Wikia

RuneScape Wiki

RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Archive 18

Discuss0
25,743pages
on this wiki

< RuneScape:Requests for deletion

Replacement filing cabinet
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.


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was delete.

Calculator:Agility/Energy

Totally useless, very inaccurate. The less "bad" calculators we have, the better.

Delete - As nominator. Hofmic Talk 04:14, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Unless a formula can be identified, this calculator is providing viewers with misleading information. 222 talk 10:05, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - --クールネシトーク 20:49, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - If we are unsure of the formula then there is no point in keeping this Ring of kinship Ciphrius Kane Dungeoneering cape (t) 19:56, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - First of all, I'm almost completely sure this formula is wrong, meaning the information is misleading and incorrect. Second, I'm fairly sure the formula can't be reliably figured out either, meaning this page will remain incorrect and misleading. Third, this has as good as no use either. So I see no reason to keep it. —The preceding signed comment was added by I Am Me (talk contribs). 16:51, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - Yes check This calculator will be deleted. Signature5.pngSignature5Last.png 18:56, March 13, 2012 (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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was delete.

Calculator:Fishing/Next

Very useless. The less "bad" calculators we have, the better.

Delete - As nominator. Hofmic Talk 04:15, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - I don't see how this can be applied usefully, so delete. --クールネシトーク 20:49, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - THis is horrible. 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 Lore project
FUN gallery
23px-20130811074943%21Zaros_symbol.png
17:05, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Rather useless, we can just check the skill guide Ring of kinship Ciphrius Kane Dungeoneering cape (t) 19:54, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Seriously, there are in-game skill guides and for anyone too busy to use those, Fishing/Level up table is still more extensive, while hardly being harder to use. —The preceding signed comment was added by I Am Me (talk contribs). 16:56, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

Delete -Okay, honestly, I type in 99, and here's what comes up: "Congratulations! You can now buy your Fishing cape from the Master fisher in the Fishing Guild!"

Delete - Useless, people can also check out this page if they want to get that info. Smithing (talk | contribs) 17:02, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - Yes check This calculator will be deleted. Signature5.pngSignature5Last.png 18:57, March 13, 2012 (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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was keep.

Z-buffering

Z-Bufferring used to be a nice feature when it was released, but now I don't think any player would care about it as it no longer mentioned in the game options or anywhere else inside the game.

Also see: RuneScape:Requests_for_deletion/Particles

Delete - As nominator. willwill Talk 01:13, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Strong keep - Copy paste from sister RfD: The page documents a legitimate feature that deserve a page. Granularity. Hofmic Talk 06:19, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Strong keep - I agree with Fswe from the other RfD, we should delete many of our articles as frankly a lot of them document things that no one would give a crap about, but we still have them for the sake of granularity. Yes this was copy pasted from the other RfD, but the "rational" for deleting them is the same. 222 talk 06:29, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Keepify - Per me in that other RfD. 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 Lore project
FUN gallery
23px-20130811074943%21Zaros_symbol.png
13:06, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Per myself in the other RfD. Wahisietel rejuvenated chathead Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon 10:04, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Per all. Matt (t) 01:03, March 31, 2012 (UTC)

Keep - The reasoning for deleting is weak, as Fswe said that would apply to a lot of pages eg Rcw chicken, when it was released it was nice, now it's no longer mentioned anywhere in the game Ring of kinship Ciphrius Kane Dungeoneering cape (t) 00:08, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

Keep - What Hofmic said. Frozen Jese (Talk) 15:37, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - Z-Buffering will not be deleted. O1mWm.pngNex 15:44, April 2, 2012 (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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was keep.

Particles

Particles used to be a nice feature when it was released, but as more and more updates are using particles I think this page can be deleted as we also doesn't have a page for "Remove roof" "Ground textures".

Also see: RuneScape:Requests_for_deletion/Z-buffering

Delete - As nominator. willwill Talk 01:11, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Keep - So your saying we need to delete a page since we don't have another page? The reason we don't have "Remove roof" is because the whole page would be 'It removes the roof.' We could create the Ground textures page since I do think we could add more information. Hair 02:13, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Strong keep - By that logic, we should delete just about 99% of our articles. It has a nice history section and players might not know what they are exactly. And yes, let's make a page for ground decoration! 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 Lore project
FUN gallery
23px-20130811074943%21Zaros_symbol.png
05:30, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Strong keep - The pages document a legitimate feature that deserve a page. Also, we should make pages for ground decoration and roof settings. Hofmic Talk 06:17, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Strong keep - I agree with Fswe, we should delete many of our articles as frankly a lot of them document things that no one would give a crap about, but we still have them for the sake of granularity. 222 talk 06:29, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Strong keep - Let's delete the Runescape HD page too then, it used to be a nice feature when it was releaesd, but all updates are using now Runescape HD so i think this page can be deleted. (That was sarcasm by the way.) Wahisietel rejuvenated chathead Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon 10:03, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Per all. Matt (t) 01:03, March 31, 2012 (UTC)


Keep - What Ben said Ring of kinship Ciphrius Kane Dungeoneering cape (t) 00:14, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Per everyone. Frozen Jese (Talk) 15:24, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - Particles will not be deleted. O1mWm.pngNex 15:45, April 2, 2012 (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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was keep.

RuneScape Summer Festival

This article provides absolutely no information and as it is a small event from 2 years ago, we won't be getting any positive contributions.

Delete - As nominator. MolManRchv 18 15:31, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

Keep - I don't see why it needs to be deleted. Having no info on an article isn't reason enough to delete it. It was a weekend of events that had some significance in RS, therefore, it deserves an article. I just added a very brief summary of all the events held. If someone remembers being there, please add a little to the article. O1mWm.pngNex 01:24, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

Keep - With a little digging we could probably find out some more information such as the competition winners. As for your reasoning, there are several other articles, (ex Big Ticket 2010) that we could delete. However, we are here to document all of RuneScape, including the community, and this counts as the community Ring of kinship Ciphrius Kane Dungeoneering cape (t) 01:35, July 4, 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Someone on the wiki has to have been there, right? There's really no reason to delete this page, and this "small" event had some significance in RS. Vommack (talk) 14:33, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

Change to keep - It no longer has "absolutely no information" so I remove my rfd

MolManRchv 18 15:28, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Per all. --クールネシトーク 20:48, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

Information icon A user has requested closure for Requests for deletion/Archive 18. Request complete. The reason given was: Nominator has withdrawn, unanimous consensus
--クールネシトーク 20:48, July 7, 2012 (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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was delete.

