RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Archive 4

This page or section is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current project page or contact an administrator for aid if no talk page exists.

Archives
No archives yet Create next archive

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was delete. 18:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Tavvy (redirect)

In almost 6 years of playing RuneScape, I have never heard the term "Tavvy" get used for Taverley as shorthand.

Rather than continuing with a delete war, I'd like to get consensus on whether this redirect is worthy of being kept.

Please do keep in mind of whether you have ever heard the term "Tavvy" used before, rather than forcing it upon people. The goal is to figure out if "Tavvy" is the common shorthand of Taverley, if it even has a shorthand.

This is my current proof to present that I believe that "Tavvy" is not an often-used shorthand of Taverley: [1] Tarikochi 03:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Chia does have a point that this wasn't open for very long, so I'm re-opening to reach a wider consensus. Skill 08:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Support: 5

Neutral/Pending: 0

Oppose: 2

Delete

1. Delete Tarikochi 03:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Delete and to even have in the "as known as" part of the article is dumb. I could say "I've heard someone call it T-ville, or Tav Tav" Atlandy 04:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Delete I have a friend who makes up new "words" all the time. Per your own argument, this means they all need redirects! Naab, neeb, spleeb, freeb, and cheeb all have to redirect to noob now, because one person uses them. Skill 04:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Delete It is, without a doubt, the stupidest redirect that I have seen in my LIFE. https://i.imgur.com/7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH _{(Actually Stinko)}
5. No one uses it. Delete. Christine^Talk 17:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep

Invalid VFD - Do you have selective eyesight? Do your eyes filter out comments which you don't want to hear? This VFD is INVALID because the article to which it pertains is not in violation of the deletion policy. The deletion policy is the "not up to standard" link on the main VFD page. You should really read it before you nominate articles for deletion. The popularity of the nickname is irrelevant. Chiafriend has shown that 4 RS players recognize the nickname. That's 4 potential visitors who would use the redirect. From this evidence, we can infer that hundreds of other players would also recognize the nickname, and some of those players use the nickname often. Until you can prove that not a single player would use Tavvy as a nickname, that redirect will not be deleted.  Gangsterls  _talk04:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an invalid VFD according to the deletion policy. Unless the deletion policy is changed by community consensus, this article can no longer be nominated for deletion. Voting on this VFD is discontinued.

Keep - There are lots of terms out there that you may have never heard of. I think I have seen someone use this term once or twice. Even so, it's still good to keep a redirect just incase. Late response, sorry. =/ Ilyas Talk Contribs 18:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Comment - Chia's "proof" is basically saying "hey, I used the name 'Tavvy', does 'Tavvy' look like a shorthand version of Taverley", not "hey, what is Taverley's shorthand?" Besides, I presented more viable counterproof.

And I heard "V" used to refer to Varrock once. We should make "V" redirect to Varrock.

I wouldn't attempt to consensus if I do not care what others say. And the VfD is valid due to there is an argument on it that involves a delete war and requires a decision to delete it. Tarikochi 04:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The solution is to stop deleting it. I will not explain again why it is legitimate content. Both you and Christine have blatantly vandalized repeatedly, and have been warned. You have neither responded to nor attempted to refute the logical explanation which I have presented multiple times. You have chosen ignorance, gathered irrelevant evidence, presented irrelevant arguments, and have edited my comments. I have attempted to assume good faith. I have attempted to explain logically. You have refused to accept any other view besides your own, while I have responded to each of your comments, despite their irrelevance. I can only describe your behavior as closed-minded. My patience is running thin. You have wasted a great deal of the time of everyone involved in this discussion. A simple redirect is not worth the stress it has caused. I have no more tolerance for talking in circles. I will argue no more on this subject. If you vandalize or edit others' comments again, you will be blocked.  Gangsterls  _talk04:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It isn't the solution if it hasn't been agreed with.

And I have responded to the "logical explanation". 4 people do not equal 100, and Chia could also have easily skipped people who disagreed, not to mention the method being flawed in the first place.

I am indeed listening to what you are saying. I'm not sure if you're doing the same for me.

And blocking someone for commenting is not appropriate, especially for a Wikian Admin. Tarikochi 04:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think that I'd have to explain basic arithmetic to you but... 4/6 people that Chia asked agreed. That's two thirds. Multiply that by the million subscribers and we get about 670,000 players who would agree. It is the solution because it is supported by evidence, logic, and our policies. And who's the one not reading properly now? I will block you if you vandalize or edit others' comments, but I do not block people simply for commenting.  Gangsterls  _talk04:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I walk into a women's only club. 100% of them are female. With simple logic, that must mean that 100% of the world is female.

And as I have made a mistake in regards of how to approach your invalid text about this VfD. I have restored the original additions you have added, but it is in the appropriate location: as a comment. Tarikochi 05:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't a comment though. It was a formal statement which voided the VFD until you edited it without asking me. Your logic is flawed in that the club is selective. Chia's evidence was taken from people he asked at random. It's also all irrelevant, because there are at least 4 players who use the nickname, and that's enough to make it useful. The only reason that the "alphabetical list" link is still in the sidebar is because Dtm finds it useful, you know.  Gangsterls  _talk05:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Luck is also selective. Chia has only asked people in Falador, rather than people in Lumbridge, or people at Seers Village. Also, the people he asked do not seem to be very experienced.

And I use the alphabetical list to find images that are out-of-date or were taken from me. Tarikochi 05:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Chia basically asked whether people would think "Tavvy" meant Taverley, and they said yes. That doesn't mean they use it themselves; one would probably assume "naab" means "noob", even if nobody (or one person...) actually uses the term. Honestly, have you ever heard or used "Tavvy" being used for Taverley before this discussion was brought up? Skill 05:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

To Skill: Yes, I've heard and used Tavvy dozens of times, particularly when killing chaos druids in tavvy dungeon.

Tari: It doesn't matter. Why do you want to delete a redirect so badly? Given the history of argument over issues such as this between you and Christine and Chia, it seems like you like to pick out any questionable edits he makes and create an argument which escalates. I usually don't get involved with them, but before you ask why I'm defending it, it's because I believe that it is valid content and should not be deleted as long as it has a use, which it does. I'm too lazy to type out Taverley, so when I want to edit the article, I can just type Tavvy. Why can't you allow me my laziness?  Gangsterls  _talk05:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a coincidence that I disagree with Chia. Even if it occurs often, it's still a coincidence in my regards.

