RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Archive 22

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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Keep.

File:Waterfiend icon.png

What is this?
Where was it obtained?
Why is it licensed as a skill icon?
Why is it needed?

Delete - As nominator. Heaven Sent (talk) 01:17, February 5, 2017 (UTC)

Keep - It's from the wilderness slayer contract. Keeping it since it's a slayer icon, and can be used for page/nav box. I'm well aware the original uploader's filename was misleading. --Jlun2 (talk) 16:06, February 5, 2017 (UTC)

Keep - Per Jlun2 Amascut ^{Ia Morte} 19:37, February 5, 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Manpaint originally uploaded it, from how he used it I believed it was an unused slayer icon that he found in the cache (perhaps it is used in game though from what jlun said?). I renamed/licensed it to be consistent with the other slayer skill icons. IsobelJ 17:22, February 6, 2017 (UTC)

Curiously, they don't appear in the ad log API; I got the rest of the icons from right clicking the slayer contract guy at edgeville. Other icons such as the skill icons appear as items themselves though. --Jlun2 (talk) 01:15, February 8, 2017 (UTC)

Keep - Is nice for navboxes/tables I guess. Shouldn't be used on the page itself like with slayer monsters IMO, since that could be misleading. Fsw e1 10:00, February 7, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - Image will not be deleted. --Liquid^Talk 16:47, February 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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was No consensus.

Chathead/Animations

It's a page full of very old .gifs of chatheads. I can see some value in it, but I don't think having them all animated is necessary and it makes the page very laggy. Perhaps cut down to just having regular files of some of the different expressions the character as a section on the main chatheads page?

Delete - As nominator. IsobelJ 15:03, February 11, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - should have been a category if anything. Archmage Elune ^Talk_HS fetus is my son and I love him. 15:23, February 11, 2017 (UTC)

Keep - The page itself is meh, but I cannot think of any other way to show all the different chathead animations together like this, and they are definitely worthwhile to show. Fsw e1 18:12, February 11, 2017 (UTC)

Keep but update it It needs some work, but don't we all inside? -- latest?cb=20170911143617 Scuzzy Beta latest?cb=20170911144529 21:01, February 11, 2017 (UTC)

Keep - per Fswe1 5-x ^Talk 21:38, February 11, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - Both sides bring up excellent points. The article will be kept as there is no consensus. --Liquid^Talk 02:59, February 23, 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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete.

Dungeoneering/Keying

The use of a "keyer" in dugeoneering was made obsolete quite some time ago as the dungeoneering keys now use a global virtual interface that the entire team has. The article was also tagged with a Point of View issue. To rewrite the article might not be worth the effort.

Delete - As nominator. Deltaslug (talk) 02:48, February 28, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - The only thing similar would be a Keyer who is from a leech-fc. Don't think we need to document it. Haidro ^(talk) 13:12, March 1, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - My understanding is that there is still a position called "keyer" in some Dungeoneering clans, but it seems to me that it's more like an attempt to keep a now obsolete term alive in the face of shared keys and that it's not particularly common. --User:Saftzie/Signature 08:58, March 2, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - I agree that, as it is invalid content(being as the keys are shared), it doesn't have a purpose currently. Sparky Kitty the Wikian 09:00, March 2, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - I had some interest in trying to fix that articles obvious problems, but as it would have practically been a complete rewrite I gave up almost immediately. There's nothing of value there to save. — Heaven Sent (talk) 12:40, March 2, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - Why wasn't this up for deletion sooner? Sam ber en 15:00, March 2, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - Completely redundant page :/ NYX TRYX | Serenity Isle | That guy with the 10 year cape and ain't maxed :D 15:11, March 2, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - A mention of the term keying as a historical thing on Dungeoneering would be enough. The page itself is obsolete/general Dungeoneering training advice so it isn't necessary. IsobelJ 16:21, March 2, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - ¿Què? Fsw e1 19:11, March 4, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - Article will be deleted. --Liquid^Talk 07:13, March 8, 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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete.

Cabbage Facepunch Bonanza arena

Bit of an odd article, this. Obviously outdated following the minigame moving to Gamers' Grotto and I'm not sure it really has a reason to exist.

It seems it was previously an odd hotchpotch mix of info about the above-ground location of the minigame in Lumbridge and the minigame arena itself. The above-ground location is now gone and I don't think it really offers much to warrant an article. All history on it can be easily covered in the Cabbage Facepunch Bonanza article alongside event info, etc.. The minigame arena itself again seems very unimportant and not worthy of an article - it can be covered in the minigame page where it has relevance, as with other minigames.

Looking at the articles that link to it, it seems that not much really directs here, mainly some complimentary navbox links. This doesn't seem useful to users as an article so I think we should delete.

Delete - As nominator. Henneyj 23:36, March 9, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - I fail to see what this would add that cannot be covered on the minigame's article, which also takes care of the world event, mind. Fsw e1 12:52, March 10, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - per FSWE and Henneyj. --Deltaslug (talk) 14:03, March 10, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - the only things that need to be kept are a mention of the historical entrance location and the description of the arena hazards. Both of these can be put on Cabbage Facepunch Bonanza, the second should be there already. IsobelJ 16:02, March 10, 2017 (UTC)

Delet this -- latest?cb=20170911143617 Scuzzy Beta latest?cb=20170911144529 15:21, March 14, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - Article will be deleted. --Liquid^Talk 21:44, March 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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete.

Wilderness Fishing Peninsula

No other fishing spots have a page dedicated to them. There's also no mention of the "Wilderness Fishing Spot" as an official name as far as I can see.