Slayer training/Strategies

This page is, in its current form, practically useless. The table is so wide that it is partially covered by the chat and recent activity modules (in the skin I'm using), and whoever made the table did it so sloppily that they didn't even bother making blank cells for the information they didn't have.

In addition to this, the information contained in this table, concerning the best strategies for dealing with the slayer task monsters listed, can be found in a much clearer and more useful form on each individual monster's page.

Delete - As nominator. Divination-icon AnselaJonla Daily Challenge map icon 17:47, July 2, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - As finder ;). Ugly / Redundant page MolManRchv 18 17:53, July 2, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Because you can find the information much neater on the monster pages. Someone is more likely to look at the monster page while training than the slayer article itself. Signature5.pngSignature5Last.png 17:59, July 2, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - For the same reasons stated above. -- Chilled Socks 19:05, July 2, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Most of the information is wrong anyway. Maybe some of the information could be integrated into the individual pages if it's missing. Dungeoneering-icon Gangsterls Thieving-icon talk 20:47, July 2, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Per all. --クールネシトーク 23:10, July 2, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - It could become something, but this is just crap. It's so much better putting it all on the monsters's own articles. 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 Lore project
FUN gallery
23px-20130811074943%21Zaros_symbol.png
13:19, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - For the same reasons stated above and for the future reasons stated below. Just go to your task's page and use the information there. It's much more organised and complete. To me, this is a waste of time and effort to complete. CoffeeMugRS 13:26, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - I've never used this page for a task anyway. Crafting-icon Bluefire2 (Talk | Edit me) Ancient effigy detail 13:28, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

I use it all the time because it gives summarised information —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 27.32.225.3 (talk).

Delete - Per all.Vommack (talk) 14:30, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

Delete Messy, and not up to date. The last time it was brought up to date was in January, adding in monsters released 2 months previously Ring of kinship Ciphrius Kane Dungeoneering cape (t) 18:22, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - Yes check This article will be deleted. Signature5.pngSignature5Last.png 19:26, July 10, 2012 (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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Keep. 222 talk 11:06, August 10, 2012 (UTC)

Mod Ana

Whilst Mod Ana is one of my favourite developers, having an article with so little information is kind of pointless. Either we have a page for every JMod or the very few we have lots of information on (Mod Mark, Mod MMG, Andrew, etc.). Mod Ana is not a major JMod in the grand scheme of things.

Delete - As nominator. cqm 23:55,20/6/2012 (UTC)

Comment - Forum:Articles for Jagex Staff. Signature5.pngSignature5Last.png 23:57, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

Either way, the page as it stands has a list of 5 updates, 2 bits of filler trivia and one piece of game related trivia. She's also one of the newer, less established JMods and as such doesn't have much information regarding her. cqm 00:04,21/6/2012 (UTC)

Oppose - We added fairly firm criteria for when to make articles on staff in last year's thread. I'm not going to go over all of that again (because at the time it seemed endless) but this article has at least sufficient content to allow it to stay. Ronan Talk 09:32, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Not notable. By all means we should have pages on important moderators like founders and major department heads, but is this person really relevant? How many other junior mods could we write a couple sentences about, and how many of them would be useful? ʞooɔ 09:48, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - We can have articles on any Jmod per the thread. If you think it hasn't got enough information, you could look for it. I was unable to find more than this. 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 Lore project
FUN gallery
23px-20130811074943%21Zaros_symbol.png
12:25, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

"If you think it hasn't got enough information, you could look for it. I was unable to find more than this." Might that be a sign that there isn't any other information? ʞooɔ 02:03, June 22, 2012 (UTC)
You could add that she's the Icyene curator, but that's sort of given considering that she's developing the Myreque series. Other than that, there probably isn't much other than trivia to put in and trivia doesn't really make an article. cqm 09:25,22/6/2012 (UTC)
In that case, she isn't a stub. we have smaller articles. 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 Lore project
FUN gallery
23px-20130811074943%21Zaros_symbol.png
14:40, June 22, 2012 (UTC)
"We have smaller articles" is a terrible reason to keep pages. ʞooɔ 15:58, June 27, 2012 (UTC)

Support - While I'm all for having articles for ALL the things, that article is practically an empty page. Honestly, nobody is going to read an article to learn some jmod's favourite colour is red. bad_fetustalk 12:31, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - I can see someone reading a quest, see who developed it and then want to see which other content was developed by that mod. For this purpose however, there should be links from content towards the mod's pages, and there should be pages for every mod. Just because there are no pages for most other mods, does not necessarily mean that there shouldn't be. For at least the content developers there is something to write on their pages, namely a list of the content they developed. Promissory noteTHARKONChampion's scroll (zombie) 18:04, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

Support - The article's ridiculously short(Surprised there's no stub template here) and most of the article is the list of quests she worked on-take that out, and most of it is trivia. If she wa sa major JMod, I might've thought differently, but she's rather insignificant.Vommack 14:26, June 22, 2012 (UTC)

Being a stub has nothing to do with absolute size of a page. It has to do with the content of a page relative its possible amount of content. Promissory noteTHARKONChampion's scroll (zombie) 20:04, June 27, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Although we are able to have pages for any JMod, it isn't necessary that we do actually have them all (for now, at least). I mean, come on, do we even know the names of every staff member, former and current, of Jagex? --クールネシトーク 23:39, June 22, 2012 (UTC)

You support deleting this one, whilst simultaneously saying that we are able to have pages for any JMod? Promissory noteTHARKONChampion's scroll (zombie) 15:30, June 27, 2012 (UTC)
She said 'we are able to', she didn't say 'we should'. bad_fetustalk 17:41, June 27, 2012 (UTC)
I took that as meaning they are not required but still allowed. Promissory noteTHARKONChampion's scroll (zombie) 20:04, June 27, 2012 (UTC)