And laziness is not a good enough reason to keep it. Or make "V" into a redirect to Varrock because there are people lazy to type in more than a letter.

If you disagree with the deletion, just "Oppose" and give a reason to the oppose, like what this VfD was for in the first place. Tarikochi 05:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not even worth the energy spent typing it out. How about I delete it myself and save myself the trouble? Since I made that "Tav" redirect, I only have to type 3 letters now anyway. And I think I will redirect "V" to Varrock, good idea, thanks.  Gangsterls  _talk06:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to say a few quick things: Chia's proof, is no proof at all. The logic is completly flawed and to ask people if Tav means Taverly, is ridiculous. If I went up to someone and said "If I said I am going to F would you think I am going to Falador, the answer would usually be yes" The issue Gang, is more along the lines of this: Some people feel that others make useless pages. Whether it be Tavvy for Taverly, or the whole "page of every internet speak word (see kk and O which resulted in a player dictionary), or the page on Buddies (a runehq idea). There was a discussion about Tavvy earlier, and Chia disagreed. Then, to prove his point asks people (poorly) and says this is proof. A similar thing happened with Cash and his sock. "Here is proof, you are all wrong and I am right". While arguing over a redirect maay sound silly, the bigger question is when will it end? The in-fighting about who is right and wrong is causing people (good editors) to leave and quit. With all that said, Taverly has never been called Tavvy, and just beacuse it is called Tavvy by one (or a slight few), does not warrant a page. Now I am going to V-ville (my word for Varrock) to stand but the water shooter (my word for fountain), and play with a bark-bark (My word for dog) Atlandy 14:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Gangsterls on this. Because this is merely a redirect, we really only have to ask ourselves would anyone ever search for Tavvy expecting to find Taverly?. If the answer could be yes, than we make the redirect page UNLESS

1. There is a more suitable target for "Tavvy" (which there isn't)
2. "Tavvy" is likely to become a topic in itself (which it isn't).

Take it from a software developer, these redirects take up an absolute minimal amount of data in our database. It just isn't worth the time of day to argue about. Arguing about something for the sake of arguing about it is folly. And if people are objecting on the grounds that people are getting mainspace edits by making redirects, GET OVER YOURSELF. When it comes right down to it, you can't measure an editor by their edit count. If chia wants to make redirects, let him. Endasil (Talk) @ 23:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a "lamest edit wars ever" section, like Wikipedia? If not, I put this forward as a candidate. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 12:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently nothing has been this lame before. A dozen deletions and subsequent re-creations of a redirect, how can you beat that? Skill 22:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, what the ****? It's a fricking redirect. Lumby, Cammy, Fally. How is this so damn "dumb"? earth_(t)

---

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. Christine^Talk 15:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Seeds Obtaining

This template is really pointless. It's being generically used on every seed page, giving generic information about how to obtain seeds. This would be fine information if it was for Seeds, but this section really does not give me the information I would be looking for in Magic seed.

Reasons for deletion

1. Unique articles should not source generic information directly in the article. If they want to point to a generic article for generic information, fine.
2. Templates should not be used to distribute content, they should be used to reuse format.
3. The use of templates make it impossible for people to customize an article to make it unique.

Proposed steps

1. Replace every instance of {{Seeds Obtaining}} with {{subst:Seeds Obtaining}} and save.
2. Delete this template.
3. Start to customize the individual seed pages to give details on obtaining those specific seeds.

Thanks, Endasil (Talk) @ 23:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Support: 4

Neutral/Pending: 0

Oppose: 0

Support

1. Endasil (Talk) @ 23:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Cool Spy0 02:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Though it would be nice if we had it on seed pages really serves no purpose as a temple. Can be simply repasted on seed pages if need be. Whiplash 02:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
4. It was created very quickly when Farming was released, but was really clumsily and awkwardly made. Although it would be possible to add variables which we could change to make appropriate methods to obtain each seed in particular appear, it would be less complicated and overall more efficient and flexible to simply delete it and add whichever methods apply to each page.  Gangsterls  _talk02:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
5. This explains why I get the same generic paragraphs whichever seed I look up (especially to find out where to obtain them). It was certainly confusing to look up a tree seed and find that they can be bought from Olivia, except that tree seeds can't! Leevclarke 19:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC) I agree to get rid of this and have each seed article give proper (specific) information.
6. Chrislee33 06:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I think it would be less work to fix the template so that we could have a variable to decide which ways of obtaining them to include in the article. All seeds can be divided 3 groups that each have the same way of obtaining them. --Wowbagger421 03:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

1. I wrote this template originally and it was called with parameters showing only paragraphs relevant to specific seed. But it was changed during time and now is really pointles to have it as it is. --Alci987 08:19, 3 October 2007 (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 disassociate, remove links. Skill 18:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Dark RuneScape Wiki

Not an article this time, but an entire wiki needs to be deleted now. It may CLAIM to prevent scams, but all it really does is give its users ideas for other scams, which are OBVIOUSLY against JaGeX rules. Why have a wiki about RuneScape if all it's about is the ways to break certain rules? Not only that, but some of these scams are not even valid anymore, like armor trimming, because just about everybody (almost) doesn't fall for it anymore. If a person wishes to learn of scams, they can use OUR article here. Also, the skin it uses HURTS MY EYES. All in all, it should have never been made, and whoever made it should have thought of the consequences (other ideas for scams to use for dishonest players) before they made it.https://i.imgur.com/7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH _{(Actually Stinko)}

Support/Delete

1. Deleting a Wiki is perfectly fine.
2. This may not be the place to set up VFD, but where else?
3. The Wiki articles have this caption: "From the Dark Runescape wiki - Get Revenge!". That implies that players that got scammed should use the wiki to scam people back. Also, it's called "Dark" RSWiki, implying that it is to be used by people that appreciate the dark side. (Or people that like to scam people in general).

Doomedrusher^{|Talk||Contributions||Edit Count|} 12:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Finally, someone has the guts to do this. Stinkowing pretty much said it all. Opposers will probably retaliate by saying that some users have a sincere use for the wiki, but according to a recent poll the vast majority of the users use it to learn how to scam. --Themurasame ^Hiscores 13:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

But uhhhhh... Is this the right place to vote for the deletion of a wiki? I kind of doubt it, because it's seperate from this wiki. --Mura 13:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Delete, but merge into the scamming article. The content is not the problem, but the total disorganization is, and it dosen't seem to be getting better, so I assume no one cares anymore. Butterman62 01:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose/Keep

Not all of my reasons are good reasons, but these are reasons I'm opposing.

