RuneScape:Votes for deletion

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape

Shortcut: RS:VFD

Archives 27 July 2006 - 14 April 2007 15 April 2007 - 3 August 2007 5 August 2007 - 9 October 2007 14 October 2007 - 22 November 2007 1 December 2007 - 21 May 2008 22 May 2008 - 25 July 2008 25 July 2008 - 1 September 2008 1 September 2008 - 23 February 2008 27 February 2008 - 22 August 2009 22 August 2009 - (Listed by closing date.)

If a new article is filled with nonsense, SPAM, or offensive material, nominate it for speedy deletion. {{d|Explanation}}

As a wiki there will be some pages that are not up to standard. On this page, listed are all the current articles whose value has been questioned. We invite all users to participate in the discussion as to whether these articles are acceptable or not. The pages listed will be voted on to reach a consensus. Once a consensus has been reached or a length of time has passed, an administrator will review the discussion and decide what action should be taken.

Contents 1 How to list an article 2 Positions 3 Speedy deletion 4 For administrators 4.1 Archiving 5 Pages listed for deletion 5.1 Sailing 5.2 Money making guide/Firemaking 5.3 File:Black party hat.PNG 5.4 Evil tree animations 5.5 SwiftKit 5.6 Gravy Boat of Saradomin 5.7 RuneScape:No page 5.8 Category:Active users 5.9 Template:Quest spoiler 5.10 Dragon Slayer/Pure's Guide 5.11 Calculators/Runecrafter loss in air running 5.12 File:Detailed Dfh.png 5.13 Free-to-play Runecrafting training --- sub articles

[edit] How to list an article

1. Put {{Vfd}} on the page to be deleted and save.
2. Click this article's entry.
3. On the page, place ===[[Page name]]===, then your reason. Save.
4. Come to RuneScape:Votes for deletion and add {{RuneScape:Votes for deletion/Page name}} to the bottom of the page.

[edit] Positions

There are multiple positions that can be taken in a VfD.

• Delete Supporting the nomination to delete the page in question
• Keep Opposing the nomination to delete the page in question
• Neutral No support or oppose to the nomination
• Comment Comment given analysis of the VfD or nominated page itself. If the commenter has not already taken a position, this is usually considered to be Neutral, though the text may lean in favor of deleting or keeping.
• Merge A compromise between deleting and keeping the page in question. Usually the merge will be done with a larger but related page.

[edit] Speedy deletion

Main article: RuneScape:Criteria for speedy deletion

Found a blank page? A duplicate? A misspelling? A page filled with nonsense? Try using a speedy deletion instead. Simply type '''{{d|reason for speedy deletion}}''' on the page and the page will appear in Category:Speedy deletion candidates. An administrator will check the page and make a decision without the voting process.

[edit] For administrators

[edit] Archiving

1. Determine the consensus on the Vfd entry.
2. Add {{Vfd top|Decision}} ~~~~ to the top of the nomination and {{Vfd bottom}} to the bottom of the nomination.
3. Act on the outcome of the VfD.
   1. If the result is Keep, add {{Previous vfd}} to the talkpage of the page in question, and remove the {{Vfd}} from the article.
   2. If the result is Delete, delete the article, but do not delete the talkpage (per RS:DDD).
   3. If the result is No consensus, do not delete the article, but add {{Previous vfd-no consensus}} to the talkpage.
4. Archive the entry in the latest archive.

[edit] Pages listed for deletion

[edit] Sailing

Delete - Sailing is no different to all the other skill suggestions that players suggest, apart from that people faked photos about sailing so Jagex came out and confirmed that the photos were fake. If Sailing was allowed to exist, then that gives the go ahead for anyone to make an article on any possible skill they can think of. Crystal chanting?? Necromancy?? Dragon Riding?? Sheep Shearing?? There are many popular theories on the next skill in the Future updates forum which probably deserve a page before Sailing. They all have the same, if not more, evidence pointing towards them and they also have the advantage of not being confirmed false many times be Jagex. The RuneScape Wiki is not for speculation, yet speculation is all that Sailing is. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 01:42, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - The point of the page was to remove the large trivia section from the Hiscores page. None of the information in it is speculation, it is all stuff that was talked about widely among players. 01:47, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Speculation is when players talks (speculates) about something which they think will be added to the game, but has not been confirmed by Jagex. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 01:53, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

keep - agree jagex has lied about a lotof other things.   Ppi802   22:09, November 28, 2009 (UTC) DeleteMerge - People are gullible and stupid. They'll believe anything. If we had an article for every rumour that was spread around, we'd have more rumour than fact here. Psycho RobotTalk 01:49, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Changed to Merge, that's what I originally meant but put delete for some reason Psycho RobotTalk 14:04, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Absolutely and positively. While I will admit that we don't need an article about every rumor and concept in the game, this one is nearly legendary in terms of its persistence on the RSOF and nearly every other fan site as well. No, this doesn't compare to discussion about Necromancy or even a parody "Sheep Shearing" skill. While I admit that this wiki shouldn't be a crystal ball, this page certainly can and IMHO should include the very many quotes by Jagex staff and other official pronouncements about this concept. While it has never been confirmed by Jagex to be an upcoming skill, it has certainly been confirmed explicitly that the next skill to be released will not be sailing. That by itself is a fairly substantial statement. Of the tens of thousands of RSOF posts about this topic.... something should at least be listed on this wiki if for nothing else than an unusual phenomena related to the RSOF alone. The Riots articles have far less in terms of confirmation and statements of an official nature than this article. The article should stick with mostly those official pronouncements. --Robert Horning 03:39, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

To me, having it denyied by Jagex does not make it page worthy, it just might make it trivia worthy at most. There have been many rumours that have had to be denyed by Jagex due to their widespread knowledge such as the free items in soul wars and the godsword duplication glitch, both of which have been removed from the wiki since they did not exist. I realise that the second example don't show any evidence of the Jagex response, but I do remember then denying it. The inclusion of denyed rumours on the wiki is not a one off thing, they have been included before and they have always been removed without complaint. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 06:11, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