Support - We should only have articles for JMods that we have a lot of information about. There's not much usefulness to the page at all. Also, I've added a stub to the page. 31px-Armadyl_symbol.pngAnt103010 Talk

Oppose - as Tharkon pointed out it does provide useful navigation to said mod's developed content. --Henneyj3.png 20:47, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

We could do that in a different way without having nearly-blank pages for each developer. A table, perhaps. It could even be dynamically updated. ʞooɔ 13:22, July 13, 2012 (UTC)
Yea, don't have any problem with that. Change to indifferent. --Henneyj3.png 21:14, July 15, 2012 (UTC)

{{Rfc|Discussion has died down.}} cqm 10:45,7/8/2012 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus to delete Mod Ana. 222 talk 11:06, August 10, 2012 (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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete. ʞooɔ 02:22, August 17, 2012 (UTC)

:File:SomelikeitcoldPuzzlesolution.jpg

This image became unused in the mainspace and is a JPEG image, but could be useful as an example Battlefish board solution.

Thoughts?

Delete - As nominator.  a proofreader ▸  20:44, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Per nominator. Ronan Talk 19:18, August 8, 2012 (UTC)

Keep - There was space in a relevant section so I added it. I think it's nice to be able to see the game interface. --Henneyj3.png 19:16, August 9, 2012 (UTC)

Keep - It has a useful purpose in its current state. --クールネシトーク 14:37, August 10, 2012 (UTC)

Keep - I don't see any reason for it to be deleted. Hair 05:00, August 11, 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Until we get a png version there's no reason not to keep it Ring of kinship Ciphrius Kane Dungeoneering cape (t) 01:03, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - It's been deleted anyway. ʞooɔ 02:22, August 17, 2012 (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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete.

File:120 Dungeoneering emote.gif

I'm not sure whether this file is needed anymore. It's a duplicate of :File:120 Dungeoneering.gif, and its upload history mentions needing to use it to avoid an error message that I don't see anymore on either of the images. Did Wikia fix this?  a proofreader ▸  07:07, September 3, 2012 (UTC)


Delete - As nominator. And keep :File:120 Dungeoneering.gif.  a proofreader ▸  07:07, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - just merge them. Divination-icon AnselaJonla Daily Challenge map icon 07:30, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

Speedy delete - They are identical and Wikia fixed the thumb parameter thing, so just speedy d it. 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 Lore project
FUN gallery
23px-20130811074943%21Zaros_symbol.png
10:40, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

Merge - If they're the same, merging them would be much easier to keep the histories, not delete. Hair14:25, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

Remove 1, replace the other - Santa & Divine have no reason to be in that picture, if anyone wants to film + make gif, you can contact me if you find nobody else, i got dungy cape Shinigamidaio (talk) 14:43, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

Merge - It will keep both histories. --クールネシトーク 15:10, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Umm there's no reason to merge them because the file this thread is about is an exact duplicate of the file we already have. Merging would just add two unnecessary duplicates into the file history. Just delete it. <.< Signature5.pngSignature5Last.png 15:38, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Useless duplicate history because it is a duplicate image. 22px-Logo.svg.png24px-TyA-pony.png 15:59, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

If I had met this before you, I would have used {{D}}. MolManRchv 18 16:00, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

Close - File:120 Dungeoneering emote.gif will be deleted. --Spined helm SpineTalkXp book 20:14, September 13, 2012 (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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete. Spined helm SpineTalkXp book 02:11, September 24, 2012 (UTC)

Template:C

We are a spoiler-free wiki, and as such, this template has no use in mainspace. It's used on a few talk pages and in userspace, but that's it. Even the talk page use is questionable per DDD. Huff it, and people can switch to a userspace version if they really want censored text.

Delete - As nominator. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 19:46, September 6, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Andorin puts forth a good nomination. The few uses on talk pages can simply be substituted if this template is deleted, and, if users really want it on their userpages, this template could be moved to userspace as the nomination mentions. FiendOfLight (talk) 19:53, September 6, 2012 (UTC)

Delete, as co-nominator. On the IRC channel we have discussed the possibility of using a bot to automatically remove rich-text-editor failures (i.e. C in single {}s), but it could fail in turn due to false positives caused by this template. Because of the spoiler policy, Template:C has no place anymore, thus I have considered this RFD for Template:C.  a proofreader ▸  19:53, September 6, 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, this template is unused in mainspace, so there is no risk with having a bot search mainspace articles for {C}. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 19:55, September 6, 2012 (UTC)
Except if it's later decided that the bot should also scour the other namespaces because of high amounts of failures there.  a proofreader ▸  20:00, September 6, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - The template is being proposed for deletion per the spoiler policy, yet the spoiler policy is largely about mainspace articles along with certain namespaces that are extensions of it (map, beta, etc.) Yet the template is never used in mainspace. I fail to see the issue with keeping it. cqm 22:09,6/9/2012 (UTC)

Support - It's useless, both in mainspace and not. Signature5.pngSignature5Last.png 04:04, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Per all. Haidro (talk) 10:04, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral - This may actually be handy for Cryptic Clue Fests or puzzles/riddles in quests, but seeing that it's unused, deleting it would seem the best thing to do atm. 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 Lore project
FUN gallery
23px-20130811074943%21Zaros_symbol.png
10:31, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point actually. bad_fetustalk 20:41, September 14, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - We could always collapse the text as well, so I don't really think this is needed. Haidro (talk)10:32, September 9, 2012 (UTC)


Delete - It's pretty useless and I don't think any of the pages use it. How it functions is quite annoying truth be told. @Fswe1 - Why not just use spoilers for Cryptic Clue Fest puzzles/riddles? 31px-Armadyl_symbol.pngAnt103010 Talk 12:32, September 15, 2012 (UTC)

Slight Oppose - Per Fswe. Hair 15:51, September 15, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - As Haidro pointed out, we can collapse the text to hide anything that needs to be hidden, and it's a lot easier to click a button than highlight the hidden text Ring of kinship Ciphrius Kane Dungeoneering cape (t) 11:49, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

Closure - Template:C will be deleted. -- Spined helm SpineTalkXp book 02:11, September 24, 2012 (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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete.ʞooɔ 03:52, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

[[:File:Pumpkin Pete art.jpg]]

This "cartoon" is from this Jagex Facebook page. What use do we have with it? It's not concept art.