1. You can't just delete a wiki.
2. This isn't the place try to get it deleted.
3. The objective of the Wiki is/was to prevent scams, not teach people how to scam.
4. The background can just be fixed (by Gangsterls, not me).
5. The people who come to the Wiki are there to learn how to scam, but the Wiki discourages scamming, so the Wiki should not be deleted because of it's viewers. The people who go to the Cheats and Scam article are most likely there to learn how to scam. Chiafriend12Loon is best buttlord 20:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is an important wiki, and this isn't the place to ask for it to be deleted anyhow. ^{talk|editcount}21:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

What rhymes with Suppose? Oppose, for all of you are Wiki Greedy people. Nobody cares 'bout ya, mmkay? Beatsta, out. http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/6032/bt3sw5.png _{Done whoozy!} 21:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Cannot be done

A wiki that has been created cannot be deleted, merely abandoned by its editors. The only way to get rid of this is to forget about it and stop bringing attention to it. However, I feel that this should be changed into a vote on whether to totally disassociate ourselves with this wiki, i.e. removing all links from the RS wiki to the Dark RS wiki. There's no reason for us to link the the wiki at all, because RS wiki should stand alone. I do not think there are other wikis that do this (disregarding Halo wiki linking to the Halo fanon wiki) so neither should we. Christine^Talk 21:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We have some key people in common, but I really don't think we should link to it. The majority of readers come there to learn how to scam according to a recent poll. For that reason and the above reasons, it shouldn't be linked to on the main page or anywhere else. Dtm142 22:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If the Dark Runescape Wiki should stand alone, then tell me why it's being nominated for deletion on the RuneScape Wiki? Ever heard of Wikia Central? If you want the skin changed, have a vote on its talk page to change it back to the default or something, or make your own skin. The poll is irrelevant, as the articles do not explain how to perform a scam, they explain how to avoid a scam, so those who visit to learn how to scam will find no advice to interest them. Also, it encourages reporting rule-breakers, which should cut down on the number of scammers anyway. Finally, IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!!! RuneScape Wiki users have no right to vote on Dark Runescape Wiki issues, and should be minding their own business and not trying to delete other wikis... I'd oppose if deleting a wiki were possible anyway - the fact that it has survived and attracted its own contributors (over half of whom do not have RuneScape Wiki accounts) is an accomplishment, considerings many wikis are completely inactive and actually should be deleted.  Gangsterls  _talk23:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

We do have the right to vote on whether we should officially be affiliated with it. And I vote to remove the links. Just because the authors don't intend for the articles to teach scammers how to scam (your founder actually does, but that's another story). However, that's how they're being used. Once again, key people doesn't mean that we should link there. Dtm142 23:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Dark RuneScape Wiki does not teach people about how to scam.The articles teach how to prevent scams, and scammers who read the articles teach themselves how to scam. And if "RuneScape wiki stand alone", then why is there links to places like the Gaming Hub? RSW in other languages? All those links at the bottom of the main page? Chiafriend12Loon is best buttlord 23:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Notice that we link to only the hub, not specific sites like the Super Smash Bros. Wiki. It makes sense to link to the other RuneScape Wikis because they're about the exact same subject. If both were impossibly perfect, then they both would have the same content except in different languages. They're like additive inverses - the absolute value is the same, but in the opposite language. And the articles do give the scammers ideas. For example, I just read this article. I never knew about that scam, but now I'm free to take it and run with it. I'm not going to, but I could. But since I have common sense and know about the guild, I wouldn't have fallen for it even though I don't have the knowledge of people using that scam. Dtm142 23:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

However, I feel that this should be changed into a vote on whether to totally disassociate ourselves with this wiki, i.e. removing all links from the RS wiki to the Dark RS wiki.

Gangsterls, this is how it is our business, this is how it is not rs wiki voting on drs wiki's issues. This is about just us now. Christine^Talk 23:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well it didn't start out that way, and as I am indeed a member of the RSWiki, I'm entitled to participate in discussion and have my own opinions.  Gangsterls  _talk01:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll - should the RuneScape Wiki disassociate itself from Dark RuneScape Wiki?

Support: 9

Neutral/Pending: 1

Oppose: 1

Disassociate

1. Support Christine^Talk 23:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
2. Support Tarikochi 23:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Support, but allow people to link to it at will. This only applies to Userpages. http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/6032/bt3sw5.png _{Done whoozy!} 00:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
4. Support, per above. People should be able to link to it, at least. --Themurasame ^Hiscores 00:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
5. Support, in certain cases. While I don't think we should be linking in our content proper, we don't want to restrict what people can say in discussion. Links should be allowed in:
   1. All talk namespaces.
   2. User space.
   3. Project pages. (Edit: only those with discussions. 02:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC))
   4. Others that I missed that most readers (not editors) wouldn't be interested in much. Skill 00:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
6. Support. Pardon the language, but...what the fuck have I started...https://i.imgur.com/7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH _{(Actually Stinko)}
7. Support, but don't include it in project pages either. Dtm142 01:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
   1. There are discussions on project pages though, so linking should be allowed in those discussions. Elsewhere in project space, I agree. Skill 02:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
8. Support I hate linking to ANYTHING except the KB or official RS page. Linking to any other site drives people away from ours Atlandy 03:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you read what I wrote? It isn't linked anywhere besides the bottom of the main page, where other gaming wikis from Wikia's gaming hub are linked. If you want to disassociate and not link to other gaming wikis, you're disassociated from all of Wikia, not just DRSW. As far as the gaming links go, DRSW belongs there as much as any of the others do, as it is a gaming wiki. This entire page is about deleting something which can't be deleted. "Disassociating" from Wikia and removing the DRSW link is simply not possible.  Gangsterls  _talk04:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Does this seem reasonable? And shall I write a bot to figure out how many links there are to DRSW in article space? Skill 05:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

1. support. the way they are doing everything is wrong. they go into to specifics about how the scam is done instead of going into the specifics of how to avoid the scam and not be caught by it. until the creator and editors have began to understand that i vote to disassociate with the dark runecape wiki. 0blivi0n 03:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Leave things how they are