*Denied. Evil yanks, perhaps you might want to consider the notability of this rumour, unlike the two you've just mentioned (which I've never heard of incidentally), Sailing has been brought up dozens of times and talked about several times by Jagex moderators. C.Chiam^Talk 06:25, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the spelling thing, I didn't realise. While I knew quiet a bit about both examples due to reading the forums at the time, they seemed noteable enough to be near common knowledge to me. I feel that the amount more that Sailing is asking for makes up for that. They were not worthy of being a paragraph on a much larger page since they were only denied by Jagex on the forums once. Just becuase sailing was denied once officially by Jagex in a Q&A and once unofficially in a conversation with a famous player, that makes Sailing worthy of having an entire page to itself?? _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 06:45, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

On top of the Q&A and the conversation with a famous player, there have been two forum posts by Jagex moderators according to the article. Seeing as the Wiki is an enyclopaedia for RuneScape, I see no reason to not document a reasonably notable rumour such as this. C.Chiam^Talk 06:51, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

One post doesn't deny Sailing (this one), it just says "Jagex are not willing to disclose any information at this moment". The second post (this one) is probably the most debated post in the Future Updates forum. Both the "sailing is real" and the "sailing is false" arguments quote either the first or second part of the post as evidence for or against sailing. I can understand where both come from, and didn't include it for this reason. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 07:07, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Just to comment on it being mentioned in a Trivia rather than a page, it was before I moved it. Sailing was a redirect to Hiscores#Trivia where it enveloped pretty much the whole Trivia section. It was more than worthy of its own article if there was that much information. Sailing is one of the most recognised topics in RuneScape. RS Wiki should cover everything that is notable, that is what Sailing is, IMHO and other users'. Even Jagex recognises Sailing as a common topic among player, one mod has even said he hasn't ruled it out completely as a future skill (not the new one coming though). Think about how many players will search "sailing runescape" in Google. Right now they find videos and old forum topics. Pretty much nothing on the RS Wiki (yet). Anyway, my 2 cents. Chicken7 _>talk^>sign 23:48, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that there have been far more than just two forum posts by Jagex moderators on this topic. It is more like a couple dozen, and an in-game clan chat by Mod MMG (the CEO of Jagex), along with a retraction of what he said in the clan chat (how many times has that ever happened?) If a subject of a rumor has the attention of the CEO of Jagex and has received formal discussion about the issue... doesn't it at least deserve some sort of note on this wiki? --Robert Horning 14:32, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

Jagex never prove nor disprove sailing on the forums. I have only ever seen them give a boring generic response saying that they are not willing to give anything away, like the photo on the page shows. Take this thread. It is the main "sailing is a possible skill" thread and it doesn't have any evidence of Jagex denying it on the forums. If sailing was told by Jagex mods on the forums that it does not exist, then chances are that someone who has seen this message will probably post on the thread going "nya nya nya, Jagex just said that sailing isn't a skill on this thread" and since the owner tries to answer all questions, this would kill the thread very quickly. This has never happened though, leading me to believe that Jagex never say anything about sailing that is notable on the forums.

Currently with a page called "sailing" on the wiki, when you search for "sailing RuneScape" in google you get the RuneScape wiki at number 28 with the hiscores page, not sailing. Not a great result. The main problem for me with sailing being called notable is that it would open the door to so many more concepts. The reason why sailing took up such a large amount of the trivia was not because Sailing is specifically notable, it is because someone decided to write that much on the subject. If I really wanted to, I could write a large article on "horse riding" and place it in the trivia of Forums since it is probably the most commonly created thread. This does not mean that Horse riding should become an article by itself simply because it is large enough to be split from the trivia.

Also, sorry all about how agressive my argument has been. Sailing threads really annoy me, they are probably the third most commonly created spam thread on the forums. (behind horse riding suggestions and any thread that Soldier creates ^{He doesn't even need to be in the conversation for me to insult him}) All the threads about sailing say the same three points (Please consider this jagex; you can sail places, and the higher your sailing level, the bigger your boat!; it will be the most popular skill ever!) and only exist for about 10 mins before it is forgottern. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 01:29, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any of the info on the article says "You get a cool boat and you can sail from Port Phasy to Port Tyras and then you can have pirate wars in your own minigame!" It all is about the common theories and the comments Jagex has made. And also, the fact that RS Wiki is 28th for "sailing runescape" is a bad thing. Once the article has been around for awhile, the ranking will/should go up. If there is no article, we have no coverage on the topic. And no problem for being aggressive. Chicken7 _>talk^>sign 05:17, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

I think the anti-sailing community is an interesting phenomena as well. Prior to the big video that sparked off the controversy, there were a couple other fairly well written sailing suggestion threads that were more typical to other skill suggestion threads (not the parody ones that seem to keep poping up now). I think it was just some player who was bored and wanted to bring attention to his topic and made a big splash. I don't think anybody else is going to get away with any sort of similar "spoof" in the way that sailing has produced. That is my point: This is notable. Love it or hate it, sailing has become a part of the Runescape culture even if it never becomes a skill.

BTW, if you want to see a "spoofed" skill, I created this image a while back to "dis-prove" those claiming sailing was a legitimate skill: The "New" skill called "Truth". I ought to create a similar spoof that is for Wiki-editing. It would be fun, but besides the point. I'm not saying to keep this article because it is a pointless skill (I won't debate the merits or lack thereof for this as a skill in this context), but it is something that has become notable. That you are tired of seeing new threads on sailing sort of emphasizes the point. --Robert Horning 01:51, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

To me, the spam threads point towards many/most players not knowing about sailing, thus why they think it is a new suggestion. Many players must be ignorant about the "phenomena" for it to be so commonly suggested on the forums.

I feel like both sides of this argument ^{(I could say that I am the leader of my side!)} have drawn a line and are unlikely up budge on the subject. You both feel it is notable due to being a well known phenomena, I feel it is not notable due to lack of impact. Do you want to agree to disagree?? I feel this will never reach a reasonable conclusion, no matter how long we debate it for. We can continue debating if you want though. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 07:24, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that the choices for resolution are rather stark: Let this article continue (typically the result of a lack of resolution or consensus) or get it deleted. Yes, I know that the suggestion is to merge this into the Hiscores article, but as I've pointed out that this is starting to dominate the "parent" article due to the volume of content about the topic. Compromise just doesn't seem like a viable option here.