Delete - As nominator. Haidro (talk) 08:09, September 17, 2012 (UTC)
Delete - Agreed, this image doesn't have any value or contribution to the wiki... it's merely a "fun" image i guess. Dragon dagger AmoVos 09:07, September 17, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - totally unnecessary. Divination-icon AnselaJonla Daily Challenge map icon 10:17, September 17, 2012 (UTC)
Neutral - I think it's interesting and funny, which is a fun thing to see on the wiki every once and a while so users can have a laugh. Though I do understand how it doesn't meet the standards of our under images, but otherwise having something interesting doesn't bring much harm. Hair 01:17, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Adds nothing to the article. cqm 12:28,20/9/2012 (UTC)

Comment: This is originally derived from a comic competition here and here. We probably shouldn't add these out-of-game community things to articles so it should probably go. Henneyj3.png 18:08, September 21, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Doesn't contribute to this wiki. Smithing (talk | contribs) 04:22, September 24, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Per all. Matt (t) 04:41, September 24, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - File will be deleted. ʞooɔ 03:52, September 29, 2012 (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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was redirect.

The Asp & Snake Bar

The page, in my opinion, does not serve much of a use. The Asp and Snake does not need to have two pages. The difference between the page to be kept and the page to be deleted is that the kept one has all the information of the deleted one, plus stock information.

Delete - As nominator. Blaze_fire.png12.png 18:30, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Question - Where is this other page you mention? cqm 08:00,5/10/2012 (UTC)

The Asp and Snake. Blaze_fire.png12.png 08:02, October 5, 2012 (UTC)
Speedy delete - Add the other image from the infobox if you want, but it is literally a duplicate page. Umm, did you look at the page history? The Bar variant is the correct name and someone copied it over and expanded it. Delete The Asp and Snake and transfer the information over. cqm 08:23,5/10/2012 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - It's a duplicate page, just do it. Wahisietel rejuvenated chathead Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon 08:09, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - But delete The Asp & Snake Bar, not The Asp and Snake. The one without Bar on the end is more organized, properly templated, and shows more information. If anything else, I suggest we turn this page into a redirect for the proper page. Honour Coelacanth0794 Talk Square sandwich 12:07, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

Um - Delete the one with the least amount of history. Move the correct information to the kept article, and rename the kept article to the correct name (go find that out). Problem solved. Signature5.pngSignature5Last.png 17:54, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

Alrighty, I switched the information to The Asp & Snake Bar. Should I redirect The Asp and Snake to the Bar one?
Redirect to whatever the kept article is after you move it to the correct name. Signature5.pngSignature5Last.png 18:04, October 5, 2012 (UTC)
Alrighty, redirect done. Blaze_fire.png12.png 18:08, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - Yes check Problem solved. (: Signature5.pngSignature5Last.png 18:11, October 5, 2012 (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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was keep.

Hellhound/Strategies

Your reason(s).

Delete - As nominator. I think it is pointless to have a page like this, because Hellhounds are monsters that only have one attack style. Turn on your Protect from Melee and you're set. Dogfoger (talk) 13:58, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Lists different locations and safe spots if you don't want to pray. Useful for those that want to range and don't want to chug down prayer potions. User:Exor Solieve 14:05, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Oppose. Looking at the page itself, clearly outlines specific strategies such as setups, methods, weaknesses and strengths, along with detailed explanations of locations and their differences. I feel there's a lot of good information here, and that having all this crammed back onto the hellhound page would make it a huge clustered mess. Honour Coelacanth0794 Talk Square sandwich 14:06, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Not everybody is high-levelled. Some players do not want to use prayer potions, while others want to range. For example, I occasionally use proselyte armor and pray or use Bandos armor and tank them. Some players are pures with 1 prayer and 1 defence, so they will want to use the safespots detailed in the strategy guide. As Coel says, if we move this all back onto the main page it will unnecessarily increase the size to an unwieldy mess. FiendOfLight (talk) 14:21, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Keep - The last thing we need is the main page to be cluttered with the opinions of what people think is the best set up. Blaze_fire.png12.png 22:48, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Keep — Some über-cool editor (whoever it was) made the page for the exact reasons stated above: reducing clutter. MolManRchv 18 23:37, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Your argument is basically that people should have at least 43 prayer and melee them. This does not take into account other combat methods, as not everybody wants to melee them, and not everybody wants to go to the wilderness to slay them as you suggested in chat Ring of kinship Ciphrius Kane Dungeoneering cape (t) 12:11, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

Keep - There's more info to it than just putting prayer on and relaxing :p. Haidro (talk) 12:14, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Per Ciph. Also, how would players know to turn your "Protect from Melee" on, if there isn't a Strategies page Wink? Hair 12:17, October 5, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - RS:SNOW. The article is important to players and therefore will not be deleted. O1mWm.pngNex 23:12, October 9, 2012 (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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was keep 22px-Logo.svg.png24px-TyA-pony.png 21:36, October 13, 2012 (UTC).

Where's Jad

Your reason(s).

Delete - As nominator. Unused, along with Where's Jad? Custodian crownCblair91User crown (9 more options)  Choose OptionUser Cblair91Talk to Cblair91Contributions Cblair91Achievements Cblair91Sandbox Cblair91Slayer LogSqueel of Fortune LogDaily Challenge LogMy Pages 21:20, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Speedy keep - As noted on the article, this article is considered canon.  a proofreader ▸  21:46, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Just off the top of my head, we can add links to this page in trivia sections under random events and the Mysterious Old Man page. Blaze_fire.png12.png 22:43, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Merge - No real reason to delete but they don't necessarily need their own pages. MolManRchv 18 22:50, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Per all. 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 Lore project
FUN gallery
23px-20130811074943%21Zaros_symbol.png
09:46, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Why are we deleting our orphaned articles Frown? Let's just give them homes. Hair 21:25, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

These 3 orphans should go to the same home, as I suggested; it would be cruel to separate these siblings. MolManRchv 18 21:27, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

Merge into Random events trivia - where it belongs. Same goes for the others. --Henneyj3.png 22:29, October 10, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - There isn't consensus to delete this article. 22px-Logo.svg.png24px-TyA-pony.png 21:36, October 13, 2012 (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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was keep 22px-Logo.svg.png24px-TyA-pony.png 21:36, October 13, 2012 (UTC).

