RuneScape:Requests for merging/Realms

Realms

Since there was previously no consensus regarding the matter, and the original discussion has already been closed, but we still have two articles regarding basically the same topic with one being significantly better formatted than the other, I decided to re-open the discussion to pitch in my opinion on the matter.

I would've reopened the discussion on the old page, since never in the past has there been two separate Request for Deletion pages for the same article, but since it is clearly stated that "Please do not modify [the archived debate]", this was the solution I came up with.

I would argue for the merging of the page Realms with Cosmology: after all, the latter is formatted better and has more up-to-date information than the latter. The article for Cosmology also goes to a greater detail on the lore of the universe than the article Realms does, and it would not require much effort to import all the information on Realms page to Cosmology.

The main argument for keeping the page "Realms" seemed to be based on semantics, on the account that the term "Cosmology" does not appear in the game (instead being coined by JMods during RuneFest) and therefore the article shouldn't be named. However, I would like to remind you that we already have the Wizardry page for the lore of magic, Lordship of the North Coast for the unnamed political entity in Northern Morytania and Eastern, Lunar, Northern, Southern and Western Sea for the hypothetical division of RuneScape's oceans, despite the fact that none of the article names are referred to anywhere in the game: in fact, all of them are inventions of the Wikia users.

Klenter's Pyramid was another example of an in-game object with no name being named by users of the Wiki in order to write about a location, only for the JMods to add the name to the game when Menaphos was introduced to the game: in fact, the namer of the article admitted that he should've used another name for the article, since the pyramid was not just for Klenter, but for all high priests.

So, if we do not want to look arbitrary and inconsistent in determining what articles can and cannot exist, and cause what is essentially headcanon by users of the olden days of the Wiki to be made canonical, we have three options: either A) make a policy which allows articles without in-game term like "Cosmology" or "Zarosian Empire" to exist, B) introduce a new template which adds a banner on top of the page, telling that the article's name is not "canonically confirmed" but the name is used to detail information of the topic we have available, or C) remove all the articles in the Wiki regarding topics with no canonical name.

Personally, I would prefer the option A), while B) is an acceptable compromise. Adopting policy C) actually causes a lot of problems: for example, if somebody would want to be an article about the Zarosian Empire, under the policy B) such article could not exist since the empire remains officially unnamed, despite the fact that there is a lot of information about the Zarosian Empire which has not been documented in the Wikia.

In fact, it seems to be a recurring theme on the Wiki that articles are only being made if we have an official name for the subject of the article, regardless of how much information we have about the subject. As mentioned before, it has resulted in a situation where subjects like Zarosian Empire or Bandos' race, which by all accounts should have their own articles, do not have an article because we have no canonical name for them, while there are pages for even the most obscure and insignificant things in the game, as long as they are named.

Merge - As nominator. AquaMage2459 (talk) 01:42, September 22, 2018 (UTC)

Comment - If you wish to discuss a change in policy, the Yew Grove is the place for that. https://i.imgur.com/xHR7zpA.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/6encXAo.png 01:46, September 22, 2018 (UTC)

I suppose I could, but I felt it was important to post it here, in order to give some context and alternatives to the current situation. After all, this particular discussion is mainly about either merging or deleting an article which covers the same topic as a more well-written one, not about the policies of the Wiki. I will probably bring this up in Yew Grove though, now that you mentioned it.AquaMage2459 (talk) 01:52, September 22, 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - per my comments on the last discussion on this and the Yew Grove. Realms is a more appropriate name and the content should be merged on that page. IsobelJ 14:19, September 24, 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it wouldn't be a good idea. Again, semantics are a problem here.

Your argument in the previous discussion and in the Yew Grove does have merit: "Cosmology" does not appear in-game at all, and therefore there's weight for the argument that the article about the structure of RuneScape's universe shouldn't be called "Cosmology" (technically speaking "Cosmology" was the term JMods at RuneFest coined for the topic, so that does carry some weight).

However, I disagree with you in that "Realms" would be a superior term for the article: calling the unified article "Realms" is even more inaccurate, due to the very lore of the universe's structure making it clear that "Realms" is not a synonym for all individual structures in the RuneScape universe; in fact, ther term "Realms" does not actually refer to any specific part of the universe, and is at best a waste-basket taxon.

In-game, "Realms" is mostly used as a synonym for "Worlds" or "Planets", which we know have a defined place in RuneScape cosmology as places within elementally-aligned "Planes"; however, this is not consistent, and the term "Realms" has been used to refer to different structures of RuneScape universe.

This means that it would not be appropriate to call an article which covers the structure of the universe "Realms": after all, it would not make sense for places which have never been referred to as realms to be covered in an article about "Realms", or for locations which are not a part of the planes, like the Abyss and the Void, to be covered by an article named after an inconsistently-applied synonym for a thing within planes. Basically, it's like naming an article for Soviet Union "Russia": while the name somewhat applies to a portion of the topic, it also portrays a significant part of the topic inaccurately.

AquaMage2459 (talk) 12:52, September 25, 2018 (UTC)