A great part of this is to try and determine just what might be notability standards for something of this nature. OK, I'll bite at least on that principle: What could possibly be established as a notability standard that could be universally applied to other content as well besides this topic? This has been raised in other discussions in other contexts, such as the beforehand mentioned Black partyhat. I believe general topical articles about the Runescape community at large ought to be written that don't necessarily relate to a specific pieces of in-game content covered under RS:GRAN. Are you suggesting here, Evil yanks, that all such similar articles ought to be deleted as well? If not, can we come up with a consensus at least of what would be notable for inclusion in terms of articles about topics that impact the larger Runescape community? Preferably some sort of standard that could be objective and not subjective based on somebody's personal preferences? (not entirely unavoidable, but it would be a good goal) --Robert Horning 16:45, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

I think one of the big problems was that the Sailing section was very repetitive and had too many resources which said the same thing (Jagex said sailing is a lie!). I feel that the sailing section could be trimmed to a more managable size to make it easier to merge into another article. to be honest merging it into High Scores seems illogical to me, but we COULD make a Rumours/Myths article and have it there, along with other notable myths such as Black partyhat. Psycho RobotTalk 16:48, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

I really can't think any way in which all articles could be judged by one universal indicator easily with minimal human imput. The only way that I can think of would be something really complicated where you would have a point system with many criteria, with each point on the criteria having different weighting depending on how important it is and needing to have "x" points to be considered notable. It would be very complicated, so people would probably replace it with common sense for simplicity sake when deciding whether an article should be included or not. The only other option I can think of is to have an individual case-by-case discussion on each proposed article, which is definitely not a policy.

While I do feel that the Sailing article should not be on the wiki, I feel that I have blown everything out of proportion. Having a sailing page wont have much of an effect on the wiki if it remains as a standalone article, not being used as an excuse to create similar articles. "Since there is an article on Sailing, there should also be one on ____".

To Psycho - I am afraid if a Myth and Rumour page is created it will become a massive behemoth of obscure rumours that can't be proved, like the Glitch pages currently are. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 07:16, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

So is that a forfeit from the debate, evil yanks? You are both right, we all have our opinions, and it doesn't seem like we're gonna budge. In the end, I think that covering the information is better than having no info at all or having it stuck in a small section somewhere. And I have the same fear about a "myths" page as evil. Chicken7 _>talk^>sign 11:40, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

I always thought that the point of this debate was to try to explain to Robert why my stance on the subject is like it is, and if possible on rare occasions to convince him otherwise. If that is what you want me to say, then I forfeit. I still think otherwise on sailing, though I do feel that I am alone with that opinion. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 05:38, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

So it'd be up to us to keep it trimmed. Its easily preventable and easily fixed. Psycho RobotTalk 05:42, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

That is the point of the debate. But truly, I don't know if it is possible to convince Robert otherwise One question: you say you feel otherwise on Sailing, do you mean the skill being implemented, or having the article? Chicken7 _>talk^>sign 09:34, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

<--- Resetting the tabs to make the discussion readable

What I was referring to in terms of how to objectively suggest if an article is notable is to use a test (perhaps unique to this wiki) that most can use and point to that suggests notability. On Wikipedia, a common tool to use is the "Google test" and compare how many times the term is used on other web pages. If the terms shows up on just a couple of web sites, notability can be questioned with cause. Also, there are other similar test in terms of the number of potential sources of information and the quality of those sources. Heck, sailing as a skill article on Wikipedia might just fit Wikipedia's own definition of notability on its own. Writing it up as a cultural phenomena certainly could attract some attention... there on Wikipedia. In terms of notability on this wiki, I would suggest that multiple substantive j-mod statements (not... hmm... this is an interesting idea) and references to discussion on multiple fan sites would be a bare minimum for notability. The article on Riots fits this criteria, as to several other articles about the RS culture. Black partyhats perhaps don't fit this criteria, and skill suggestions like the others used in comparison above clearly would not meet this kind of criteria. All of this is objective and not subjective. If it can be argued that Sailing doesn't fit this sort of objective criteria for which other similar articles on this wiki are kept... I'd be fine for its deletion.

My assertion is that no matter what sort of objective notability criteria you might use for keeping those other articles, it would have to include sailing as a skill as well. This doesn't have to be complicated, but a gut reaction of "I hate the concept of this as a skill" doesn't qualify and isn't a valid argument. We are not talking about if you like sailing as a skill, but rather if this article is notable enough to keep on this wiki, or if this is something that is the product of just one or two users. Considering we don't even have consensus on which article the content mentioned here ought to be merged into even if an article content merger is the "solution", I'd have to suggest there is absolutely no consensus for any action at all for the moment. --Robert Horning 12:38, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like consensus is to merging it, that's what a significant majority of people here have put as their votes. I realise there's no consensus as to where it should be merged TO... but that's something we could discuss on the talk page, or the yew grove. Psycho RobotTalk 16:43, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

To me it is impossible to find the correct "criteria" method to encompass all possible variations. Since there are only a few such RuneScape culture related articles created a month (year?), I think that the influx can easily be controlled and determined be general consensus from the community. Unlike Wikipedia, we don't have dozens of articles created every minute. I can see how the criteria would be necessary if the wiki had maybe a dozen+ of these articles a month so it would become too big of a task to be monitored properly, yet it seems a bit like overkill here.

I am not sure how everyone has got the perception that I was only opposing the page because I hated the skill. While I probably argued it more strongly at the start because of that, I do genuinely feel that the page should not be on the wiki. I don't think that the wiki should say "you can't make an article on these kind of things... unless it is on sailing, which is allowed since it was mentioned by Jagex in a Q&A". It is much simpler to just say that all of those kind of articles are not allowed, without making any exceptions. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 06:13, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that I sound like I am just refusing to include criteria, without any reason why. Let me say what I meant. Take the Slang dictionary, World 111 Glitch and Pure. All the articles are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Jagex would never say anything about street slang worth noting, not would they comment on the World 111 glitch, instead prefering to lock all threads mentioning it and telling people not to discuss glitches on the forums. I can't vouch for the Fansite forums since I have never been on any, yet I assume that if they don't have a page 51 minster then threads on all those subjects probably will exist. All the articles would still not be allowed by the criteria however since they don't pass the Jagex test. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 06:56, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - per Robert and Caleb's arguments/points above. Cheers, Chicken7 _>talk^>sign 23:48, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Merge I think we should have an article called something like "Myths and urban legends", with a section for each appropriate entry, and have Sailing redirect to it. RuneScape does have its own set of unofficial player-generated rubbish, and keeping it all in one place may be a compromise that everyone can agree on. Rare black lobsters are another example.  ;-) Compare with the Trivia article. But I think this should be acknowledged and documented, and should not simply be deleted. Leevclarke ^talk 23:39, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - A good idea, although this myth/rumour is very well-known. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any other myths or urban legends (although there would be). This just needs to be a exception of RS:CRYSTAL, and then the other ones should not have their own article, but mentioned on their respective page. Like if there is one about a Slayer Guild or something, mention it there. I believe if we had a Myths and urban legends article, it'd attract too much people adding things that aren't notable. It is hard to define what is notable and what isn't, in my opinion, Sailing is. Here is a discussion when the wiki last tried to define if something is notable enough. Chicken7 _>talk^>sign 00:13, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