The Feeble-minded Squirrel of Just-Right-of-Falador

Your reason(s).

Delete - As nominator. No pages link to it =] Custodian crownCblair91User crown (9 more options)  Choose OptionUser Cblair91Talk to Cblair91Contributions Cblair91Achievements Cblair91Sandbox Cblair91Slayer LogSqueel of Fortune LogDaily Challenge LogMy Pages 21:22, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Speedy keep - As noted on the article, this article is considered canon.  a proofreader ▸  21:46, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Just off the top of my head, we can add links to this page in trivia sections under random events and the Mysterious Old Man page. Blaze_fire.png12.png 22:43, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Merge - No real reason to delete but they don't necessarily need their own pages. MolManRchv 18 22:50, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Per all. 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 Lore project
FUN gallery
23px-20130811074943%21Zaros_symbol.png
09:46, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - There isn't consensus to delete this article. 22px-Logo.svg.png24px-TyA-pony.png 21:36, October 13, 2012 (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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was keep 22px-Logo.svg.png24px-TyA-pony.png 21:36, October 13, 2012 (UTC).

The Land Before Mime

Your reason(s).

Delete - As nominator. No pages link here =] Custodian crownCblair91User crown (9 more options)  Choose OptionUser Cblair91Talk to Cblair91Contributions Cblair91Achievements Cblair91Sandbox Cblair91Slayer LogSqueel of Fortune LogDaily Challenge LogMy Pages 21:24, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Speedy keep - As noted on the article, this article is considered canon.  a proofreader ▸  21:46, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Just off the top of my head, we can add links to this page in trivia sections under random events and the Mysterious Old Man page. Blaze_fire.png12.png 22:43, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Merge - No real reason to delete but they don't necessarily need their own pages. MolManRchv 18 22:50, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Per all. 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 Lore project
FUN gallery
23px-20130811074943%21Zaros_symbol.png
09:46, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Why are we deleting our orphaned articles Frown? Let's just give them homes. Hair 21:17, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Leave the orphans alone! Jr Mime Talk to me! | Sign me! | MuudyBot!
Contributions! | Edits!
21:22, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - There isn't consensus to delete this article. 22px-Logo.svg.png24px-TyA-pony.png 21:36, October 13, 2012 (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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was keep 22px-Logo.svg.png24px-TyA-pony.png 21:36, October 13, 2012 (UTC).

Lores of Ancient Gods

Your reason(s).

Delete - As nominator. No pages link to it =] Custodian crownCblair91User crown (9 more options)  Choose OptionUser Cblair91Talk to Cblair91Contributions Cblair91Achievements Cblair91Sandbox Cblair91Slayer LogSqueel of Fortune LogDaily Challenge LogMy Pages 21:26, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Speedy keep - As noted on the article, this article is considered canon.  a proofreader ▸  21:46, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Just off the top of my head, we can add links to this page in trivia sections under random events and the Mysterious Old Man page. Blaze_fire.png12.png 22:43, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

You two made the same mistake of haste as I. This isn't one of the random events and doesn't have the postbag template, which I believe is what goofy-proofy-woofy is implying is there (although it may still be considered canon). MolManRchv 18 22:55, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

In a rather bizarre twist of fate, my comment is still somewhat accurate, even though only the other three articles nominated for deletion concurrently and for the same reason actually have a template saying Postbag from the Hedge is considered canon. This article is about a book that doesn't exist anywhere, but is referenced by a book that's considered canon. In light of this, I removed the 'speedy' from above, but am still inclined to keep it.  a proofreader ▸  23:24, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Just because we can't read it, doesn't mean we should delete it. Also the book referring to it is most definitely canon. cqm 07:58,5/10/2012 (UTC)

Keep - Per all. 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 Lore project
FUN gallery
23px-20130811074943%21Zaros_symbol.png
09:46, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Why are we deleting our orphaned articles Frown? Let's just give them homes. Hair 21:29, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - There isn't consensus to delete this article. 22px-Logo.svg.png24px-TyA-pony.png 21:36, October 13, 2012 (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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Keep.

File:Marlin curtain chathead.png

Marlin curtain chathead

Exhibit A

As it stands, the image is used on Captain Marlin with no reference to how the image relates to the article. The image is also virtually impossible to add translucency to (feel free to prove me wrong), and with the presence of an image that displays the chathead perfectly well, I feel the curtain chathead adds very little to the article aesthetically.

In terms of story, the chathead comes from a part of the quest where the player is unaware that Captain Marlin is possesed by a sea slug. A couple of minutes later and all is revealed. However, after the quest was released the sea slug was said to have no real control over Captain Marlin, so in reality all the curtain chathead does is prevent a small, inconsequential spoiler.

Delete - As nominator. cqm 15:27,18/10/2012 (UTC)

Keep - I'll ignore the impossibility of translucency for now, as that is bloody annoying, but not a reason to delete it. As for the second paragraph, it doesn't really matter how much an image adds. "Does it have multiple chatheads that are more than 5px (figure of speech) different from each other?" -Yes → upload all images. Yes, it is essentially Marlin's head with a drape in front of it. But File:Char chathead 2.png is essentially File:Char chathead 1.png with an orange colour and some glowing parts. File:Keli unhooded chathead.png is essentially File:Lady Keli chathead (hooded).png without the hood. (PS - added the image to the RfD to make our lazy lives easier) 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 Lore project
FUN gallery
23px-20130811074943%21Zaros_symbol.png
15:34, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

In the case of Char the different chatheads refer to her regaining her powers as the quest moves forward. As for Lady Keli, I believe the hooded chathead is used in Stolen Hearts and then both are used in Diamond in the Rough. Whilst I understand the similarity, I don't think it is the same context. cqm 16:37,18/10/2012 (UTC)

Keep - Per Fswe, plue I really don't mind if it will be 'harder' to add transparency too, we have a lot of images that we simply can't do. Hair 12:09, October 19, 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Per Fswe, and he's talking behind the curtains, strangely. Jr Mime Talk to me! | Sign me! | MuudyBot!
Contributions! | Edits!
03:01, October 27, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - The file Marlin curtain chathead.png will be kept. -- Spined helm SpineTalkXp book 17:56, October 30, 2012 (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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was delete.