1. No good reason why to, and this is a VfD. Not a votes-for-disassociation. This is just one step towards taking away editors' freedom of linking. Chiafriend12Loon is best buttlord 00:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If you'd READ, then people can still link on userpages. Where do you propose we discuss disassociation then? Hmm? We don't have a "Votes for Disassociation" page because we've never associated with a site mostly used for cheating before. The main page is NOT the place to link to this wiki, so this is what we're voting on. Christine^Talk 00:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the ratio of scammers to sincere users is about 4:3 seems like a good reason to me. I know that people go there to protect themselves, but is that really a justification when most people go there to scam? --Mura 00:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral - Well there's no point linking to it if everyone is opposed to visiting it anyway. And users not only have the right to link it on userpages, we can also make a template like the Wikipedia User template and we can also link it in our signatures if we so wish. However, I'd like to point out that:

• Since the beginning of the summer there has been a sharp decrease in the number of editors who have written articles teaching how to scam, as most of these users have either left after realizing that the wiki was against scamming or been blocked. This also means that the ratio of scammers to sincere users, which Mura estimated at 4:3, has probably decreased to 1 in 5.
• Hyrule Link is not "my founder", as Dtm said, although he is the founder of DRSW. And, he has also left the wiki, so whether Dtm's inference that he intended to teach scams is true does not matter.
• The tagline which formally said "From the Dark Runescape Wiki - get revenge!" has been changed to read "From the Dark Runescape Wiki - follow the rules, or else!"

These may seem like small changes, but have decidedly changed the tone of DRSW for the better. I'm sure that many of you will remain unsatisfied and continue to support "disassociation" as you have called it. However, as long as DRSW and RSW are both wikis, and as long as they share the topic of RuneScape, RSW will be indirectly associated to DRSW.

By the way Dtm, I fell for the Ranging Guild Lure the first time I entered the Ranging Guild. Had I read that article, I wouldn't have. There will always be hundreds of players who will attempt the Ranging Guild Lure, but the Dark Runescape Wiki is probably the only website which tries to help players avoid such lures. Think about whether you've ever seen a site about scams or lures that was written with good intentions. Such a rare site is something to be admired, not scorned.  Gangsterls  _talk01:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Common sense and a basic knowledge of the Ranging Guild protects most people from such a scam. Jagex has also recently added a warning sign to alert new members of the guild that the tower inexplicably kills people. Again, I'm not saying that the articles are written with bad intentions. I'm saying that the articles give scammers ideas. Although you can block people from editting a wiki, you can't block them from reading it. Dtm142 01:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

New observation - the DRSW link is at the bottom of the main page next to the other wikis in Wikia's Gaming Hub. It's next to the World of Warcraft Wiki. It is paid no additional attention other than being a gaming wiki. It doesn't have a sister site link as RSW does on DRSW. So, there is nothing to remove. If you remove a link from the Gaming Hub, you're disassociating with the entire Gaming Hub and by extension, Wikia, which supports all wikis. There's nothing to remove so this entire vote is pointless. No matter what the vote is, DRSW will still be a gaming wiki.  Gangsterls  _talk02:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment to Clv309 (although quite late): When I posted my post at the top of this subsection there was nothing saying that users would be able to link a link to DRSW on their userpage. Chiafriend12Loon is best buttlord 02:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there was. Blanko suggested it before you commented and his idea is perfectly reasonable. Christine^Talk 19:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions are not final. Chiafriend12Loon is best buttlord 19:35, 13 September 2007 (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 remove fansite links (done weeks ago). Skill 20:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

RuneScape:Links

We shouldn't have other fan sites, the rest of the page is cool Atlandy 14:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Support: 2

Neutral/Pending: 0

Oppose: 2

Support

1. Atlandy 14:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Nomintator
2. Support...But why does this have to pass through a Vfd, why dont delete them right away, besides, VfD are for deleting pages ,not the content in them, we should erase the fansites and post the reason in the talk page.--Jigo22_{Have A Nice Day!!!}^Yay! 19:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
   1. Comment The reason I didn't just erase is because I have been admonished in the past for removing links to other fan sites Atlandy 21:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
      1. Sorry, i didnt know, but i stand on my position that if the page is on VfD it must be deleted completely if a consensus is reached, then the good links are going to be thrown away, so i must change my supporting position to Delete Fansite Links that is somewhat oppose to the deletion of the page.--Jigo22_{Have A Nice Day!!!}^Yay! 21:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
3. Support There should probably be something in policy somewhere that says old VfDs create a precedent... anyways, per RuneScape:Votes for deletion/Fan site. Skill 22:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral/Pending

Oppose

1. Nothing, besides the linking of other fan sites which won't like back, seems to be wrong with it. Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 19:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You didn't even read what Atlandy wrote ffs. Christine^Talk 19:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did. That's why I removed them and opposed. Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 19:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No, you didn't, because if you did then you'd see he didn't find anything wrong with the page and just implied links should be removed because "the rest of the page is cool." Christine^Talk 20:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

YES, I did. Whether or not he said it's cool, it's up for VfD, and I don't think it should be deleted. Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 21:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete Fansite Links we dont need them, but if the consensus is reached, we will lose our valuable links among all that trash, besides, we dont want users to go away from the wiki, or we do?--Jigo22_{Have A Nice Day!!!}^Yay! 21:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Comment See RS:NOT#BUREAUCRACY and/or wikipedia:WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY (whichever you prefer). Granted, neither is binding for the moment, but they are at least guidelines that say what wikis are not supposed to be. "Votes for deletion" doesn't necessarily mean deletion per se, but could mean proposal for a merge or in this case, removal of certain content. It is only listed on VfD because a wider consensus can be measured than on a talk page, and because there is no separate project page to discuss nominations of this type. Skill 22:52, 28 September 2007 (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. 23:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

God Realm

This page is mostly speculation about the God Realm and how the gods interact with it. The only solid information can be integrated into God Wars, if it isn't already there. Since no one talks about it, it's unlikely that there will ever be much information about the realm itself, therefore I don't think it needs a separate article. Skill 07:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete/Merge

1. Skill 07:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Atlandy 16:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
3. 100% fan fiction... Dtm142 22:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Export to the Runescape Fanon Wiki earth_(t)
5. Butterman62 02:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep

---

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. 23:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

2007 Raw Fish Dip

Support: 6

Neutral/Pending: 0

Oppose: 1

Merge: 2

Nominated for a few reasons:

1. POV-ish

2. Uncited

and

3. We don't have a page everytime a price increases/decreases. Tes ^Fan 12:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Tes ^Fan 12:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Support its not something we can document. Christine^Talk 21:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Atlandy 21:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
4. It's like having an article called Big birthday party in world 60. meh. Syugecin^spam 22:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Support - The incident may have occurred, but I have never been heard it called as such. Tarikochi 18:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Changed to delete. Thinking about it, "merge" means more like it gets a section in one of the articles. In all reality, it's simply not notable enough for coverage that stands on its own, and as such I'm changing my vote to delete. A passing reference as an example in the macro or economy guide articles is enough to provide the only information that is relevant to current players. Hopefully I worded that correctly. Skill 18:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. It was a huge price dip, and it also alerted players in how macroers affect the economy. earth_(t)

Merge

1. I vote merge with macro because it was notable, but, in my own opinion, should not have it's own article. Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 21:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
   1. Merge with macro and/or economy guide. It simply does not need its own article - it's just a price dip. Sure, it's significant and is an example of how bots affect the economy, but that doesn't mean it needs its own article. Skill 22:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Merge into Economy Guide. This price dip was colossal (sharks down 600gp). Indeed, it may even be on the scale of the World 111 Massacre, but this can be put in a new section on economy guide. Create a section there called 'Serious price changes' or something like that and put stuff like this there.--Andy mci 08:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
   1. Changing my vote to "merge with either macro or economy guide." Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 23:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Merge with Macro. It is related to macroers, yet not quite important enough for an article. Also, the article is a mess and the picture is useless. Butterman62 02:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments

In response to POV, I've cleaned up the article. earth_(t)

It is not a "significant event" in the fact that it only effected the prices for a short period of time. Also, the picture is completly useless and an attempt for someone else to "get their pic on the wiki". Atlandy 21:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That picture of Catherby is in this article because many bots and players fish there. And no, it's not mine. earth_(t)

There aren't even any bots in the picture.. Christine^Talk 21:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a handful of players in each spot, meaning that not all of them show on-screen. This will be added to the caption. earth_(t)

And the point of the picture is...? Atlandy 22:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

A popular place for fishing is Catherby. This is where bots and gold farmers fish, who were the primary cause of Fish Dip. earth_(t)

---

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 23:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC).

Fake image (3)

Archive 1

Archive 2

This article is useless. It's just a tutorial on how to make a fake image, yet it has seem to have survived deletion and been here a while. I think it should be deleted because as I said, It's useless. This doesn't belong on this wiki. --— ^En_ig^ma 01:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete As nominator --— ^En_ig^ma 01:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep It has helped me Alot and i go to it for help on making fake images. Dont delete! Liam - Beta Tester ^(talk) 18:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep but rename - While it's potentially informative it would probably be better to be renamed to "Fake images guide" as that's mainly what it is: a guide. Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 05:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep - As per above

Bonziiznob ^Talk

17:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete We are not a how to make fake images wiki. If someone needs information on how to do that, there is a whole internet out there. ‎Atlandy 14:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep -Per Kudos_2_U --Monkey139 22:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete - The RuneScape Wiki is not a guide on how to edit images. Dtm142 23:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep but rename - while this guide is informative it needs to be called "Fake Image Guide" it could also do with some expansion and cleanup.
 ^:[talk]: xEmptySkies _:[cont]:  15:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment Are we a fake images site? Isn't there a Fanon site? ‎Atlandy 16:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep - People come to this wiki to use this page, so it should be kept. User:C Teng/sig 14:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

CommentThat is a pretty broad statement. The only person who (on this RFA) said that is Rswfan‎Atlandy 14:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Nowhere in RuneScape will this ever help players. Babyvegeta93 16:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Calculating current scores I am currently Counting the scores now. Liam - Beta Tester ^(talk) 17:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Closed - No consensus has been reached and it has been well over two weeks. Andrew ^talk 23:08, 31 January 2009 (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. (Defaults to keep.) Ilyas Talk Contribs 16:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

SwiftSwitch

1. This program is not part of the game.

2. It is advertising the program, which isn't recommended by Jagex. Dtm142 19:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Current Votes:

• Delete - 2
• Keep - 8
• Merge - 3 (multiple suggestions: Player dictionary, Macro, Rule seven protest, Third-party program)

Delete

1. Delete It is an add-on and not supported by JagexAtlandy 19:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Delete. Why the *#%$ is it even a page?? Cool Spy0 02:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep

1. I vote either Keep or Merge. It is notable, but as Dtm has said, is advertising a program somewhat. I think it should be included in the a marcoing article because it used to be (and still is with some versions) reportable under rule 7 (macroing), or be included in Player Dictionary with maybe a sentence saying what it is (like "SS || SwiftSwitch, a program that used to allow players to bypass the world select screen."), or maybe even two sentences. Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 01:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC) EDIT: If kept, hopefully downsized.
2. Keep - Before I became an editor, this Wiki was my main source of knowledge about RuneScape because of its breadth. The RuneScape Wiki, unlike the official site and many of the fansites, covers (or, in-my-opinion, should cover) all aspects of the RuneScape game, whether they are official or unofficial. Like our disclaimer says ‘The RuneScape Wiki is in no way affiliated with Jagex’, and it therefore shouldn’t be constrained by things such as ‘It is advertising the program, which isn't recommended by Jagex’. While I accept that the Wiki shouldn’t follow in the steps of the Dark RS Wiki and advertise how to break rules etc., I do believe that it should cover as much of the RuneScape culture as possible. Swift switch is, or has been, an integral part of the game play experience to many players (myself not included). I believe that as a Wiki devoted to providing information about the game RuneScape, we should have an article dealing with this add-on. Dechaineux 02:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Keep Major add-on used by many players to make playing the game easier. This should be covered by us. Chrislee33 02:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Keep - The article is too large to be merged with another article, and would look out of place in any other article. The macroing article, the player dictionary, and the rule seven protest are already among our largest articles on elements of the RuneScape community/culture (although macros aren't a real part of the community). If it was only given a short summary in the player dictionary, we'd be deleting the majority of the content, which is largely accurate (and as for Oddly's idea - why would we need such an article or a disclaimer? We're an encyclopedia, we just present information). The article is informative, but it does need to be corrected to have a NPOV. The program's popularity itself is a reason for us to have this article, as recreation under various titles would occur if we did not, and the recreated articles woulds be much more biased than the article currently is. If we can affirm that the program can no longer be used in a manner which breaks Rule 7, I see no reason for us not to have the article. Also, in response to Dechaineux's statement that DRSW "advertises how to break rules": Read over DRSW's policies and articles more thoroughly; you'll find the opposite is true.  Gangsterls  _talk05:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
5. Keep. Anything else would be counterproductive to what should be an amalgamation of encyclopaedic knowledge about the project's subject. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 23:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Keep - This program is not part of the game, but it's highly related to it, somewhat widespread, and compliant with Jagex's rules in its current version. Patheticcockroach 08:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
7. Keep - per Chrislee33. Emosworld 05:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
8. Keep: per Patheticcockroach's reasoning. Christine^Talk 19:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Other