Delete - As nominator. IsobelJ 17:26, March 16, 2017 (UTC)

Delete --Iiii I I I 20:44, March 16, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - It's got a glorious total of one link too. If it were of any decent quality I would consider keeping it, but as it stands now, 'tis nothing that's ever been official. The information on the fishing spots can be well incorporated in the main Wilderness article and those of whatever fishies can be caught there. Fsw e1 21:26, March 16, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - When an article is talking about PKers "getting a free meal" I think that's a pretty good sign we should ax it. --Liquid^Talk 21:25, March 16, 2017 (UTC)

Speedy delete - garbage page. Haidro ^(talk) 23:32, March 16, 2017 (UTC)

Speedy delete - Garbago -- latest?cb=20170911143617 Scuzzy Beta latest?cb=20170911144529 15:28, March 20, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - Article will be deleted. I will note that this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion - it is explicitly stated that these types of articles should be nominated for deletion. --Liquid^Talk 01:43, March 22, 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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete.

File:Asgarnia underground black space map.png

Along with File:Asgarnia underground map.png. These are used to illustrate a trivia point on List of dungeons about how dungeons are stored on the world map. The images no longer seem to work as an example as the 2 dungeon areas are now separate drop downs on the world map and can no longer be viewed at the same time. I'm not sure if the trivia about how the world map works is still accurate. If it is then we need a new example of dungeons that show this.

Delete - As nominator. IsobelJ 13:48, March 18, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - This has been open for a while now and no one seems to be interested in commenting, despite the fact that lots of people have commented on threads above and below this one in the discussions hub. I will close it as successful because the reason for deletion is valid and there is no counterargument refuting its validity; this file could just as easily have been deleted as "unused in mainspace" by updating the linked article. The files should not be undeleted for this purpose without a request for undeletion, but if someone finds some other use for them, they can be undeleted without a discussion. i can't believe my closure is basically longer than the entire nomination statement and discussion. --Liquid^Talk 00:10, March 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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete/Merge.

Dorgesh-Kaan Thieving and Firemaking

I can find nothing to suggest that thieving and firemaking in Dorgesh-Kaan has even been designated as a specific activity by Jagex. The page seems to have been created by someone wanting to promote this as a training method. These days it is not a popular activity for players and a walkthrough on how to do it is not at all necessary. Relevant information can already be found elsewhere e.g. Dorgesh-Kaan Average Chest, Dorgesh-Kaan Rich Chest and Dorgesh-Kaan#Thieving.

Delete - As nominator. IsobelJ 12:03, April 11, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - Disnae need its ain page Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 12:07, April 11, 2017 (UTC)

Aye - There is nothing to recommend keeping this. Degenret01 (talk) 12:48, April 11, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - Kill it with fire! :P Salix of Prifddinas ^(Talk) 13:34, April 11, 2017 (UTC)

Merge - It shouldn't have its own page. Perhaps turn it into a skill training guide? I used to train Thieving in Dorgesh-Kaan and it's pretty good for mid-level thieves. Otherwise, if all information is already on the mentioned pages, get rid of it. Fsw e1 16:34, April 11, 2017 (UTC)

Delet this --Scuzzy Beta 16:55, April 11, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - --Deltaslug (talk) 12:31, April 12, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - I also never hear people talk about this training method. Powers38 ^おはようヾ(´･ω･｀) 12:40, April 12, 2017 (UTC) Keep - See below. Powers38 ^おはようヾ(´･ω･｀) 18:20, April 18, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - Eww. Temu jin 09:47, April 13, 2017 (UTC)

Keep Thieving info - Temu jin 01:58, April 19, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose in current state - Because the information is not currently duplicated anywhere else, and it would be foolish to delete it without thoroughly making sure we're not losing anything in the process. In particular, the map and Thieving walkthrough remain useful. "...these days it is not a popular activity for players" is an entirely unconvincing argument -- I have never felt that content obsolescence is a good reason for deleting guides in these sorts of situations. It remains (more or less, modulo energy considerations) the best way to do Dorgesh-Kaan Thieving, so why not keep that information? What tends to happen in RfDs like this is, we talk about how the information could go somewhere else (or maybe even point to fragments of it in other places), which convinces other people to support deletion...but in the end, the information that was unique to that page never sticks around. Don't be fooled this time. ʞo oɔ 08:20, April 14, 2017 (UTC)

I might have agreed, if the activity itself wasn't so ... inefficient. For Firemaking, it was released at a time when log prices were higher and you didn't have bonfires. Now? Yew Logs are 1 gp/xp. Yes, lightbulbs give the same rate, but hunting down a spot with a burned out spot? "XP waste". In addition, as a thieving training method, again, going into each house to steal from a chest and then move on to the next, and the chests themselves have a respawn rate (so if someone else gets to it first ... ). tl;dr - poor training method, obsolete info. --Deltaslug (talk) 13:04, April 14, 2017 (UTC)

My point is that there's a distinction between a poor training method and obsolete information. ʞo oɔ 19:27, April 14, 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Of course the relevant information should be moved to the appropriate locations. Salix of Prifddinas ^(Talk) 19:50, April 14, 2017 (UTC)

What information do you consider to be relevant? ʞo oɔ 19:57, April 14, 2017 (UTC)

I don't know to be honoust. Information about the chests seem to have their own pages, a walkthrough doesn't seem relevant for other pages, and the XP rates for the logs and light bulbs could possibly be added to a page about the light bulbs themselves. P.S. I don't take the phrase "Make X Great Again" serious, it's overused. :P Salix of Prifddinas ^(Talk) 21:11, April 14, 2017 (UTC)