Merge - Per Leevclarke. A page to put all those semi-unconfirmed dispelled fakes would be nice. Doucher4000^******r4000 23:58, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Merge (Changed to Keep) - Per Leevclarke. Too prevent it from being constantly re-added to other articles and whatnot, the best known myths eventually end up having a portion of an article or their own article for being infamous. 00:02, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that it was merged into another article, and it ended up having so much information that is swamped and overwhelmed the other article. It really deserves to have its own full article for those contributors who want to extend and expand the actual commentary by Jagex on this topic. There have even been some fairly recent discussions... by Jagex staff... about this subject as well, and that information deserves. I'm suggesting this is a notable topic, because of its widespread discussion on multiple RSOF threads, threads on every other fansite that I have ever visited, and the numerous formal pronouncements by Jagex staff about this topic. If this is the minimum standard for having a rumor to be considered for an article, we are setting a very difficult bar to cross for any other similar kind of rumor to qualify. Not a single one of the other rumors possibly meet this kind of standard, with the possible exception of a Black partyhat that is also up for a VfD. I believe it fits that sort of notability standard. --Robert Horning 14:28, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

Didn't realize that I had worded it in the way it now sounds. It can no longer be expanded on, but it does deserve it's article, more than a footnote in another article. I see why it should be there to stay, although currently, the medium has gone to Merge.

Ryan M ^{(Bluesonic43)}

23:00, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Merge - It doesn't deserve an article of it's own, but it deserves a say in another one. The1AndOnlyMike 12:09, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

Merge - Even though it is only a "myth" it has been the most popular one, so it definately shouldn't be deleted. Maybe add it to the Skills page. -- 06:20, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Keep/Merge - It's extremely well-known, maybe even the best known urban legend of all time. Oli4burggraa ^Talk 16:56, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

Merge - It's probably THE best known urban legend, even if it is fake. ~  Telos ^Talk  Mah skillz 06:36, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - It's really famous, I see no reasons for deleting it. Chessmaster _Talk ^{Sign here, Zamorak!} 17:31, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal - Since it seems that the popular opinion is pointing towards merge into a myth page, I might make a suggestion on how to manage and limit the page so that it doesn't become like the glitch pages or Slang dictionary where there are many obscure and unnoteworthy sections. On the myths page set down these two requirements of which all myths must fit onto one of the categories: the myth has officially been debunked by Jagex (which would then be sourced) or the myth if common knowledge to most of the RuneScape players. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 09:59, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, No comment. I'm sticking with my keep Chicken7 _>talk^>sign 11:06, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

I'd be on board with that idea. A glitch page would be the perfect spot for this. Let's be frank - how much space do we really need in order to summarize everything there is to know about Jagex? A detailed explantion of every time they debunked it is not necessary. The currently sailing article is repetitive and way longer than it needs to be. Psycho RobotTalk 15:03, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

How much do we really need to know about this game? I suppose that we could replace this entire wiki with two words: "It Sucks", and an edit war to change that to "It Blows". Seriously, the point of setting up a wiki like this is to seek after the terra nullius in a game and to dig up the fine details that make up trivia and the obscure details that other people don't know. The spirit of writing a wiki is that we can record everything that somebody is willing to bother to write. This can involve a style guide, and certainly notability comes into play (which is my argument above). Asking to remove content because it isn't notable or can't be referenced (aka cited) is certainly rational for removing something on a wiki of this nature. That enough folks are willing to comment on this VfD ought to be enough to at least establish some notability. I also argued that this should be kept as there is no natural alternative title to something of this nature, other than perhaps Proposed Skills or some other similar article that would expand and develop into a catch all for all of the proposed skill content on the RSOF and elsewhere. I think in that case the cure would be worse than the original problem. --Robert Horning 16:14, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

I find that argument hyperbolic. I was talking about removing redundancy, and you took that to its illogical conclusion of stripping the wiki of all its content. I strongly believe the "Myths" or "Rumours" article is a good solution here. Sure some people might want to put a rumour that only they themselves have spread, but they can be removed as soon as its realised that there's no sources and no significance. Psycho RobotTalk 16:28, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

Considering that none of the articles that are being discussed so far even exist (there is no Proposed Skills, Myth, or Rumors article to merge this into) it all seems a sort of moot point. Yes, what I said was a sort of reductio ad absurdum argument, but the issue still remains. For the content currently in this article, is there anything here that can't be sources or referenced from what are considered fairly reputable sources, including pronouncements by Jagex staff on the topic? While there may be loose "consensus" to merge this article, there is absolutely no consensus for where to merge this article. If we put it "back" into the Hiscores article where some of this content was originally, it seems very much out of place and dominates that article in an off-topic manner. Reducing this entire article to a single sentence in another article is logically consistent with simply removing all content on this wiki with just two words. That is my point. I believe that even more content can be added to this article as it stands... sourced and verifiable information... and that furthermore the final chapter on this topic for the greater Runescape community has yet to happen either. I certainly don't want any such article be a mash-up of other articles in the way that Pizza became. Of course that gets on with the point that if it is going to be a multi-paragraph sub-section of a huge article, what is the logic for keeping it from simply being its own article? --Robert Horning 15:39, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any one favoring merging the article had in mind that it would be one or two sentences! There are certainly enough sources to justify a good two or three paragraphs of information. Due to its prevalent nature, it should be the first thing listed, along with Black and Pink partyhat, and any other rumour that meets whatever criteria is decided upon (probably, if this ends in a "merge" result, on the Yew Grove). Psycho RobotTalk 17:24, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - per chess master --Porp1 10:13, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - it was a big deal, it's notable enough for its own article, I think. Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 11:49, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - I vote for keep, as there is a at least 3 Jagex moderators commenting on this stat, the CEO Mod MMG has neither confirmed nor dismissed this speculation, and Mod Mark may be just trying to throw people off. In an unrelated note, another mod has given a hint that it starts with "B" leading me to speculate if it may be Beast Taming. Sir Adunkley^(Talk)(Sign) 06:35, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - On an off-topic note, I just have to say your Beast Taming idea sounds like it could be very real! It would also be a skill that directly relates to Summoning so could improve use and decrease cost of the skill. Cheers, Chicken7 _>talk^>sign 08:54, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