1. Merge into player dictionary because there might be someone who doesn't know what it is. Just a short entry that explains it's a toolkit. Skill 01:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Merge into Rule Seven Protest or Macro. Butterman62 01:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Merge with player dictionary, Rule seven protest or macro, or keep for reason stated in above subsection. Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 01:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Merge into some page that explains any third-party programs, supported or not by Jagex, with a disclaimer that you use said programs at your own personal risk. Oddlyoko ^talk 03:09, 29 October 2007 (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. As I noted below, it appears to have been partially fixed, and additionally has been reworded. Skill 20:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Easter ring glitch

It tells someone how to perform a glitch. It should be recreated once Jagex has fixed it, because, otherwise, it teaches players how to break rule 4.

Butterman62 22:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Support: 2

Neutral/Pending: 1

Oppose: 3

Comment - Neutral for the time being. Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 22:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrals and opposes should be "explained". Sorry Chia, just following the project rules. earth_(t)

Neutral - It's not a bug that gives an unfair advantage anyway. Patheticcockroach 09:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment I went in-game and tried it out, and it appears to have been fixed, at least partially. The ring will disappear a few seconds after you morph, whether you stay that way or not. Since something has been done about it, I'm not sure it breaks the bug abuse rule anymore, as most likely it was too difficult to fix completely. Skill 23:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone else can try it out too, to confirm this? (I don't have an Easter Ring) Butterman62 01:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Skill is right. Even if you start running around, the ring will stay around you for a few seconds, then disappear. --Lexmarkman^talk  01:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Same reason. Glitches are fun, but risky. The player should be careful Signed --WikiRuneScape Editor 02:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep - it just needs to be reworded so it isn't written like instructions on how to perform the glitch. It's just a graphical glitch anyway, there are a few others which haven't been fixed which we have articles on. It's nothing like the World 111 Glitch.  Gangsterls  _talk03:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - this can be saved for the Dark RuneScape Wiki. Emosworld 05:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Comment - It's not a bad bug, it's just a graphics problem. I don't see how it's dark and how it's bad? —83.100.226.100 (talk • contribs) forgot to sign this comment.

Changed to comment as anonymous users aren't allowed to vote. Skill 17:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Keep Just needs to be redone as so not to instruct the player how to activate the bug. Chukonu xbow 21:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I changed the so that it doesn't give instructions. Dunno if I interpreted you message correctly, but that means you now would like it kept. Thanks earth_(t)

Keep - No longer has any large chance of breaking rule 4. earth_(t)

But it's still in the history... Butterman62 01:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a graphical glitch... what's someone going to do? Figure out how to look at the previous revision, find out how to cause the glitch, and then...? There's no way to take advantage of a graphical glitch, they're just annoying.  Gangsterls  _talk02:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point...=) Butterman62 02:37, 6 November 2007 (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. 06:03, 20 November 2007

User lore

Now, this article would make sense if any of the myths listed were widely recognized. It isn't great to rely on Google searches, but a few of them show that the only cases where the myths might have standing are the black party hat and scythe ones. This still isn't enough to keep them however, as in each case they are simply mentioned by one of the larger fansites. I understand that some of these may have been more common a few years ago, but our wiki isn't about user myths that are no longer recognized. Skill 04:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Support: 5

Neutral/Pending: 1

Oppose: 0

Delete as nominator. Skill 04:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - we have kept this for the RuneScape Fan-fiction Wiki. Emosworld 05:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - It is now irrelevant to this wiki with another avaliable to take it. Even if not accepted, it is still unnecessary to list myths that are not often acknowledged at a later stage of a RuneScaper's time. Tarikochi 05:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Before people start saying "goes on RSFFW", I would like to say that this cannot be put on the RuneScape Fan Fiction Wiki because this is lore, and not fan fiction. Lore is myths and rumors often made from misconception and from it changing slightly from person to person (Something like "John Doe beat up some kids in class today!" could eventually turn into "John Doe beat up the whole class, and got expelled!".). Fan Fiction is intentionally fake stuff that are made for the sake of creation, as how authors write books.

Oh yeah, and neutral because it is kind of good to have a list of myths in the game, it's somewhat at the bottom of the priority of neediness of articles to kept (or something like that). Chiafriend12Loon is best buttlord 06:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete Per skill (I am too lazy to spell out the reason) Atlandy 17:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Christine^Talk 19:23, 2 November 2007 (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, no consensus (8 deletes and 6 keeps) after 3 weeks. 03:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Black party hat

I thought this would be covered under the fake image VFD, but apparently it isn't, so here goes. Black party hats have never existed and never will, and so to be allowed would have to come under the RuneScape:Non-existent item policy. However,

• It doesn't fall under criterion five, because it's not really a black/white item in the real sense. Most players, even newbies, aren't going to assume that because there is a white party hat there must be a black one.
• My opinion is that it doesn't fall under criterion four either, because the legend isn't widely recognized. I personally have never heard of it before coming here, and a quick Google search shows us as pretty much the only site that talks about this myth.

It would be nice if this discussion were about the merits of this argument rather than the merits of the previous deletions. Skill 06:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, it is mentioned on a few other sites as a myth or scam, but it doesn't appear to be widespread from the looks of it. I still think it isn't enough to keep it under criterion four. If someone wants to nominate user lore as well, go ahead, but I don't have the time right now. Skill 07:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Support: 8 Deletes

Neutral/Pending: 0

Oppose: 6 Keeps

Delete as nominator. Skill 06:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep - As quoted from RuneScape:Non-existent item policy, "#Articles about notable urban legends are allowed to be created if the rumour has been recognized by many players.". This is notable. If you search "black party hat" on Google, you will get 1,260,000 hits. If you search "black party hat runescape" you will get 23,900 hits (a note about the second number of hits: most pages about items in RuneScape do not contain the word "RuneScape", and so there would be far more than 23K hits if every page had "RuneScape" in it).

Most everyone else in RuneScape I know (most of these people have been playing for more than one year, in case that matters) knows about the myth.