Comment - latest?cb=20170414131521 -- latest?cb=20170911143617 Scuzzy Beta latest?cb=20170911144529 20:00, April 14, 2017 (UTC)

Keep/Merge - Okay, at first I was just doing this for the memes, but Cook raises a valid point. We keep historical info on this wiki for a reason, I don't see why this should explicitly be deleted - Just merge it. -- latest?cb=20170911143617

Scuzzy Beta latest?cb=20170911144529

23:34, April 14, 2017 (UTC)

Strong oppose merging walkthrough - I don't particularly care if we delete the page but for the love of god please don't merge the walkthrough onto a different page. I literally can't think of a good way to merge the walkthrough onto any other page. It's way too long to go onto the main Dorgesh Kaan page. It's not relevant enough to the chests to put onto the Average or Rich chest pages. It's not relevant enough to put on articles about the light bulbs either. It's not a good enough training method to put on the thieving or firemaking training guides. If I had to find somewhere to put the walkthrough I would probably create a subpage of Dorgesh Kaan and stick it there, which is functionally equivalent to what we have right now.

The salient point is whether the information contained in the walkthrough is relevant enough or significant enough to actually stick somewhere on the wiki. I'm inclined to believe that it is, but I do find arguments that it's not relevant or significant enough to be persuasive. Ultimately, we should either get rid of it altogether or leave it where it is - there's literally no other place that's appropriate for the walkthrough. --Liquid^Talk 23:49, April 14, 2017 (UTC)

Why can't it be merged onto the training guides? It may not be the best method ever, but still pretty good at certain levels, at least Thieving (I've never done Firemaking there). It's also good to have alternatives for what is presumably almost entirely pickpocketing. As for the Firemaking training, this seems especially nice for ironmen, who might not want to chop trees beyond measure.

Fsw e1

06:48, April 15, 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's great at any one category (such as xp rates, afkability, profit). I'm extremely skeptical you can get 230k/hr like cook claims. I don't think training guides should be listing every possible training method, since that would make them extremely bloated. Noting a few methods that excel at one of the criteria is better. --Liquid^Talk 18:14, April 15, 2017 (UTC)

Try it out! You can do two chests every 20 seconds, and each chest gives you 650 experience. ʞo oɔ 19:07, April 15, 2017 (UTC)

230k/h sounds absolutely brilliant, especially at the target levels.

Fsw e1

06:52, April 16, 2017 (UTC)

I can't believe it. I literally can't believe it. It actually does give 230k/hr. The downfall is that given respawn times only 6 people can use this at any given time (though when I was testing it I never found a world that was already looted, probably because no one trains thieving this way). Also, it's very click intensive and relies on quickhopping for maximum efficiency.

I should also point out that this isn't really pertinent to the discussion over whether or not this article should be deleted, since the training method outlined in the article is definitely obsolete whether or not rich chests are good thieving xp as a standalone method. --Liquid^Talk 03:50, April 18, 2017 (UTC)

We Made Dorgesh-Kaan Great Again - So, it turns out that looting rich chests and world-hopping at 78 Thieving is about 230,000 experience per hour, which (as far as I can tell) is the best experience until dwarf traders at level 90. Not exactly a poor training method, eh? At this point I would recommend putting a section on Thieving training about this method, while possibly also leaving up the holistic walkthrough (on the page we're discussing) that includes both Firemaking and Thieving training. ʞo oɔ 17:11, April 15, 2017 (UTC)

Keep, but split into training guides - Honestly, I would not have believed it to be a good(?) training method until Cook(?) and Liquid (?) tested it (I logged on and I think they were just about finished discussing it, so going by comments here). If it is possible to achieve 230k exp/hr, then it would be good to keep and update the article, as currently, it doesn't list how to train it optimally. It gives us details about thieving in Dorgesh Kaan, but not in-depth guide (such as world hopping and list of loot obtained). I think we should split up the thieving and firemaking section though. If we assume players are going to world hop, then it doesn't make sense to add in a firemaking. I was wondering if cook can test out firemaking part too. If so, we can probably update that too. Powers38 ^おはようヾ(´･ω･｀) 18:20, April 18, 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Wow this is really not what I expected when I created this request. Having discovered that looting the rich chests is 230,000k xp/hr I have updated the Thieving training guide to list it as a method. It is hard to compare this to the methods in the guide at the moment since the xp rates in the guide for other methods are tested at level 99, but I put it in as a third best alternative since its requirements are low compared to the main method - though it could well be better than the main methods if we had accurate xp rates for the target levels.

Having done that I think that I also tried regular chests using the same method. I got ~58k xp/hr (may be worth checking as my connection is slow) which is not at all comparable to other training methods at 52 Thieving. Firemaking with light orbs I don't even know, when I tried it I found I spent an age running around looking for the broken lights, of which there were only a handful out of the long list of lights on the walkthrough. I do not think this is at all viable as a training method. With that in mind I don't think that the walkthrough is at all worth preserving: if the light orbs on their own are not efficient then a combined training method will certainly not be.

Therefore, I think the page should be deleted. Everything that is useful is now accounted for elsewhere. I added a little more description and the route image to Dorgesh-Kaan#Other_features: ideally the image should be remade to just show the light orb locations and [[:File:Dorgesh Kaan chests.png]] can be used to show the chest locations. IsobelJ 16:12, April 20, 2017 (UTC)

Reaffirmation of position to delete - Isobel did the work to keep what people said should be kept. What remains is unworthy. Nice work, Isobel. Degenret01 (talk) 18:52, April 20, 2017 (UTC)

Merge/delete - Delete the individual page, merge into respective training guides (if they're still feasible methods) Superiosity the Dragonrider: User:Superiosity/Signature chat 12:50, April 21, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - As the relevant portions of this page have already been merged, the article will be deleted. --Liquid^Talk 23:13, April 23, 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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete.