This is also off topic. The three most popular theories on the forums about "b skills" are Beast taming, boating and bard. I think that the mod was joking when he said that however. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 09:36, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Bard?!??! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA Chicken7 _>talk^>sign 11:53, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Brace yourself Chicken, this will come as a shock... You ready?? Ok. Yesterday, Jagex declared that the next skill is not bard. I realise that you were so looking forward to it At the same time, they also said that the "b" thing is false. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 11:46, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!1111!1 lol Chicken7 _>talk^>sign 05:10, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Delete It's been confirmed multiple times, including in the Q&As, to be just a rumour which will never happen. The wiki shouldn't be the place for speculation, especially speculation which is definitely wrong. Phoenix316 12:51, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

If you've read the article, you might have noticed that we're not speculating anything and are simply trying to put forth the facts/evidence in a NPOV. C.Chiam^Talk 03:29, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

Also, it has been confirmed a rumour, but not out of the question and never to happen. Cheers, Chicken7 _>talk^>sign 04:53, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Per RS:NIP, point three. Chiafriend12 01:48, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Great point. If this isn't notable, what is? Cheers, Chicken7 _>talk^>sign 05:08, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - As per Evil. Merry Googlemas!^{TOK 2 MA} 02:07, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Yes was a rumour/urban legend, but it's easily the most famous one, at the least a merge, black party hat was kept in the party hat article and that's fake why delete this? Easily more famous. Chaos knight 04:31, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - It is a rumor that has been officially denied multiple times. We don't really need this page, there is already enough information about a possible new skill on the Skills page --^(Contribs) Frogging101 ^{(My talk)} 21:00, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Take a look at the size difference between Skills#New skill and Sailing. There is actually heaps more information (not speculation) than what is in that section... 01:16, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the size difference between this discussion and the article itself --Degenret01 01:30, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Imagine what we could have achieved if we spent all that effort and energy on something more constructive like total world domination. By now we could be in control of Bolivia and Peru as well as most of Brazil and Equador! _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 05:17, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Keep per all.  C Teng ^talk 01:39, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Keep Even if it isn't the new skill, A lot of evidence toward it has been collected. It might be worth keeping just for historical records. Omastar444 02:06, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Keep I agree and who knows it might be a future skill, Mod MMG said it got the content team talking, so it might either be a skill or a part of a skill or eventually put into the game. This pages information would be really nice to read if they decide to implement it into the game. If they dont its a good historical page and it is not against the rules for this wiki -- Josh2 01:04, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Delete If we don't have a page for horseback riding and Necromancy, we should not have one for this. If you must, put a mention of it elsewhere, or make a thread about possible/desired skills. But this is completely unnecessary.

'Delete' As mentioned above, the wiki is for facts. Not for myths/theories. If we keep this page, we could at page about another million things as well. 13:13, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Comment Actually, we do have a few articles about theories, but they have a reasonable basis. Deleting and just mentioning the fake Sailing picture elsewhere would be the best solution.

• Comment - To everyone who is saying "the policies say no articles about stuff that is fake" or "no urban myths" bla bla bla. INCORRECT. RS:NIP, point three. Notable urban legends are allowed. What is more notable than this?! And anyway, consensus is not permanent so we could modify the policies if need-be, and I think we should anyway, even though THEY DO ALLOW SAILING! And take a look at our tag line "From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape". It isnt "for all completely factual, confirmed, non-myth topics explicitly concerning RuneScape"... Chicken7 _>talk^>sign 13:27, November 28, 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - A lot of things are more notable. But your point is moot. If, just because of a trick some idiot pulled, Sailing gets its own page, then he has won, hasn't he? Just the fact that Sailing has its own page while none of the other possible skills do makes his lie seem valid. If we do this, you could say he has won. If we're going to give this 'skill' an entire page, then the other possible skills have to have one too, and that's ridiculous. Do you realize that the size of a fake skill's article is about the size of a real one's?

To be honest, I'm less than impressed that other notable "rumored" items have been recently deleted or "demoted" in stature. The idiot you are asserting here merely engaged in a publicity stunt that was wildly spectacular, but I should point out that sailing as a skill (or many variations of that theme) had been a persistent meme and idea for quite some time even before the infamous hiscores video. What is worse, Jagex themselves gave credibility to the idea as they "leaked" other skills (notably Hunter) in this same manner. Because of this incident, almost nobody is going to believe any subsequent attempt to pull off a "fake" skill like this. The whole point is that so many threads, debates, and discussions about this supposed new skill have been created that it seems irresponsible to not mention this somewhere. This will not be listed as one of the "official skills" and certainly won't be associated with anything like that, in any of the skill guides, or the host of other ways that regular skills are listed including the sidebar. This is just a simple factual article, and as such it really needs to remain. Nobody is "winning" or "losing" here. If the size of this article turns out to have enough verifiable and factual information to make an article as large as a real skill... so what? --Robert Horning 13:02, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Jagex did not ever give it 'stature', it was mentioned in a FAQ. Animal Husbandry was mentioned by them as well, but we don't have a page about that. We should really just make a thread about possible new skills or ones that have been theorized before, because this idea isn't really worth a full page.

Stature definition "High level of respect gained by impressive development or achievement". Jagex did give it stature by the publicity this skill received and the many comments Jagex had to make to confirm it was fake. I don't hear of any posts on the forums by J-Mods how Candle-Lighting is not the new skill (because it is not notable). Jagex also applauded the skill, and said they "love sailing" and it gave them "several cool ideas for the future". The fact that Jagex has taken some ideas from the idea of sailing means that they consider it an interesting idea that should not be debunked straight away. EDIT: And when you say lots more non-existant things are notable, give some examples. Some users have said that throughout this discussion but I can't think of any... Cheers, Chicken7 _>talk^>sign 06:50, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

Good point, actually. In my opinion, we should get rid of the theory threads, because, as they say, The Wiki is not a Crystal Ball. Even if it doesn't predict anything, there's no point making articles about things that are not in Runescape. Leave the Out of Game stuff Out of the Game.

