 |
This page or section is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. This thread was archived on 1 June 2015 by Liquidhelium. |
'ello. So, with the first RuneLabs project (adamant and rune dragons) coming out soon™, we should probably discuss what to do with the name of the player who suggested the ideas released. Possibilities include a direct mention in the main article (no thanks), a trivia entry or a "badge" in the corner of the page that gives the name when hovered over, or something else entirely. Or we don't include the creator's name at all. Either way, RS:PDDA should be adjusted based on whatever we decide on.
Personally, I think the creator should get a semi-obscure mentions somewhere; can't hurt, and random IPs are going to add the names anyway. 
Fswe1 
07:44, May 7, 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
Just add the guy - I say we just plainly add the name of the person who created the RuneLabs suggestion. See below
ThePsionic 
07:50, May 7, 2015 (UTC)
- Aye, but where on the article? Just realised, should we also keep track of all winning ideas chronologically on the RL article? Fswe1 07:52, May 7, 2015 (UTC)
Trivia.The latter would be a good idea, too.
ThePsionic 07:56, May 7, 2015 (UTC)
What Psi said - In trivia would probs be fine. User:TyA/sig 13:22, May 7, 2015 (UTC)
Don't add - It's not even a unique idea lol. Literally everyone has thought of this idea; he just happened to take all the votes. MolMan 14:00, May 7, 2015 (UTC)
- But if it has to happen, it should be the briefest possible mention in trivia. What the fuck went through your head to suggest a badge? Can't tell if trolling or stupid. MolMan 14:09, May 7, 2015 (UTC)
Why now? We've had RuneLabs stuff for a while, why was this brought up so much later? – Ozank Cx 16:05, May 7, 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - RS:PDDA says no player mentions. – Ozank Cx 21:33, May 7, 2015 (UTC)
Oppose adding names on articles; the table of winning ideas that we have now on RuneLabs is enough --Iiii I I I 16:11, May 7, 2015 (UTC)
Comments/Questions 1) I thought that was what the Trivia section was for? (ex: this idea was started from the RuneLab Idea created by "username") 2) The PTTP was based on 1 suggestion, but what if the final idea pulled from multiple sources? 3) The developers tend to have multiple threads open on RS Forums and Reddit and even input from Twitter, Facebook, et al. Who is to say the final idea was done start to finish from just the RL idea? 4) Would the person from the RL Post want to be credited if they feel the idea strayed too far from their original intent? --Deltaslug (talk) 16:35, May 7, 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'd be okay with a trivia entry, if the name and fact it came from RL should at all be mentioned, others might not; just putting it out there. Fswe1 18:37, May 7, 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - The winning RuneLabs suggestions have the players names listed on that page. I see no reason why it needs to be mentioned anywhere else. 
TonyBest100 
Neutral - A mention in trivia would suffice, but as Tony said the players are already mentioned on the Runelabs page. Star Talk 
17:16, May 7, 2015 (UTC)
Change to oppose - Per fetus and Tony ThePsionic 17:20, May 7, 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - The Winners section on the RuneLabs page should be enough, as IIIIIIIiiiiiiiiiiiiiIIIIIIiiiiiIIIIII said. -- 
SpineTalk
17:25, May 7, 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - Per Iiii I I I and TonyBest100. Ryan PM 21:24, May 7, 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - A mention in the Runelabs article is enough. Plus, in general, most of the Runelabs ideas aren't really unique, so it would be a bad precedent to start notoriety now. --User:Saftzie/Signature 04:47, May 9, 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - per based fetus 
Archmage Elune TalkHS 
fetus is my son and I love him. 04:58, May 9, 2015 (UTC)
Support - the opposition. Raglough (talk) 14:26, May 9, 2015 (UTC)
Is the reason for it not being an entry in the trivia section enough to justify the inevitable extra work that will be created by having to constantly remove it when added by users less knowledgable on policy? 