Template:StoreLineLarge

After a shop update, all shop will buy and sell items at a fixed price. Therefore, there is no use for this template anymore and it should be deleted and replaced by Template:StoreLine.

Delete - As nominator. ◇Blitzer Tim◆+Talk My workYellow partyhat 11:11, November 3, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - I don't see potential on this template, StoreLine template looks more easy. Jr Mime Talk to me! | Sign me! | MuudyBot!
Contributions! | Edits!
12:34, November 3, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Haidro (talk) 10:40, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - Yes check All uses of the Large variant have been replaced with Template:StoreLine. Signature5.pngSignature5Last.png 06:06, November 26, 2012 (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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was moved to Nonexistence.

Grifolic boots

Your reason(s).

Delete - As nominator. Shoyrukon (talk) 20:06, November 23, 2012 (UTC) The item does not exist on the grand exchange on in any database

??? - Mm, how odd. The article has absolutely no information of value and the boots are a logical extension of the grifolic set, but indeed the boots don't exist on the Grand Exchange... While the ganodermic boots exist and are Coins 1000 2,428 right now, a rise of 5% from the previous day. I think the grifolic boots don't exist now, but will exist soon enough.  a proofreader ▸  20:13, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

Wait - As proof already said, they will [probably] exist soon, so I'd say wait for the time being. Hair 20:38, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - It contains an infobox with an incorrect release date, seeing as it apparently has yet to be released, which takes all of 5 seconds to remake with template preloads. Perhaps an oversight on Jagex's part with drop tables, but or now I don't see why we are keeping an empty page with nothing in it. Add to Grifolic armour's trivia. cqm 22:20, 23 Nov 2012 (UTC)

Delete (conditional) - Unless we can put stuff in it like in Dragon warhammer we probably should delete it. In either cause we should remove it from the droptable of monsters since if it doesn't exist, I'm sure those monsters won't be dropping it. However, is it possible that it exists but is untradable? Promissory noteTHARKONChampion's scroll (zombie) 06:12, November 24, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - While the grifolic set is lacking boots, the ganodermic set is lacking a shield, wand and orb, the fungal set lacks all of those as well as gloves. That is more than just an oversight, so I'm leaning towards it being intentional although clumsy by Jagex. Promissory noteTHARKONChampion's scroll (zombie) 06:14, November 24, 2012 (UTC)

Why do we need a discussion on this - It doesn't exist. Delete. Signature5.pngSignature5Last.png 06:27, November 24, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - I was under the impression, when filling out the infobox, that this item existed. Haidro (talk)06:51, November 24, 2012 (UTC)

Close - Like all other items that don't exist, it'll be moved to Nonexistence. -- Spined helm SpineTalkXp book 22:01, November 30, 2012 (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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was change the category's name.

[[:Category:Weapons with Special Attacks]]

Special attacks no longer exist.

Delete - As nominator. Promissory noteTHARKONChampion's scroll (zombie) 02:10, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

Move category - Maybe change it to Weapons which previously had special attacks? Otherwise, delete. Haidro (talk) 04:15, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

Move - Make this a historical category as suggested above. Hair 05:54, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Categories can't be moved, as far as I know. I suggest to just keep it the way it is. Technically, the weapons still have special attacks - they just can't be used. *iseewhattheydidthere-face* 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 Lore project
FUN gallery
23px-20130811074943%21Zaros_symbol.png
18:01, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

We can always manually change the category :p. Also, your last sentence reminded me of weapons with a passive effect, such as the godswords. Maybe we can make a category for those types of weapons? Haidro (talk) 19:52, December 1, 2012 (UTC)
What are those weapons then? Godswords, Barrows sets, Korasi's sword and the ancient mace come to mind. 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 Lore project
FUN gallery
23px-20130811074943%21Zaros_symbol.png
08:51, December 2, 2012 (UTC)
Enhanced Excalibur too. Uncertain of any other. Haidro (talk) 08:57, December 2, 2012 (UTC)
Move - I am also in favour of "moving" the category, by which I mean that the category's description page would be moved and its references updated in articles. I like Haidro's suggestion for the name (Weapons which previously had special attacks) or the same with (historical) at the end (Weapons with special attacks (historical)). Even if that's out of the scope of this discussion, I also like Haidro's suggestion of having a Weapons with passive effects category.  a proofreader ▸  20:07, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

Move - Per Haidro. Jr Mime Talk to me! | Sign me! | MuudyBot!
Contributions! | Edits!
20:08, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

Move - Per Muud. ◇Blitzer Tim◆+Talk My workYellow partyhat 18:52, December 2, 2012 (UTC)

Weapons that had special attacks call it dat. MolManRchv 18 18:59, December 2, 2012 (UTC)

FYI - You can't move categories. They have to be deleted then a new category created. MolManRchv 18 01:12, December 8, 2012 (UTC)

But, you got some serving of bots! Jr Mime Talk to me! | Sign me! | MuudyBot!
Contributions! | Edits!
01:13, December 8, 2012 (UTC)
Closed - The category will be moved to Category:Weapons which previously had special attacks, because 2 users agreed with Haidro's recommendation without amendment. Technically the result is to change the references to the old category so that they become references to the new category, then delete the old category. But we shall call it a move. Wink  a proofreader ▸  16:55, December 9, 2012 (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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was redirect/delete.

Obsidian set

I've eyed this article a few times, and I'm pretty convinced there is really no real designation for the specific pairing up of these two obsidian items (obsidian cape and Toktz-ket-xil / obsidian shield) that makes them a "set". Even if colloquial, it isn't very important and something like "obby set" can be put in the slang dictionary. Any comparative/cumulative price or stats information can be entered on obsidian equipment if needed. Furthermore, nothing besides an image of the two items worn links to this already scanty article.