So we shouldn't have articles on the soul talisman or soul tiara? Or an article on the life rune? Just because they're not currently in the game doesn't mean they shouldn't be mentioned. The RuneScape Forums have an article, and they're not in the game, just on the website. Sailing has been heavily mentioned by Jagex in their efforts to tell players that it's fake. I think it's definitely reasonable enough to have an article for it on a wiki about RuneScape. Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 20:47, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

There are soul runes, there is a HUGE difference between some thing than can be inferred, and some thing which is pure speculative fantasy. Try a better comparison. One that makes sense.--Degenret01 21:09, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are soul runes. However, soul tiaras and soul talismans don't exist in-game. I was pointing out to the unsigned user above me that we have articles on things that are "out of the game". Sailing was pure speculative fantasy, but then Jagex mentioned it several times. It was a fairly large-scale rumor that should have an article. Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 21:20, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Comment That unsigned user was me. And by that logic, Animal Husbandry needs its own page, since it was mentioned by Jagex. There is no comparison between soul talismans and this skill, because we KNOW the talisman is coming thanks to a leak with url fiddling. I think we should put it on the hiscores page and say that it was/is rumoured to be the new skill of 2009.

Comment - doing that and putting it on the hiscores page would remove 90% of the information and make the other 10% speculative and incorrect (as Jagex HAVE SAID, it is not the new skill!!! (which is mentioned in the article)) Chicken7 _>talk^>sign 09:33, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - While you understood the gist, I did not make one thing clear: We should put it in the TRIVIA section. I meant to include that bit. But it would only mention the trick somebody pulled, and so, yes, it would remove most of the content here. But given that most of the 'content' is mere speculation, I don't see it as much of a loss. The Gremlin 15:31, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

I see hardly any speculation, if any. It is all stating Jagex's replies to the major forum activity about the issue, and also stating the major evidence that has been brought forward on the forums, on fansites and in youtube videos (while keeping RS:NPOV in place) Cheers, Chicken7 _>talk^>sign 13:00, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep - Probably the biggest skill rumor/myth in Runescape. It did have some facts to go with it when it was on the high scores. Team6and7 00:51, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

Keep and maybe rewrite. Sailing is a meme, like Rick Roll, Leekspin and Numa Numa. --Muhahaa 10:52, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Keep Although Sailing is not out yet, there are several in-game and forum references to it. Regardless of what the Jagex moderators say, Sailing has been big enough to keep. --Liquidhelium 22:14, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Money making guide/Firemaking

There is no way to make money firemaking in F2P. The idea of collecting ashes to make money is so bad, it really shouldn't even be mentioned. Other than saying "you can't make money firemaking" this article serves no purpose. —Wildy Medic (talk • contribs) forgot to sign this comment on 02:07, 26 October 2009.

Delete - As you said, you can't make money. Depending on the price of ashes, they can be slightly profitable for low level accounts, but that doesn't involve firemaking though. Psycho RobotTalk 02:11, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Delete (see later reply) - There is no ways to make money through Firemaking in free worlds. Ash collecting is already located under collecting. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 06:53, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Keep/Neutral - Hmmm, I'm not sure. It is true it can be pretty pointless to have the article, as there isn't much to put. But, every skill has an article, so should Firemaking, imho. A player might think "now I have a high firemaking level, lets earn some money!" They'll come here looking for a firemaking moneymaking article and there is none. But at this stage, I'm undecided. Cheers, Chicken7 _>talk^>sign 06:54, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - It's absurd to think you can make more money from Ashes than you do buying logs. You'll get a return, but not much of one, whatever type of log you use. The1AndOnlyMike 22:10, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Per everyone. --Iiii I I I^Talk 22:13, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - LOL Making cash from firemaking let me take something from a ad from nz

“Yea right”

— Tui beer ad シャドウ Aka Twigy. _{Dane cook} 22:15, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - What about Pyre ships?  Gaz Lloyd ^Calcs!_Awesome 22:25, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Members, maybe. And Pyre ships are part of barbarian training. The1AndOnlyMike 22:26, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Since the skill guides are representing all of the skills, it is a good thing to keep this guide "complete" in terms of showing all skills. Yes, I will admit that firemaking is mostly a money losing skill (or at least revenue neutral), the two methods listed are some ways to earn money via the firemaking skill (well, sort of). Being zero star opportunities is very appropriate, although I will admit that setting up fires on Karamja is one way to at least earn some modest amounts of money for an enterprising player. Exchanging a fire for a load of fish (aka tuna) is certainly one way a low-level player could earn some money at least. My keep is out of completeness rather than anything in particular. --Robert Horning 00:09, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

But Agility is not represented, nor should it be. Tollerach ^talk 18:15, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

I don't think lighting fires on Karamja can count as using firemaking to make money. The method is far too dependant on players being willing to trade fish for fire to be "firemaking" in my mind. That method could be put into "other" however. Psycho RobotTalk 18:53, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - I have changed to keep since Robert has thought of a possible way making money. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 10:04, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - I'm sorry, but this article is a stretch at best. I can't see anyone seriously attempting these methods as a way of moneymaking. This article just looks like a waste of space. If there was a decent way to make money off of FM fine, but I don't see one here. Tollerach ^talk 18:12, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Firemaking can be and actually is used for making money, even in f2p! Just go to Karamja and "sell" fires. Not a very good way to make money for higher levels, but great for starters. Oli4burggraa ^Talk 09:35, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - how about we just say the words "You can't." on the page? I think we should keep it and add in the "selling fires" bit, just for the sake of having a way to make money with just about every skill. It might not be a good way to make money, but it is possible. Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 11:53, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

Why make a page about making money just to say you can't make money. It could be said on the main moneymaking page.--Wildy Medic 02:31, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - This article is horrible. It is a very slow way of making money, and it really shouldn't even be attempted. BUT every other skill has a page, which is the only reason I say keep. 07:16, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

not true, agility doesn't have a page and P2P Smithing doesn't have a page. Plus keeping this page just because every other skill has a page isn't a very good reason to keep. --Wildy Medic 04:06, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