Werewolf (human)

This page is rather pointless. All it is is some generic advice fer fighting werewolves pre-transformation (which should be on the individuals' page), a list of werewolves in human form (which is alsae on Canifis#Inhabitants), an incomplete gallery and some trivia. Outside of the navbox and disambig page, naething links tae it. Really the only positive point fer the article was the drop table, which I removed earlier as that information should be oan the individual pages.

Delete - As nominator Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 16:36, April 18, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - Agreed Salix of Prifddinas ^(Talk) 17:48, April 18, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - Sounds like all information has been relocated. Trivia too? Fsw e1 16:57, April 19, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - information is better located elsewhere. IsobelJ 10:40, April 20, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - per nominator --Deltaslug (talk) 14:18, April 20, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - per all above Superiosity the Dragonrider: User:Superiosity/Signature chat 12:51, April 21, 2017 (UTC)

Keep - Cause why the hell not --Liquid^Talk 02:38, April 26, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - Article will be deleted. --Liquid^Talk 02:38, April 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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete.

Noob

tl:dr - outdated, unencyclopedic and unnecessary

This page apparently got rfd'd unsuccessfully before and I stumbled 'cross the page again and decided to give it another go. Obviously this was written in a time when the wiki wasn't too strict about what gets articles and what doesn't. Today however, this article has no place on the wiki as it is unencyclopedic and outdated (as is obvious by its content). This type of thing should be relegated to a concise entry on the Slang dictionary (which I have added) and is not deserving of an article Superiosity the Dragonrider: User:Superiosity/Signature chat 12:46, April 21, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - as nom Superiosity the Dragonrider: User:Superiosity/Signature chat 12:46, April 21, 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Wow! Relitigating an RfD from over 10 years ago, when we didn't even preface our comments with support/oppose, and this was called Votes for Deletion. I would support removing the unencyclopedic stuff about slang usage of noobs, but feel that the references in game section has some value and should be kept somewhere (if not in the noob article, then somewhere else). --Liquid^Talk 22:39, April 21, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - Agree with helm but just move the in game stuff elsewhere. Haidro ^(talk) 02:27, April 22, 2017 (UTC)

comment - I've gone through and made sure all the ingame references to 'noob' are present on their respective articles (God Wars Dungeon New Order Occult Bookists). I don't think its necessary to make note of the quickchat reference however and npc usage of word i dont think is particularly notable Superiosity the Dragonrider: User:Superiosity/Signature chat 02:31, April 22, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - per nom --Deltaslug (talk) 04:09, April 22, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - The slang dictionary entry is sufficient. The statue in gwd has sentimental value, but I could find a way to survive from day to day without it. --User:Saftzie/Signature 19:38, April 27, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - Page will be deleted. --Liquid^Talk 02:30, April 28, 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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete.

Leptoc

This entire page could be easily replaced with a {{Family tree}} on the relevant pages. As a whole, it offers little to no information about the family itself, and seems more like an unwanted disambiguation page.

Delete - As nominator. latest?cb=20170911143617 Scuzzy Beta latest?cb=20170911144529 22:30, April 19, 2017 (UTC)

Comment - There are a few pages in a similar situation (Cashien, Edern, Gord, Prysin, Rehnison, Remanis, Sonde, Talvoy), having a line of info and then a list of members, and of those I'd say maybe Remanis could be kept if it is expanded upon Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 22:49, April 19, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - Some families we know more about (e.g. Remanis, Ardignas, Fitzharmon, Prysin), while others are stubs/small. I wouldn't say it's a reason to delete them, since RS:G applies as far as I reckon. Fsw e1 16:13, April 20, 2017 (UTC)

Kill it - Each named member already has their own page, granularity does not apply. A template for the family would make the most sense. Degenret01 (talk) 18:07, April 20, 2017 (UTC)

Delete or Merge---Deltaslug (talk) 04:11, April 22, 2017 (UTC)

Merge into Juliet (or Draul Leptoc) - It's removed content, anyway. --User:Saftzie/Signature 19:47, April 27, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - The page will be deleted and merged into the individual family member pages using {{Family tree}}. I'm still in the process of finding people who know how to work the template. It should happen within the next week. --Liquid^Talk 19:25, 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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete.

Free-to-play Combined training

Training advice is very inefficient and outdated - I doubt the methods covered have ever been popular or viable training methods.

Delete - As nominator. IsobelJ 17:12, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

[[Free-to-play Combined training#Almost anywhere|WTF]] - Real hot take there. --Liquid^Talk 18:27, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

Also it's laughably ludicrous that the article suggests cutting gems from mining as a way to train crafting. It even says you'll only gain about 5k crafting xp per 1m mining xp. What the heck is with this article O_O --Liquid^Talk 18:29, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

Delete --Iiii I I I 18:59, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - ~~Where will I get hot f2p training tips now ;-;~~ It was written with good intentions, but it's not salvageable Den noh 19:11, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

Kill it - Very inefficient mixed methods even at the time it was written, and hasn't been updated in years. We have much better more skill specific articles to use instead. Degenret01 (talk) 19:22, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - ~~Just double check if there's anything remotely salvageable, then secure that and delete the page.~~ Salix of Prifddinas ^(Talk) 23:10, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, just kill it. :P Salix of Prifddinas ^(Talk) 23:12, May 12, 2017 (UTC)

Kill it with fire!!! --Deltaslug (talk) 00:10, May 13, 2017 (UTC)

Cut it down then set it on fire - That way ye train 2 skills. Contradictory, outdated, and there's even seven sections which could be removed and make nae difference to the article Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 06:21, May 13, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - I was going to oppose and say that it can be rewritten, or spread across multiple articles but this is beyond terrible. I do like the Fishing section, though. Can we keep that? Fsw e1 13:36, May 13, 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we should keep the Fishing section, perhaps it can be added to the Fishing guide? 7:^) Salix of Prifddinas ^(Talk) 10:14, May 16, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - Didn't even know this page existed. Should've been deleted long ago. Sam ber en 04:23, May 17, 2017 (UTC)

delet this - Haidro ^(talk) 13:29, May 18, 2017 (UTC)

Kill this article and bury its bones - This article is even less effective than crossfit is IRL Pikachu lv95 (talk) 16:53, May 18, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - This article will be sent to the electric chair. --Liquid^Talk 00:38, May 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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete.