Delete - As nominator. --Limxzero (talk | contribs) 18:12, November 30, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - The new TzHaar quest is being released this month, and with it three new sets of Obsidian (melee, Mage, ranged) will be released. Just keep it for now. Haidro (talk) 20:50, November 30, 2012 (UTC)

Was unaware we had Obsidian equipment. I support deletion. Haidro (talk) 05:49, December 2, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - *Posts under the line* Per Haidro, and we have obsidian sets (like shield, cape, weapons). Jr Mime Talk to me! | Sign me! | MuudyBot!
Contributions! | Edits!
20:52, November 30, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I'll go with that. Thanks for remind. Me ignoring the latest BTS could not have been timed this well. :l Probably will end up a disambig. Worst case, redirect. --Limxzero (talk | contribs) 01:15, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

Keep - Really don't see anything wrong with the page that would result in page deletion. Hair 05:52, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - The Brink of Extinction is bringing Obsidian armour anyway, this is pointless and not even a set. 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 Lore project
FUN gallery
23px-20130811074943%21Zaros_symbol.png
08:10, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Better represented at Obsidian equipment, even after the release of The Brink of Extinction's new obsidian... er... sets. Yeah, sets. There won't even be a single set to speak of anymore.  a proofreader ▸  05:44, December 2, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - I think this page's content should be placed under a section of Obsidian equipment, rather than a new page. ◇Blitzer Tim◆+Talk My workYellow partyhat 15:00, December 3, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - With the release of The Brink of Extinction and the knowledge that we have Obsidian equipment, I see no reason to keep such a small page that does not reflect current equipment. Make it into a redirect, or dedicate it to the new smithable obsidian armour. cqm 14:59, 5 Dec 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to Obsidian equipment - All the info's on there already, so may as well redirect Ring of kinship Ciphrius Kane Dungeoneering cape (t) 15:13, December 5, 2012 (UTC)

Support redirect - This will look just unprofessional otherwise. Honour Coelacanth0794 Talk Square sandwich 15:29, December 5, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Its an unnecessary page. Cheese Balls (talk) 07:01, December 13, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - Yes check The page will be redirected to Obsidian equipment. Signature5.pngSignature5Last.png 08:02, December 13, 2012 (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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was keep. Hair 01:56, December 24, 2012 (UTC)

Template:CiteNPC

This template isn't very good in a citing standpoint, as all it does is read a quote/part of transcript. It'd be better to have a direct quote in the article, rather than redirecting it as a reference to the bottom of the page. If you look at Ebenezer Scourge, it links a quote to the bottom of the page, yet has a quote sections. It'd seem more reasonable to include the quote in the quote sections rather than two different places. I believe that we should remove the citenpc template, and either use Cquote or add in a quotes section. As this would only apply to 27 pages, it isn't going to be a huge fuss.

Delete - As nominator. Hair 16:35, December 15, 2012 (UTC)

Support to Neutral - Doesn't do much good, and looks bad. Alchez 17:01, December 15, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - It doesn't look good to have a quote in a block of text like that. Take Randas for example, and the sentence: Randas travelled to the Underground Pass beneath the Arandar mountain range and was tempted by Zamorak. It then cites the WOM saying that he was corrupted by Zamorak. That sentence would just sound odd and incomplete if it read Randas travelled to the Underground Pass beneath the Arandar mountain range and, as the Wise Old Man said, was tricked by Zamorak.

Maybe in some cases CiteNPC is superfluous, but there are cases that it can be useful. There's no reason to delete it if it doesn't harm the wiki. O1mWm.pngNex 17:20, December 15, 2012 (UTC)

In the example you gave, the citation doesn't add any substance to what has already been stated. This is the same over all the pages where this template is transcluded, except for, and the only place where such a thing works, Scabaras and humourously, Bartak. --Alchez 08:45, December 16, 2012 (UTC)
It's not for adding substance, it's for citing statements so people know that they are true and not something that we decided to make up/speculate. O1mWm.pngNex 16:21, December 16, 2012 (UTC)
I know what citation means. But since our references only link to something from our database, it hardly seems useful. And since it doesn't add any substance to our guides, it's really not necessary. I mean, why would we make something like that up? Alchez 16:59, December 16, 2012 (UTC)
Probably worth noting that most, if not all, uses of this template pre-date dialogue and quest transcripts. Until the database of these transcripts is complete some of these references do not exist and the template is the only reference of the dialogue. cqm 03:09, 17 Dec 2012 (UTC)
If these dialogues can be reproduced in a transcript page, all the more reason to get rid of this template. More so now, since I don't see anyone working on these in the near future; no offense to you, Cam. If it's absolutely necessary, in place of the template, we could temporarily add this to the quotes section. Alchez 08:08, December 17, 2012 (UTC)
Even if we had all the dialogue on a transcript page, I still would want to keep this citation. We still need to locate the specific quote in the database; we wouldn't want users to have to search through pages and pages of dialogue just to find evidence for a statement. O1mWm.pngNex 17:06, December 17, 2012 (UTC)
Some transcripts can take a few days to transcribe completely, say it's possible to do 2 quests a week. There are close to 200 quests - that's 2 years of work by one person, and formatting, plus tracking down all the options that most quest video guides ignore/skip. Then add in dialogue pages, which are smaller and easier to churn out as you can often replay the dialogue at your leisure, although this is not always true (Baba Yaga/dialogue, Phoenix/dialogue).
Whilst I'm trying to create a catalogue of quotes of dialogue that can be used for references, this template is still useful in that it displays what the quote is on the page itself. It isn't a link that needs to be followed to see what the original content is. Sometimes putting the quote on the page doesn't look right, especially with little bits of text between larger quotes. They look fine at the start of a new section, but it starts to look bad if they are used everywhere.
If it has crossed the mind of someone to do away with the citation and the quote itself and just summarise it, that goes against the entire idea behind the lores project. Without a source, the statement can be anything you want it to be. It can change at whim and you have the problem of the lore not actually being correct. cqm 00:36, 18 Dec 2012 (UTC)
Also a quotes section is surely superfluous compared to dialogue pages. cqm 01:09, 18 Dec 2012 (UTC)
I see your point. But I still think we should temporarily move the quotes until a credible transcript source is created. Alchez 05:37, December 18, 2012 (UTC)

Keep - While this template isn't used very often (I think it should be), it's quite handy. A reference to an NPC's quote at the bottom of the page is better than "Cabbage is a legendary warrior, as NPC x describes him during Gertrude's Cataclysm, who defeated..." 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 Lore project
FUN gallery
23px-20130811074943%21Zaros_symbol.png
07:43, December 16, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - It will come in handy for citing NPC dialogue pages. Whilst we can use anchors to direct someone straight to the quote, it's much easier to have the quote available on the page, but it's not always best to have the quote in something like {{Cquote2}}. cqm 10:15, 16 Dec 2012 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus to deleted the CiteNPC template. Hair 01:56, December 24, 2012 (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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was merge.