Pay to play Smithing does have a guide. Agility doesn't however.  Gaz Lloyd ^Calcs!_Awesome 18:13, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is a very good reason if you read Robert and I's points. What if a player has trained firemaking real high and is looking for a way to put it to use? And I think we should recreate the Agility guide. Cheers, Chicken7 _>talk^>sign 08:39, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

But there is no way to put his firemaking lvl to good use. Everything mentioned in this article can be done at lvl 1. If anything this article misleads someone into thinking you can make money firemaking. -- Wildy Medic 02:31, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Then, at the least, but a huge banner on the top not recommending using firemaking to make money. Cheers, Chicken7 _>talk^>sign 01:50, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

This point has been bugging me. There are ways to earn coins from Agility (the Agility Pyramid, Brimhaven Agility Arena, and a few others), so there is a point to a guide about Agility as a skill as well. As a rationale for why Firemaking as a skill needs to be singled out as something which can't make money doesn't make sense.... when some methods are presented that do work. --Robert Horning 17:13, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Pointless, who makes fires just to sell the ashes? And as for the selling fires thing I highly doubt you'd get very much money doing this if at all as some people will happily make fires for free and people will just use that fire instead. Only way to make fire making is on P2P (with pyreships and shade/vyre corpses) and this articles about f2p. Chaos knight 05:52, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

In fairness, I have seen ash collecting at the Grand Exchange as something with some real competition. When ashes hit 80 coins each (it did happen), there certainly were players who made fires just to sell ashes. Even now, the GE price of ashes is 11 coins each is something that is greater than the price of a willow log... currently at 8 coins. In other words, you can make a real and genuine profit from burning logs. Maybe not the fastest or easiest way to make money, but it can happen. Collecting ashes from fires burned at the GE is something that is useful to earn just a few more coins rather than begging your way to a couple thousand coins from another player out of raw charity. --Robert Horning 17:13, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Delete per all. Or put it in the trivia section of the Firemaking article.  C Teng ^talk 22:37, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - just because it is slightly informative doesn't mean it sould be deleted.   Ppi802   22:07, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Delete There is no way to make money with fm so delete it —Fllour (talk • contribs) forgot to sign this comment on 17:08, December 3, 2009 (UTC).

Neutral Hmm...well it is pretty pointless, it definitley should go if theres nothing there that actually makes money out of it. Unless someone can actually add something to it that makes money then it should stay.

Delete On a money making guide I made for my clan... under firemaking, Keep praying :), as per this article if you want it to remain. Firemaking has no clear cut money making method. Bowler225 02:04, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Keep i think with a little makeover on it we can show a way of making some money through firemaking, that and you would lose the joy of having a MMG for every skill in F2P. --Morgan--

What ways can you make money with Firemaking?  C Teng ^talk 22:07, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Ash collecting is not Firemaking, so shouldn't that be taken off? {{{{{1}}}}} 22:14, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - A guide on how to sit at GE and collect ashes to make like 5k per hour just degrades how we look. That just makes us look like some kind of noob fansite :| 01:31, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Corresponds to P2P Firemaking money-making guide. Deleting would just be biased. --  Fruit.Smoothie ^TalkContribs  04:32, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Black party hat.PNG

I think this should be deleted per the non-existent item because its fake. Not real. All it'd do is confuse players into thinking that there actually was a black party hat at one time or another. Would we shop a hypothetical dragon kiteshield and put it up? Psycho RobotTalk 01:29, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Weak delete - Per Psycho. ~  Telos ^Talk  Mah skillz 01:39, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Weak delete - However, it might work if we put a caption on it saying that it's fake/an artist's rendering/a party hat colored black on MS Paint. Besides, if someone reads the article they wouldn't be confused. But, since it would be weird to have images of most other nonexistant items (the exceptions being the soul tiara and talisman since those images were on the website via URL manipulation), I think this one should go. Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 02:09, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep - If only due to the number of pages that use/link to this image. It won't confuse players at all, and it isn't being used as a vanity/personal image in the least. We already covered the topic of this image as an article.... which has already been merged into the more general party hat article. This is a highly sourced rumor/myth/legend and is something of note that also fits with RS:IAR. For the most part I agree that non-existent items should be deleted, but this is clearly an exception that proves the rule rather than the target of something that should go. --Robert Horning 08:23, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I really think that's absurd. Its fake. No one ever saw this image until someone posted it on the wiki. Furthermore, its 100% speculation. Its what someone thought a black partyhat might have looked like, but anyone who remembers the Grim reaper hood knows that Jagex's idea of "black" doesn't always truck with everyone else's. A hypothetical image showing what an item which never existed might have looked like is about the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen defended. And surely you're not going to tell me that we should keep it just because its used a lot? Do you know why its used a lot? Because its used someone's signature! So by changing the signature page, we'll get rid of almost all the uses. Psycho RobotTalk 17:19, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Strong keep - Per Robert. Oli4burggraa ^Talk 15:01, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Per Oli. Chessmaster _Talk ^{Sign here, Zamorak!} 15:05, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Though a notice that it's fake should be added to the description page. Tedjuh10 (Talk) 17:37, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Weak delete - per Psycho. Cheers, Chicken7 _>talk^>sign 05:13, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Per Psycho. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 07:20, November 12, 2009 (UTC)

Stong delete - Can only serve to confuse people that dont read the article properly. -- Mercifull ^(Talk) 09:11, November 12, 2009 (UTC)

Delete per Mercifull. Or, as the section speculates, take a red partyhat and turn the brightness down. But that's not really necessary.  C Teng ^talk 16:10, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Per Psycho Merry Googlemas!^{TOK 2 MA} 16:13, November 15 2009 (UTC)

Delete Per above. By turning down my contrast on my computer..I can make a black fire rune. Should that get a page? ‎Atlandy 22:23, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Per Robert Spartaaaaa!!! 16:29, November 16 2009 (UTC)

Neutral - Both Psycho and Robert bring up very good points, so I'm going to stay neutral here. ~  Telos ^Talk  Mah skillz 18:49, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - If this is kept maybe we should all just draw randomly non-existent items and upload them (Sarcasm if you can't tell) this has as much of a right to be here as a theoretical picture of say..a dragon war hammer.. come to think of it I take that back the dragon war hammer would have more of a right to be here, it might exist one day, jagex itself stated there will be no more party hats and as this never existed there shouldn't be a picture of it. Chaos knight 08:00, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Strong delete - All this image does is to confuse people who read the article (including me), making us believe at first glance that a nonexistant item existed at some point...which is confusing enough already.  Lil cloud 9 ^Talk 18:28, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Strong keep - It did use to be real once, it's historical!!! Don't we have a template for that?? Tehnoobshow101 16:40, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

Eh, it never was real. It's an urban legend. Oli4burggraa ^Talk 10:04, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, the image is fake, made in photoshop or something. Cheers, Chicken7 _>talk^>sign 13:34, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Strong delete —Fllour (talk • contribs) forgot to sign this comment on 17:05, December 3, 2009 (UTC).