Also, as quoted from RuneVillage, "These [party hats] are by far the most famed rare Item in all of Runescape, these came from Christmas Crackers. They came in six different colors, not seven as there is not a Black Party Hat." shows that they recognize the myth as notable. Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 07:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of the hits are for "party hat" not "black party hat". If you look at this search it's more representative of the actual results. (And there are a few results from eBay in there as well.) Same goes for the forums, I couldn't find black party hats anywhere except the stories forum. Skill 14:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We have articles on things that most players wouldn't even consider searching for. Unless an editor can find a rant about haystacks or some other obscure thing, Black party hat should be kept. They still do get hits in the Forums. earth_(t)

Haystacks exist, while black party hats do not. It is fairly well-established consensus that things like haystacks deserve articles. Black party hats, however, have to fall under the non-existent item policy in order to get an article, specifically criteria four and five. Five was designed primarily for metal items; in my opinion, it doesn't apply here, due to the low likelihood that one would assume there must be a black hat based on the fact there is a white one. It doesn't meet four, either, because the lack of mention by players and low Google/forum hits. Skill 22:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As quoted directly from RS:NIP (not the redirect page, but the page that it redirects to), "Articles about notable urban legends are allowed to be created if the rumour has been recognized by many players.". The myth about the Black party hat would most likely be able to be recognized by over 25% of RuneScape players who have been playing for more than six months, and not the people who play for three months, then quit. No offense meant towards them, but they are often newbies, and don't know much about RuneScape culture. Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 22:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Pops up regularly on the forums. Makes it notable if you ask me. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 07:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any mention from a variety in the forums, let alone regular. Tarikochi 02:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete There are tons of items that are "user lore", or "made up by so and so". There is no reason for the item to get its own article. Something on the party hat page such as "there are 6 colours, no nore, no less" would be just fine to cover itAtlandy 14:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete - This rumor was first expanded when a user in Wikipedia named J.J.Sagnella created an article about it back when it was allowed. It somehow made its way here and fakes were created for it. It has been shown not to exist, and while I heard about the rumor during RuneScape Classic days, it is a very rare one that I haven't heard in years before anything involving Wikis.

Those searches you made on Google are not very relevant Chia, as the first one included non-RuneScape results, and the second have no quotes, therefore it could just be searching "Black Kiteshield", "Party Hat", and RuneScape in the same page.

Finally, the non-existent item policy stated it must be widely recognized, and only one site listed has pointed it out, which may have been influenced by the RSWiki or Wikipedia back when it was an article in the first place. Therefore, it can only resort to the other sections of the policy, in which it failed. Tarikochi 02:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per RS:NIP. --Mura 04:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-existent items can have their own articles. See bullet 4. earth_(t)

Delete per Mura. We've also got the RuneScape Fan-Fiction Wikia for this. Emosworld 05:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Should be on Fanon. Christine 19:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep!!!. I've heard this discussed many times between RuneScape forums, alternative forums and between RuneScape players. I Believe it has made its way to be imbedded in RuneScape's history, even though it is a myth. Someday, I could see a section popping up about this mythical item in the RuneScape website Lores and Histories area.

Also I have a quote from a RuneScape player-created website "When crackers were first opened there was a very minute chance you would get a black party hat. These came out of crackers just like any other hat, but were so rare only 2 or 3 of them ever existed."

The quote continues, but basically it proves, from an experienced long-term player that they did exist.User:Playa1313 04:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

That isn't proof. --Mura 04:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If black party hats existed, then why aren't they even mentioned on most fansites? Surely there would be more than one person from that period who saw one. It's not as if everyone who was playing in late 2001 has since disappeared. Skill 05:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Black party hats have never existed. Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 06:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

But they are still rumours that are considered true by some players. Meh, never mind. earth_(t)

Keep Assuming there are always at least three threads about it in the Official Forums at any time, this article should be kept per RS:NIP. earth_(t)

Delete I had never heard of this item before... seeing it on the Votes for deletion page... Patheticcockroach_(Talk) 08:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete. I cannot find a reference to this being such a big myth. The only thread about it on the RuneScape forums is a story, and the only major fansite that even talks about it is at http://runevillage.com/rs2SpecialReports/rs2specialRares.php, which says:

"These [party hats] are by far the most famed rare Item in all of Runescape, these came from Christmas Crackers. They came in six different colors, not seven as there is not a Black Party Hat."

And that’s it. Pretty much the only reference I can find is people saying "no it doesn’t exist". If someone made a page on another fansite and said "nope dragon underpants don’t exists", that wouldn’t be qualification for an article, so I don’t believe this should be an article either. Tes ^Fan 18:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep Chrislee33 09:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep, fake items that are notable (for example, the dragon full helmet. Which is now a valid item) are able to be kept. Blanko 09:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Jagex has already announced that they will never drop anymore tradable holiday items, and so this will NEVER become a "valid" item. Christine 15:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't mean they won't drop a black party hat in Christmas 2007, 2008 and beyond. earth_(t)

Cough...yes it does. O.o JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 18:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but they could drop "Dragon underpants" in Christmas 2007, 2008 and beyond. Doesn't mean we should have an article about it =P Tes ^Fan 17:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

But the black party hat already has some record of, you know, rumours, and isn't something one player just made up in their head to prove their point. =O earth_(t)

Rumours are just that..Rumours, and do not deserve pages. Atlandy 18:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

But it is still notable. A legend can still be a rumour. earth_(t)

That is a poor arguement. You are saying that anything notable (your word) in RS deserves a page. Atlandy 18:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying otherwise? JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 19:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It helps to have more than one other person arguing on my side, too. earth_(t)

How is this notable? one fansite makes a passing reference to it, and that's it. Tes ^Fan 19:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any fansites making references to haystacks either. earth_(t)

Yes, but unlike a black party hat, Haystacks exist in the game world. Any of the 10 million accounts can go out and see one. Tes ^Fan 20:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The black phat has never existed, nor will it. I haystack is part of the game. I dont see how you can argue any different Atlandy 20:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you actually paid attention to discussed the haystacks? They're only here for scenery. The black phat, on the other hand is mentioned by some players. earth_(t)

By that poor rationale, I think there should be a page on Dancing with the Stars because Dancing with the Stars "is mentioned by some players." Your agruement Atlandy 20:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

For ****'s sake, stop bashing the other side. This is VfD, not "how to correct someone's lapsed argument". earth_(t)