Money making guide/Crafting armadyl runes

It's not as profitable as it seems; the GE prices are wrong for the ingredient and the end product.

Delete - As nominator. Salix of Prifddinas ^(Talk) 09:53, May 16, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - As original accident causer. The margins are such that actual profit is between about -12M/hr and +5M/hr. Even when it is profit, it's nowhere near the 9.1M/hr number, and these items are subject to gross manipulation. Nolanlemahn (talk) 10:06, May 16, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - It's always looming up at the top of the table and it definitely doesn't belong there. The GE prices for the items involved are too volatile and the quantities are too absurd to be used for MMGs. Sam ber en 04:25, May 17, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - Is misleading as they very likely won't sell - armadyl runes don't have much use now. --Ardore Forza (talk) 05:46, May 17, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - Way too misleading. I actually had a friend IRL who would only Runecraft in game in hopes of doing this MMG for good cash. Haidro ^(talk) 13:28, May 18, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - we've got enough issues with MMG's that are in the negative. If a listed method, while mathematically accurate, is not realistic, then it should be deleted. --Deltaslug (talk) 00:30, May 19, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - Article will be deleted. --Liquid^Talk 04:15, May 23, 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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete.

Transcript:History of Gielinor

“

It's fake [history].

”

This article is a player-written modification of the original History of RuneScape, which is an official Lore & History from the RuneScape website, written by Paul (I think). History of Gielinor, however, is from the former official wiki and was introduced when the Sixth Age storyline began - but it was written by players and therefore counts as fan fiction, really. As a result it contains huge mistakes, saying that Guthix went to sleep at the end of the Second Age or that the elder gods created Gielinor (which is technically true, but not what people in Misthalin teach), and that's just what I saw at first glance. So yeah, this shouldn't really be on the wiki (or we can keep it and I'll make articles for the stuff I've written personally too, if anyone likes a Lore about Movario :D).

Delete - As nominator. Fsw e1 17:41, May 16, 2017 (UTC)

Alternative history - Not fake history, silly fusswell. I don't see what's wrong with having alternative histories on the wiki. Why should we be biased in favor of the real history? Make alternative history great again! --Liquid^Talk 17:48, May 16, 2017 (UTC)

Keep - It's taken from Jagex's Lores and Histories section as seen here. Is yer Movario fanfic kept on the RuneScape website? It was a choice between creating a new version or modifying the old version Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 17:50, May 16, 2017 (UTC)

My point is that the "old" version is the official version, whereas the "new" one is a player-written fanfic. Yes, it's on the website, but so was the official wiki, and that had lots of player contributions and therefore wasn't a reliable source. Anything written by players (apart from official competitions and things like that) is not an official L&H. (PS. My Movario fanfic is - alas! - not on there, but had I posted it for some reason when the wiki was still up, it would've been)

Fsw e1

18:01, May 16, 2017 (UTC)

So yer saying that, long after the wiki has been discontinued and all the pages redirected, we should be ignoring a surviving page on an official part of the website which can only be edited by JMods cause AMG NOT 100% EDITED BY JMODS FANFIC AMG! Nobody is saying that we ignore the previous version. Heck, I created a brand new page in order to preserve it Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 18:17, May 16, 2017 (UTC)

Yes I am. I don't care where on the website it is located and who can edit it now - it was written by players and hasn't been edited since.

Fsw e1

18:37, May 16, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - This version is a remnant of when all Game Guide articles were transferred over to the Official Wiki, and left available for player edits. All changes between this and History of RuneScape were player-made. Just because Jagex mistakenly used the player-edited version doesn't mean we should. I'm not exactly comfortable with us essentially hosting an article taken from another wiki...

Also, we would probably have to list every player who edited it under "authors". Not a good idea. Wahisietel (Talk) 21:02, May 16, 2017 (UTC)

Delete --Iiii I I I 05:52, May 17, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - Surely we cover everything here on other articles anyway. Haidro ^(talk) 13:27, May 18, 2017 (UTC)

Delete --Deltaslug (talk) 00:23, May 19, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - Article will be deleted. --Liquid^Talk 04:29, May 23, 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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Deferred.

Armies of Gielinor Story Competition

All links on the page more or less link to the FunOrb wiki, the competition itself is about a game that is part of FunOrb. The only relation at all to RuneScape, besides the lore (which is inevitable because Armies of Gielinor and RS share some), is the fact that winners got lifetime membership for RS and FunOrb (which makes sense - they were both the same membership), as well as a news post on the RuneScape site. It doesn't deserve an article on the RuneScape Wiki.

Delete - As nominator. https://i.imgur.com/xHR7zpA.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/6encXAo.png 21:10, May 18, 2017 (UTC)

Neutral - I didn't know this existed, but it's arguably not very relevant. Before deletion, make sure the information is on the FunOrb wiki, though. That said, if we ever decide we want to document all official competitions, I'd argue this should be included too, as the reward, at least, is RS-related, and the story to be written too. Fsw e1 06:57, May 19, 2017 (UTC)

Bump - I'm going to close this in a few days as "defer to Forum:Competition Style guide" unless more people show up with an opinion. --Liquid^Talk 21:25, May 25, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - As stated above. --Liquid^Talk 05:26, May 30, 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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete.

Wild jade vine/Strategies

Article is incredibly outdated (pre-eoc), and not much strategy is really needed other than "wield hatchet, attack plant", which is covered by the main page already.

Delete - As nominator. Saucy bants (talk) 23:43, May 23, 2017 (UTC) 21:10, May 18, 2017 (UTC)

Support - Since the toolbelt also applies, one simply needs a hatchet on their toolbelt and attack with melee (similar to the dills in the fight kiln). As it's a pretty weak monster, a strategy guide is largely unnecessary. Coelacanth0794 Talk 23:55, May 23, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - per Suacy and Coel. --Deltaslug (talk) 01:49, May 24, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - just kill it already ThePsionic 08:02, May 24, 2017 (UTC)

Delete --Iiii I I I 23:15, May 25, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - Article will be deleted. --Liquid^Talk 05:29, May 30, 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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete.

Money making guide/Cutting diamond bolt tips

[[Money making guide/Enchanting ruby bolts]] [[Money making guide/Cutting ruby bolt tips]] [[Money making guide/Enchanting diamond bolts]] [[Money making guide/Fletching diamond bolts]]

These processes all go towards the production of Diamond bolts (e) and Ruby bolts (e), neither of which have extensive use (and hence little demand) in EOC. I tested the margins on these to see if the GE prices are correct; there seems to be little demand for the components at each step of the way. It's worth noting that for two of the diamond methods, it appears to be profitable (much like the old armadyl runes MMG), but the manual testing proves otherwise. Three of the methods make a loss; although some methods fluctuate, this one doesn't, and it's not a good look for the money making guide when there's loss making methods on the bottom

http://puu.sh/w18Bq/936a47e1ee.png http://puu.sh/w18lC/0322d2d7c3.png

Delete - As nominator. Saucy bants (talk) 22:20, May 25, 2017 (UTC)

Delete --Iiii I I I 23:14, May 25, 2017 (UTC)

Delete --Deltaslug (talk) 05:26, May 26, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - I guess they've got obsolete. Taiago (talk) 02:30, June 2, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - All these pages will be deleted. --Liquid^Talk 22:54, June 2, 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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete.

Money_making_guide/Enchanting_sapphire_rings

Zulrah got nerfed so these are going to crash (jk)

On a serious note, recoils are in very low demand due to the EOC and the overall decline in PVP activity. This is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, and this method has not been profitable for quite some time. Even when it is, it only makes around 200k/hr maximum, using the lofty assumption that the exchange prices are accurate. The guide is also only three lines long. Image below shows margins.

http://puu.sh/w19AP/4d7820d409.png

Delete - As nominator. Saucy bants (talk) 22:46, May 25, 2017 (UTC)

Delete --Iiii I I I 23:13, May 25, 2017 (UTC)

Delete --Deltaslug (talk) 05:25, May 26, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - Article will be deleted. --Liquid^Talk 22:55, June 2, 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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Redirect.

Jennifurr

This shouldn't be deleted or redirecting to Jenifurr, cos Jennifurr is actually the correct spelling. Idk how to fix it though, can someone pls do it? Ty. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tinchita (talk) on 18:27, June 9, 2017.

Closed - redirects are how we handle misspellings. --Iiii I I I 18:33, June 9, 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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Redirect.

Camel God

Mod Rowley firmly asserts that the Camel God does not exists on this forum thread (archive) without a doubt (see the first and second page for Rowley's comments.) The Camel God page should be merged with Akthanakos's page, instead. --98.167.56.112 04:09, June 23, 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that thread. Since Rowley's statements make it pretty clear it never existed, I don't think we need an entire discussion - this falls under a common sense closure. I'll redirect this page to Akthanakos and make a note of the "camel god" there. --Iiii I I I 04:34, June 23, 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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete.

List of items needed for emote clues

This page is just an article that lists the items on Category:Items needed for an emote clue. It is un-necessary, and is just a repeat of the information on Treasure Trails/Guide/Emotes#Items (and is presented better on that page too).

Delete - As nominator. https://i.imgur.com/xHR7zpA.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/6encXAo.png 15:20, July 7, 2017 (UTC)

Merge - I'd argue a list (two, in fact, by category and by clue level) is a better presentation than a fat paragraph full of links. The list's being a separate article also increases visiblity. I do think, however, it should indeed be somewhere on a TT guide subpage, so a merge would be the best option if you ask me. Fsw e1 11:17, July 8, 2017 (UTC)

Delete or Merge - --Deltaslug (talk) 16:14, July 8, 2017 (UTC)

Merge Per Fswe Aescopalus ^talk 19:33, July 8, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - keep the category and the list on the treasure trails' article. I think the way the items are listed on the treasure trails' article is best (by what type of clue they are needed for); [[List of items needed for emote clues]] is just duplicating information. IsobelJ 17:35, July 11, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - Page will be deleted. I'll replace the paragraph with the list, but peoples' terminology is quite unclear. If someone wants to go "clean up" my work a bit, go ahead. --Liquid^Talk 03:36, July 14, 2017 (UTC)

Soooo I didn't look at the page to be deleted before closing this, and the list is way too long to just copy over. I'll leave the paragraph for now, but if someone can format the list to make it look nicer, go ahead. --Liquid^Talk 03:37, July 14, 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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Keep.