Gift of Giving

This page is pretty much the same as Gift of Giving (active) from what I can tell, but worse.

Delete - As nominator. Youmu-1-1.png Touhou FTW 27px-Zaros_symbolsvg-1.png 05:57, December 20, 2012 (UTC)

Hmm - In my opinion, the active page should be merged onto the one you nommed for deletion. Then we use the switch infobox, one for inactive and one for active. Haidro (talk) 09:05, December 20, 2012 (UTC)

Support what Haidro said - Per what Haidro said Ring of kinship Ciphrius Kane Dungeoneering cape (t) 00:53, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

Merge - Redirecting the others onto simply Gift of Giving is the best point of action, I think. We could have subsections that say what each does, but posting all the images onto one page like a mini-disambig would be nice. It'd also be much easier to find and navigate around rather than each individual page for each gift. Honour Coelacanth0794 Talk Square sandwich 00:56, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

Merge - Haidro! Jr Mime Talk to me! | Sign me! | MuudyBot!
Contributions! | Edits!
00:57, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

Merge - Per Haidro. Sir Punchula (talk) 18:21, December 27, 2012 (UTC)

Merge - Per Haidro and the love of switch infobox. Blaze_fire.png12.png 07:28, December 28, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - Yes check The inactive and active pages have been merged onto Gift of Giving using the switch template. Signature5.pngSignature5Last.png 00:32, December 30, 2012 (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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete NPC category and Monster names category. Hair 19:24, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

[[:Category:NPC names that needs checking]]

It's a pretty ridiculous category. Its purpose is to list us every page that doesn't have a 'name' parameter matching its {{PAGENAME}}, which is, in as nice of words as I can put it, pretty damn stupid. Every page in there is fine; they're all false positives and it's mostly because of disambiguating parentheticals (which we are forced to use to discriminate similarly named NPCs) that this category isn't empty. I'm not sure if it was ever useful, but it isn't anymore. We're a high quality wiki, so considering how few NPC pages are made regularly, how many of them are improper, and how many friggen awesome editors we have, this category is pretty moot and won't be serving us any good in the future.

Delete - Ponies MolManRchv 18 22:05, December 14, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Went through quite a while ago and fixed all the ones that were messed up. All that's left are those affected by the switch template or that have parenthesis in the article names. We have enough people to fix these simple mistakes now, category is no longer necessary. Signature5.pngSignature5Last.png 22:19, December 14, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - What kind of category is this??? Lets add it to Fergie's page! Jr Mime Talk to me! | Sign me! | MuudyBot!
Contributions! | Edits!
22:23, December 14, 2012 (UTC)

This too - Category:Exchange_names_that_needs_checking, Doubt we need that either. Just as useless MolManRchv 18 22:25, December 14, 2012 (UTC)

And THIS!!!! [[:Category:Monster_names_that_needs_checking]] ERMAGERD I'm so excited. MolManRchv 18 22:26, December 14, 2012 (UTC)
Keep Exchange names, has a decent reason to stay. per azliq MolManRchv 18 18:56, December 27, 2012 (UTC)

Delete all - Useless! Haidro (talk) 00:01, December 15, 2012 (UTC)

Kill with fire - "Also, Luna is best pony; also also, u mad. --Mod Moltare 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 Lore project
FUN gallery
23px-20130811074943%21Zaros_symbol.png
07:42, December 15, 2012 (UTC)

Delete all - Per above. ◇Blitzer Tim◆+Talk My workYellow partyhat 10:31, December 18, 2012 (UTC)

Delete - Yes, I agree. Blaze_fire.png12.png 23:07, December 19, 2012 (UTC)


Information icon A user has requested closure for Requests for deletion/Archive 18. Request complete. The reason given was: kill em with fire!

Comment - For Category:Exchange_names_that_needs_checking, it is used to check if the item name has been changed after the page is moved, so I think it still might be useful... the item name in Exchange pages should match the pagename. Otherwise the GE templates may not work... or bots may edit wrongly.   az talk   01:30, December 27, 2012 (UTC)

At least you have a decent reason; I renounce that category's pending deletion as the initial proposer. MolManRchv 18 18:56, December 27, 2012 (UTC)
Why wouldn't it work? Has this ever happened before? Don't think I've ever seen an issue like that... Signature5.pngSignature5Last.png 00:15, December 30, 2012 (UTC)
It has happened before. People move an item Exchange page (to a new name) but forget to change the item name in the Exchange template. When the template is called (i.e. using GE templates), the item refers to the old name... below is an example, I am trying to display the price details of Exchange:Test... "Zamorak body" (|name) is displayed instead. Get it?   az talk   02:21, December 31, 2012 (UTC)
Icon Item Price Direction Low Alch High Alch Limit Members Details Last updated
Fire rune Test 35
Up
2 3 25,000 F2P icon view graph 35 days ago

Closed - The NPC names that needs checking category will be deleted, along with the monster names that need checking category. Hair 19:24, January 6, 2013 (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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Not deleted. Iiii I I I 15:54, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Kalphite King

Your reason(s): The strategy section deserves deletion due to it being full of myths/blatant lies.

Delete - As nominator. FlashMarsh (talk) 15:48, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Don't delete - You can remove the "myths/blatant lies". It's a boss page. This Rfd will fail, regardless. Neitiznot  Choose OptionMy userpage Talk to me! Spam goes here Sign here! 15:51, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - Does not meet RfD requirements. --Iiii I I I 15:54, January 20, 2013 (UTC)



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

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki