 15, 2017 (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 merge of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Keep separate.

Zamorakian leader

Zamorakian leader is the same exact person as the mysterious person, and should not even be a separate article. Look at Nomad and his tabs. Should be like that.

Merge - As nominator  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Howiter1 (talk).

Oppose - Fistandantilus and Zaromark Sliver/Zamorakian bodyguard are in the exact same situation and remain unmerged. Also, RuneScape:Requests for merging/Zamorakian bodyguard Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 21:19, December 3, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose ʞooɔ 05:38, December 11, 2017 (UTC)

Comment - It seems like this article has a unique situation. It serves as a hub for the Zamorak-related characters and then all of the Saradomin characters are missing articles and are not mentioned on the page. (Saradominist leader, Saradominist bodyguard (1), Saradominist bodyguard (2)). I would consider this article as "incomplete" instead of merging it.  Internetboxwiki ^talk  11:36, December 11, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus to merge these pages. IsobelJ 15:31, December 16, 2017 (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 merge of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Keep separate.

Charm:Elite rune dragon

There's not enough variance between the two pages to justify them being split and most other elite creatures use the same charm log. Separating the two just adds confusion.

Merge - As nominator Samberen 14:39, March 14, 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - I would rather err on the side of splitting the charm logs too much. Further, my own logs of rune dragons (not yet contributed to the charm log) have 18344 crimsons in 15053 regular kills (30.4%), and 508 crimsons in 345 elite kills (36.8%). That sort of differential is unlikely (p < .005) if they have the same crimson rate. ʞooɔ 08:45, March 15, 2018 (UTC)

Should we split other elite monsters then? From what I can tell, every other elite monster uses their base creatures charm log. Samberen 13:30, March 15, 2018 (UTC)

We should probably split them, because their drops rates are different (although similar). The problem is how are we then to collect the data? People should exclude elites from normal monsters, but they probably won't. Plus it's going to be tough to get statistical significance on elites when elites are so rare, unless people are truly tracking their elite kills separately and contribute every time they get another 50 (or whatever) kills. We may have to live with simply noting that the documented drop rates are blended averages. I suspect they change over time, anyway, and we don't weight older data less. --User:Saftzie/Signature 17:40, March 26, 2018 (UTC)

Closed - it seems that there is potentially a difference between regular and elite monster charm drops. Keep separate for now - hopefully Cook can obtain data on the other elite monsters to see if other charm logs should be separated. IsobelJ 09:44, April 4, 2018 (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 merge of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Keep separate.

Luring

I suggested a while back that the luring page should be changed, removing most of the content (especially any lures which can still be used). Removing the lures that can currently be used would leave this page more or less empty, hence the suggestion to merge it into scams (seeing as luring is, in a way, scamming). There's already a sub-header for "Scams related to player killing", which appears to be a copy-pasta from luring.

Merge - As nominator NYX TRYX | EDITS 09:31, June 11, 2018 (UTC)

Comment - why should the current lures be removed? IsobelJ 09:40, June 14, 2018 (UTC)

Hey Iso :D I already replied on discord, but I know discussions have to be on the wiki, so as I said, here is the answer again; we have already dissociated ourselves from another wiki (I cannot find the specific link) which was "protecting" players by sharing details of how to lure/scam under the guise of informing people how to avoid falling for such traps.

Also, the runescape rules apply across the wiki, and, personally, I feel like sharing details which could help anyone lure or scam from a player is encouraging rule breaking. I'm sure there's a better way it could be done; but whether we remove the current luring methods or not, I still think these pages should be merged, as luring is effectively scamming, the only real difference being that with lures you have to convince a player to go to a certain area, rather than just convince them to give you their items.

So, in short; we shouldn't be sharing details that would help rule breaking; and the pages should still be merged, because the details of both scams and lures are, at their most basic level (ie the end goal of taking another person's items via deception), identical. NYX TRYX | EDITS 21:37, June 16, 2018 (UTC)

Linked to the comment above; RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Archive 4#Dark RuneScape Wiki the discussion that dissociated rsw from darkscape wiki, because content there was generally used by scammers. The way I see it, that's how the content on the current luring page could be used. NYX TRYX | EDITS 21:51, June 17, 2018 (UTC)

I do not think we need to be so harsh as to remove all details about the lures. I'm not sure that luring is against the rules or if it falls into a bit of a grey area. The current RuneScape rules don't mention it specifically, and even the rule on scamming just mentions password/PIN scamming rather than in-game item scamming. Just as the information could be helpful to people looking to lure/scam, it also provides people with information that could be helpful in knowing how to avoid being lured. "Luring" is a separate concept to scamming and is a term commonly used by players so I do think that a page on the subject should exist. I think that the current information could be cut down, perhaps removing some of the details that are not relevant to avoiding the lures, but I think that removing large amounts of information is not warranted and would be detrimental to readers. IsobelJ 09:43, June 21, 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough about the fact that luring should have it's own page; but my idea was to combine the pages and remove unnecessary info, like the fact one can use a gnomeball in certain areas to guarantee a lure works. That fact is not needed to avoid the lure. Knowing where it happens is all that one needs to know to become suspicious of another player who takes them there. As for the rules, yes, I guess that's technically right, but Jagex have set precedent before by punishing players who lure others, under the argument that luring is dishonest, though I don't have a source for that. NYX TRYX | EDITS 05:52, July 6, 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - An 11 year old discussion does not constitute a precedent. Helping rule breakers is one thing, but as a resource for players, we should provide information to help them avoid being lured. I think the potential benefits of the page outweigh the risks it poses. User:Cqm/Signature

Technically, it does. A precedent is "an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances." I'd argue that this is a similar circumstance, as the page specifically details how certain lures are carried out, in a similar way to how the DarkScape Wiki was detailing such things. While I agree the information on how to avoid them should be available, the level of detail on the page, at current, would reasonably enable a person to carry out several lures. In fact, there's several methods listed that I had no clue about, and now, because of how much detail is on the page, I would be able to carry out, if I was of the mind to lure another person. NYX TRYX | EDITS 05:52, July 6, 2018 (UTC)

Closed - No consensus was reached, so the pages remain separate. Salix of Prifddinas ^(Talk) 06:58, July 6, 2018 (UTC)

---

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