Map:Chaos Tunnels scan

Since chaos tunnels scans have been removed: do we want to delete this file/map and all information about the previous locations in the Chaos Tunnels? Alternatively do we want to preserve the information (if so I guess the information and map could be put on a sub-page with the deleted content template)?

Either way - As nominator. IsobelJ 17:27, July 11, 2017 (UTC)

Keep - We've kept [[:File:Scan clue Chaos Tunnels central giant crypt rat chamber.png|Scan clue Chaos Tunnels central giant crypt rat chamber.png]] etc as historical images https://i.imgur.com/xHR7zpA.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/6encXAo.png 17:29, July 11, 2017 (UTC)

Keep - Make a Treasure Trails/Guide/Scans (Historical) ... or something and move what used to be in the page there. - Sparky Kitty the Wikian 17:35, July 11, 2017 (UTC)

Cause Special:Unusedimages .... -

Sparky Kitty the Wikian

17:37, July 11, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose suggestion - A page (especially named like that) seems pretty stupid, and Special:Unusedimages won't be an issue if this Map page is kept with the image on it and just has the deleted content template on it https://i.imgur.com/xHR7zpA.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/6encXAo.png 17:55, July 11, 2017 (UTC)

Not really liking your attitude. I am including all of the images that are now unused as part if my reasoning. And as I spike with Isobel in Discord, possibly /Scans/Chaos Tunnels would be better. I dont see much reason to call an idea, "stupid"... maybe unwise, unnecessary? -

Sparky Kitty the Wikian

18:24, July 11, 2017 (UTC)

Just saving the map would not prevent all the other in-game location images from being unused. If we are keeping this I was imagining keeping the table of all those images plus hints that were formerly on the page.

IsobelJ

16:12, July 12, 2017 (UTC)

Note - I'll point out that any existing Chaos Tunnels scan clues still exist and have to be completed to progress the clue (or dropped so you can get a new clue). @Gaz#7521 20:10, July 11, 2017 (UTC)

Keep - If deleted, we should go on and delete all information about discontinued content like party hats to be somewhat consistent. Chaos Tunnels scans are now basically discontinued items. Thingummywut (talk) 20:18, July 11, 2017 (UTC)

Keep! - I had a feeling this discussion would come up. The Wiki keeps historical images of nearly everything, so this should be no exception. Neutralino_Talk? 21:07, July 11, 2017 (UTC)

Keep - Per others. RIP fun clues though. Fsw e1 08:32, July 12, 2017 (UTC)

Keep - they still exist if you have one, you just can't get new ones. Class it as historical. AnselaJonla 16:26, July 12, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - The overall consensus here is to keep the page, and as such we've kept all other info about the Chaos Tunnels scans too on [[Treasure Trails/Guide/Scans/Chaos Tunnels]]. https://i.imgur.com/xHR7zpA.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/6encXAo.png 18:19, July 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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete.

Elder Gods Quest

As of the latest Q&A this quest is not currently in development (~1:40:00 onwards, Mod Kelpie: "It's unlikely that we'll do it in the near future, it's not canned or anything like that but I think we'll come to elder gods at a later time"). Having a page saying that the quest is upcoming is misleading and it contains little useful information to preserve as no significant development had been made on the quest. I suggest deletion of a dedicated page until a time when there is confirmation that the quest is being worked on and we have some significant details to warrant re-creating the page. IsobelJ 20:35, July 12, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - As nominator. IsobelJ 20:35, July 12, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - We have no information on it. Though I'm fairly sure Mod Kelpie would sell his mum for a quarter. Fsw e1 06:22, July 13, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - unlike my comment under The Ambassador's deletion request, this didn't have any details under it; and Elder Gods Quest was just a project name, not the actual title of the future quest. Frankly, we know one day there will be more quests about the Elder Gods (unless ofc Jagex stops developing Runescape before then). --Deltaslug (talk) 21:28, July 16, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - The article will be deleted. https://i.imgur.com/xHR7zpA.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/6encXAo.png 00:23, July 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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Keep.

The Ambassador

My reasoning is basically the same as RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Elder Gods Quest. Kelpie said of this "It's very likely that we'll do new bosses but whether it's actually the Ambassador or not...". At the moment Jagex seem to have no firm plans to add a new boss, and even if they did they are not committed to the boss being the Ambassador boss. Sure the page has slightly more content, but basically all we knew was that players preferred the idea of a group boss. That doesn't deserve a dedicated page. IsobelJ 20:42, July 12, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - As nominator. IsobelJ 20:42, July 12, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - We could just put the Nonexistence template on the page instead. Neutralino_Talk? 22:42, July 12, 2017 (UTC)

~~Delete and redirect to upcoming updates~~ Oppose - https://i.imgur.com/xHR7zpA.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/6encXAo.png 22:59, July 12, 2017 (UTC)

Just as an addition to this, we should still keep info about it on the upcoming updates page as it isn't technically "scrapped" yet https://i.imgur.com/xHR7zpA.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/6encXAo.png 23:00, July 12, 2017 (UTC)

It's not currently in development, so its not an upcoming update. I'm all for adding it in if there is an announcement that the boss is being worked on again, but it shouldn't be on the page at the moment.

IsobelJ

15:24, July 13, 2017 (UTC)

I've changed this to an oppose per Ben. https://i.imgur.com/xHR7zpA.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/6encXAo.png 00:27, July 19, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - Unlike the elder god quest, this update has some informatoin available, as well as an image. Fsw e1 06:23, July 13, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - Wilderness Tag Wahisietel (Talk) 12:09, July 13, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Balltelben. Can also go with [[Lizard Man]]. It was announced at Runefest and several other times. Unlike other unreleased content, it did have concept art, some backstory and a few other tidbits leaked. Instead of just a "we're releasing 'this' maybe someday and here's a cool pic".--Deltaslug (talk) 21:25, July 16, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - The article will not be deleted. https://i.imgur.com/xHR7zpA.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/6encXAo.png 00:27, July 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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Deferred.

Template:GEDB Image

This template is used on less than 15 images currently, most of which being from years ago (we're talking 2011 here).

We should delete this template and its associated [[:Category:GEDB images|category]] in favour of {{Retake image}} and {{Detailed item license}}. The license is used on detailed item images like all of those in this category, and we should tag images using this category to be retaken instead with the reason 'GEDB'.

Delete - As nominator. https://i.imgur.com/xHR7zpA.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/6encXAo.png 15:07, July 25, 2017 (UTC)

If I want to view a gallery of all images that need to be retaken due to being GEDB (i.e., what I can do now by visiting the Category page you're proposing to delete), how would I do that under your proposed regime? That functionality or something similar should be maintained. ʞo oɔ 01:05, July 26, 2017 (UTC)

Images tagged for retaking along with their reasoning is easily visible on RuneScape:Maintenance/Files to be retaken. {{t|GEDB Image}} is barely ever used, and when it is, only for DIIs. Most GEDB images are actually in Category:Java item inventory images instead. I don't know why we need to fulfil a need to see all images that are tagged as GEDB on their own. It makes no difference - they are still to be replaced, regardless of their reason. Unless there is a genuine reason for this template and category to be maintained other than "it lets you see what images should be retaken that have the very specific reason of being from the GEDB", I see absolutely zero reason to keep either of them. https://i.imgur.com/xHR7zpA.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/6encXAo.png 01:27, July 26, 2017 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the purpose of the GEDB images category was always to identify bad DIIs that needed to be retaken -- Blaze fire randomly changed the category description to something more general, but that wasn't the point when I created it in 2010 and never really has been.

I don't particularly agree with your unilateral decision to change the way image maintenance templates are handled, and I think RuneScape:Maintenance/Files to be retaken is currently much worse than the old way of doing things, for two reasons:

One (somewhat easily fixable, but still important) is the lack of galleries showing these images, which was a hallmark of the image maintenance categories before and made it easy to figure out what actually needed to change, instead of trying to infer it from a filename and (generally poor) description.
The second is that these different templates made it easy to attack certain "categorical" (get it?) types of problems with images -- I worry that by only allowing freeform text to be used as the description, we lose any sort of compartmentalization of image problems, which has tended (in the past) to make for more efficient use of image takers' time.
Another thing that I didn't realize until looking at the page you linked is, because of DPL, we're limited to viewing 500 images needing to be retaken at once -- that's a big concern that needs to be fixed if you want to keep this version running.

You've yet to make a persuasive argument for why we need to have homogenous image maintenance templates -- why did you do this? ʞo oɔ 01:58, July 26, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - I am going to create a Yew Grove thread regarding all of the templates I made an RfD for as the reasons are similar if not the same and requires further explanation, so as for now I'm deferring this RfD https://i.imgur.com/xHR7zpA.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/6encXAo.png 04:31, July 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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Deferred.

:Template:Legacy

This template has been superseded by {{Retake image}}. We do not need individual templates for reasons that can be given using that template. It adds Category:Images needing to be retaken to files it is on anyway, so it makes little difference?

Delete - As nominator. https://i.imgur.com/xHR7zpA.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/6encXAo.png 01:57, July 26, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - I am going to create a Yew Grove thread regarding all of the templates I made an RfD for as the reasons are similar if not the same and requires further explanation, so as for now I'm deferring this RfD https://i.imgur.com/xHR7zpA.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/6encXAo.png 04:32, July 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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Deferred.

:Template:Ground detail

This template has been superseded by {{Retake image}}. We do not need individual templates for reasons that can be given using that template.

Delete - As nominator. https://i.imgur.com/xHR7zpA.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/6encXAo.png 01:51, July 26, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - I am going to create a Yew Grove thread regarding all of the templates I made an RfD for as the reasons are similar if not the same and requires further explanation, so as for now I'm deferring this RfD https://i.imgur.com/xHR7zpA.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/6encXAo.png 04:32, July 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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Deferred.

:Template:Interfering combat

This template has been superseded by {{Retake image}}. We do not need individual templates for reasons that can be given using that template.

Delete - As nominator. https://i.imgur.com/xHR7zpA.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/6encXAo.png 01:49, July 26, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - I am going to create a Yew Grove thread regarding all of the templates I made an RfD for as the reasons are similar if not the same and requires further explanation, so as for now I'm deferring this RfD https://i.imgur.com/xHR7zpA.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/6encXAo.png 04:33, July 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 deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Deferred.

:Template:Greater detail

This template is literally {{Retake image|better angle}}, {{Retake image|more detail}} or whatever. It is unnecessary on its own, and seems to have been created for one of the many reasons that can be given for retaking an image. Though I note, it was created before {{Retake image}} so I guess you could just say that the greater detail template has been superseded by that. https://i.imgur.com/xHR7zpA.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/6encXAo.png 01:44, July 26, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - As nominator. https://i.imgur.com/xHR7zpA.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/6encXAo.png 01:44, July 26, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - I am going to create a Yew Grove thread regarding all of the templates I made an RfD for as the reasons are similar if not the same and requires further explanation, so as for now I'm deferring this RfD https://i.imgur.com/xHR7zpA.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/6encXAo.png 04:33, July 26, 2017 (UTC)

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