KDanger Talk 14:32, May 9, 2015 (UTC)
- Yes ThePsionic 14:35, May 9, 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it's no more effort than any other instance of removing a name due to PDDA --Iiii I I I 16:05, May 9, 2015 (UTC)
Oppose with one exception - For quests, their name should be included with the Jagex developers if they had any involvement with the process. Heaven Sent (talk) 07:02, May 10, 2015 (UTC)
- I have to disagree; as stated below, RuneLabs feels like it's only a "fancy suggestions forum" that (usually) only the elite and famous will likely get ideas out of into the game. I can just imagine people trying to suggest quests into RuneLabs for a wiki mention. For that reason I must oppose this as well as the main proposal. https://i.imgur.com/7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko) 12:16, May 19, 2015 (UTC)
- That's just being prejudice against RuneLabs as a whole; just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean content developers shouldn't be correctly documented. Jagex staff are already accredited for content work such as quests, and if a player of the game puts in as much work to a piece of content that is later attributed to by Jagex as them being a content developer of (not just the brainchild of), so should our documentation. RS:NPOV -- Heaven Sent (talk) 18:22, May 19, 2015 (UTC)
- How many posts are there on RuneLabs on a single topic? Every one of the ideas that made it to poll have had a thread in the Future Games RS Forum when the devs are pulling in more and more ideas. How do we add people for every small idea added to the original RL Poll? And have you seen how many ideas are little more than "Add X pl0x!" which is what you could almost call "Add Adamant Dragons". Somebody is going to create links to the original winning RL idea AND a ref to the developer thread. That will be more than enough. --Deltaslug (talk) 15:40, May 22, 2015 (UTC)
- You're missing my point entirely. Take a look at the latest quest to be released, Dimension of Disaster. At the very bottom of the infobox is a Developers section, which accredits the positions - Developers: Main developer(s), Writing, Editing, Code review, Walkthrough; Graphics: Characters, Environments, Animation, Concept; Quality Assurance: Core, Release; Audio: Composition.
- If we are going to go so far as to include all these credits as provided by Jagex or verifiable independent research, it's a disservice to not include a Concept credit under Developers. I said it before, but it bears repeating again: RS:NPOV; It's not our place to decide if credit is deserved, leave that to the reader... But if Jagex credits a player as being in a developing role for any content, we should document it here. -- Heaven Sent (talk) 18:02, May 22, 2015 (UTC)
- Those names are taken directly from the "Development Team" section on each official quest page[help] and should not contain independent research. Unless Jagex includes the player as a developer, I oppose adding a parameter to the quest infobox. --Iiii I I I 04:14, May 25, 2015 (UTC)
- How many posts are there on RuneLabs on a single topic? Every one of the ideas that made it to poll have had a thread in the Future Games RS Forum when the devs are pulling in more and more ideas. How do we add people for every small idea added to the original RL Poll? And have you seen how many ideas are little more than "Add X pl0x!" which is what you could almost call "Add Adamant Dragons". Somebody is going to create links to the original winning RL idea AND a ref to the developer thread. That will be more than enough. --Deltaslug (talk) 15:40, May 22, 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - RuneLabs is nothing more than a fancy suggestions forum. We never included players who used the suggestions forum in our articles, there's no reason to start now just because it was rebranded. Dtm142 (talk) 17:00, May 11, 2015 (UTC)
Comment - Instead of mentioning the player in trivia, what about saying the idea came from runelabs somewhere on the page, e.g. trivia? I can see it being a contentious point in the future, if not sooner so I feel we should have something to alleviate the potential problem. User:Cqm/Signature
- How 'bout a huge pink template at the top of the page instead, with our Yelps approved! sign, saying it came from RuneLabs? </sarcasm> Yeah, seems good! Fswe1 07:23, May 14, 2015 (UTC)
Support mention - I definitely feel mentioning someone who suggested an update is important enough to be included in an article. If that person did not suggest that idea, then that idea may have never come to life. I don't think PDDA necessarily even applies here, since the usernames of those who suggested some of the ideas are mentioned by Jagex. E.g., see 2:02–3:02 of Jagex's RuneScape's RuneLabs #1 video on YouTube.
I also don't like Iiii I I I's idea. I can see allowing name mentions in one article but not others potentially causing more edit conflicts. Smithing (talk | contribs) 22:08, May 26, 2015 (UTC)
Closed - Both sides bring good points. I consider the argument that players who had significant impact in the creation of content are important and have a case to be included as a sound one; however, the counterpoint is also equally valid that RuneLabs is not much different than the suggestions forum. It's also noted that the player RuneLabs credits may not have been the first to suggest the idea. (For example, the first winning idea of adamant/rune dragon has been "suggested" several times before on the wiki alone, dating back almost a decade. Thus, there is no consensus to amend RS:PDDA to allow for players whose winning ideas appeared in RuneLabs. The arguments over the what should be included in the trivia sections of pages also do not constitute consensus. --LiquidTalk 08:13, June 1, 2015 (UTC)