Comment Haystack is not up for deletion, while black party hat is. VFD is supposed to be a debate over the interpretation of a relevant policy, in this case RS:NIP. It can reasonably be inferred that the policy was intended not to cover every myth and legend, but only those which new players might think are in fact true. The black party hat myth is somewhat widely recognized, however everyone knows it to be a myth. Skill 21:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone... JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 21:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

About as often as dragon platebodies are thought to exist, I think. Not enough to warrant an article. Skill 21:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

We should temporarily close this nomination until RS:NIP is thoroughly explained. earth_(t)

Replacing that policy is one of the ten or so things on my "to do" list. It has been noted by others that it wasn't written all that well. Skill 21:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't cross out comments on a VFD. It's very confusing, especially when I'm scrolling down and trying to read comment after comment which is crossed out. There's no reason to cross them out, even if they are mostly pointless and irrational argument.  Gangsterls  _talk21:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I found one of them particularly strange: Atlandy's statement that according to Earthere's rationale, we should have a page on Dancing with the Stars because it is mentioned by some players. Just to make it clear, I'm fairly sure that Earthere only meant topics related to RuneScape which are discussed by players, not irrelevant subjects. Those kind of comments might seem witty, but use some common sense - it was understood that Earthere only meant RS topics. Discussion like that is just trash which leads us nowhere except intentional argument. Fighting over these VFDs is a waste of everyone's time. Skill's comment about the interpretation of the RS:NIP policy was much more lucid, although I don't necessarily agree with his point of view (but I don't want to express one on this VFD because of all the flaming). And it's not just Atlandy or just a few people, it's almost everyone. Vote, explain your argument, however flawed it may be, and don't make comments to pick apart each other's arguments. I type too much... Just stop the lunacy. It's not funny, not that big a deal, and a VFD is not worth going to war over.  Gangsterls  _talk21:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that crossing out is stupid. As far as my agruement goes, I was not flaming him, just using his logic to validate my arguement. To discuss, or argue over something (no matter how relevant) is how things are done on the wiki. Everyone has the right to thier opinion, He thinks it should stay, I say go..His arguement is "because people talk about it" mine is "people talk about alot of things". All of my arguements for and against anything are not "flaming" or "personal". Healthy discussion is needed to make sure that this wiki is the most it can be. If we just let every article in, the wiki would be pointless. We as a whole should discuss concerns over certain articles and vote to see what stays and what goes. Some of you get mad that others "get so worked up". Why does that matter to you? If I want to discuss black phats..then I should be allowed to, as long as I dont make any personal attacks (which I dont). Atlandy 22:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, everyone has a right to an opinion. My problem wasn't with your argument, it's with the type of argument in general going on around here. The specific case doesn't matter, the bottom line is that we aren't getting anywhere. Continue to argue as much as you like, but the goal here is consensus on a VFD, and I don't see that happening.  Gangsterls  _talk22:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Tesfan said, "How is this [black party hat] notable? one fansite makes a passing reference to it, and that's it.". Though the word "passing" could vary from person to person, this is not true.

• As quoted from RuneVillage, "These [party hats] are by far the most famed rare Item[...]came in six different colors, not seven as there is not a Black Party Hat.".
• As quoted from the RuneScape Wiki, "There is a myth believed by some players that Black party hats existed for a while in RuneScape Classic.".
• As quoted from RuneScape Fan Fiction, "The myth says that black party hats no longer exist because Jagex declared them "not festive enough,"".
• As quoted from home.no/luola33, "When crackers were first opened there was a very minute chance you would get a black party hat. These came out of crackers just like any other hat, but were so rare only 2 or 3 of them ever existed.".

This shows that four sites (there would be more if someone did a more thorough search) make a reference to the black party hat, though, as said above, "passing" will vary from person to person. Chiafriend12I have 12 friends. 04:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

FFS. You can't use the article that we're considering deleting and a FAN FICTION - FAKE wiki as "proof". Duh! Christine 19:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Our own article doesn't count, and the fanfiction wiki doesn't count. That's really only two mentions. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 19:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Disregarding the two that stem from the article we're considering, there is one top 10 fansite, and one minor site. As mentioned above, the latter's claims are of dubious accuracy, and judging by its content it hasn't been updated since 2004 or so. The other site mentions black party hats at passing most likely because someone asked about it in the past. Are these two references enough to justify keeping this article? Skill 21:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No >_> Christine 03:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you guys aren't giving the black party hat enough credit.. it's not as rare a myth as it may seem. I searched and found some interesting information as to where the myth may have started:

• In this thread on the RS Bits & Bytes forums, three different players said that they saw Andrew Gower wearing a black party hat in RSC although none were dropped.
• The author of this thread on the RuneCrypt forums asks what the price of a black party hat is. Out of five responses, two people say that black party hats existed but were changed to white party hats, and another person mentions a thread on the official forums which claims that all Jagex moderators have a black party hat.
• This thread on the Sythe.org forums (I found Sythe.org while searching, but it appears to be a RS forum for general topics, in-game trading, and account trading / real world item trading, so it is one of the darkest corners of the RS community...), entitled "Do you believe in the black phat?" includes a poll in which 23 voters said they did believe in the black party hat and 29 voters said that they didn't believe in the black party hat. That's 23/52 votes total, or about 44% of voters who do believe in the black party hat. Six posters said that Jagex moderators (one claimed to have seen pictures of Andrew Gower wearing one, but wasn't sure about other Jagex moderators) were seen wearing black party hats in RSC, and one poster said that there was a bug which allowed berries from The Golem quest to be used to dye a party hat black, but the bug was fixed by Jagex and the party hat was removed from the game.

I'm not trying to say that this is an item which definitely existed, but in addition to the links which Chia posted, there's a vague acknowledgment of the black party hat as either a former item for Jagex moderators only or a popular myth in the RS community. The evidence for its existence isn't solid, but there are several people on multiple websites who tell very similar stories. Whether Jagex moderators wore them in the past, they still exist, or they are only a myth, this isn't an isolated rumor. Black party hats are mentioned on RS Bits & Bytes, RuneCrypt, and RuneVillage - all popular RS fansites. Although the Sythe.org forums encouraged rule-breaking, there's no denying that the people there play RuneScape and have heard rumors of a black party hat. There's no universal agreement among them, but 44% said they believed in the black party hat... that's a very high percentage compared to the suggestion that it was just a rare rumor.  Gangsterls  _talk04:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, I think we can call this VFD a no consensus. I've already said enough; delete or keep, it doesn't matter to me.  Gangsterls  _talk04:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

---

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