Strong keep The image may be faked, but it's a good fake, and makes the point better.

Strong oppose - It's a personal image imo. A person made it themselves, and it has never existed, therefore is it non existant, and it is a personal image. It should simply be deleted. 01:22, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Evil tree animations

I think these animations are unneeded, overly large, and useless to show the Evil trees as much as the png's already do. Not much else to say.

Delete - As nominator. 05:57, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - I second that motion. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 09:11, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

Delete all - Yes they're nice, but they're far too large and don't really show anything that a still image can't show. Psycho RobotTalk 21:55, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - The essence could be easily captured in a still. Ruud^Talk 21:58, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - I don't agree. If not for my experience with Evil trees in-game, I wouldn't have been able to imagine at all what their animations would be like. These gifs show just that and allow readers to get a better understanding of what they are reading. Still images do not show this at all. C.Chiam^Talk 02:32, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Replace them with still images showing players cutting them, maybe? --Iiii I I I^Talk 02:35, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Per Caleb. He summed it up better than I could, though. ~  Telos ^Talk  Mah skillz 18:25, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - To Caleb and Telos, even if we need one (which I think we don't) do we need all four? Psycho RobotTalk 19:12, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Kind of pointless to have all 4 even one isn't needed, all it shows is the trees "flailing about". Keep maybe one if it's completely necessary to have it in article which I doubt. Chaos knight 04:07, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Keep Elder delete rest - Per part of Chaos knight "Delete" シャドウ Aka Twigy. _{Dane cook} 04:11, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Keep all - These are nice animations and not everyone gets the chance to see each of these trees often. It would be a shame if users couldn't come to the wiki and see say an evil yew tree in action. Tollerach ^talk 21:35, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Keep all - Why not? There's nothing wrong with them. Oli4burggraa ^Talk 18:05, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - While these animations fit the "Unique and interesting NPC animations" of RS:IMAGE, only one would be justifiable to keep, that being the Elder if any. A reason why I nominated these was due to the quality and size of the animations (even though I didn't think the Elder was when I uploaded it some time ago). If someone wants to view them, keep the Elder animation, create a File:Evil Elder Tree First Frame.png with a redirect on that file to the animation file. This way, we could reduce the lag already experienced from the Wiki. 06:38, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

Keep one - I wouldn't have been able to see how much evil trees moved without these (I thought they just wiggled their branches a little), but we don't need all of them, as they all make the same movements.  C Teng ^talk 14:40, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

No. The normal, elder and maple tree animations all show different movements. The willow animation is the same as the elder one, but everything else is different. ~  Telos ^Talk  Mah skillz 04:55, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

Even though I haven't done Evil trees in awhile, I recall that they all have the same motions, just that I recorded three of them at different intervals. I cut them to a certain rate and looped to make a reasonable file size (however large it is now, it would be several times larger had it been the full avi/gif file).

Ryan M ^{(Bluesonic43)}

22:04, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

I get that, but the animations all show different parts of the movement. None of the animations show the full evil tree animation. ~  Telos ^Talk  Mah skillz 23:56, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Replace them with stills with players chopping it. Anyways, the animations look quite funny though, especially the Elder tree one (wtf a Leprechaun) Merry Googlemas!^{TOK 2 MA} 05:14, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

Delete all - Completely agree with deletion of them, they are far too large and unnecessary, placing a picture will be just fine for those pages. -- MrZaros357 19:54, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Keep one, delete the rest - They show the hectic and brutally, cruel awesomeness of evil trees . They're EVIL for a reason, they're not some weird trees with a face that stand still. We need at one to show this, but having four just shows one thing in four different colors. 01:28, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] SwiftKit

Previous VfD: RuneScape:Votes for deletion/SwiftKit/Archive1

I strongly believe this article should be deleted. First of all, this article is little more than a brochure for SwiftKit as it is written. The vast majority of content is information about the product, and not about how it relates to RuneScape. Secondly, it is no longer as helpful as it once was. Most of the features which made it useful have been put into the game proper. Third, and most importantly, SwiftKit is not part of RuneScape nor the Runescape Wiki. Its completely independent and should therefore not be covered in such excruciating detail. Is it "the best"? Completely opinion driven, and that argument has no place in an encyclopedia. Is it the most used? That's impossible to prove.

I am not suggesting that all mention of SwiftKit be irradiated from the Wiki. "SwiftKit" should be redirected to Riot, and more specifically (when the Riot article is cleaned up), the "Rule 7 Protest". But what if someone comes here wanting to learn about SwiftKit, you ask? They type "SwiftKit" in the search box and wind up at the Rule 7 Protest section. If that's not enough, they can google it. Its not our duty to make sure that everyone knows about every program made for RuneScape. If we talk about one, we'd have to talk about them all. If you still vote to keep the actual SwiftKit article, please consider whether the information on the article is really suitable for the Wiki, or whether it should be stripped down to cover only the historical context, without all the "advertisment" stuff.

Merge to Riots - As nom. Psycho RobotTalk 03:12, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Support merge Many players have been banned for using SK, since there was a miscommunication between Jagex and Players, there was a Riot. -- Monstermas22 03:15, November 24, 2009 (UTC) (forgot to sign)

Support merge - For reasons Psycho mentioned. Ruud^Talk 03:18, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - It serves as an important memorabilia of Runescape's very own history, therefore, I do not think it would be wise to remove this article, as it serves a purpose other than for third-party promotion. People should know more about "behind-the-scenes" features of and related to Runescape's background. Many people don't even know what SwiftKit is in the first place. Let there be knowledge. --  Fruit.Smoothie ^TalkContribs  03:20, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - We are voting for a Merge with Riot, not deleting the article. Ruud^Talk 03:22, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I see no purpose in merging it with the Riot article. It's an individual article entailing individual needs, it's used by the community at large, and there is no rule whatsoever that states that Runescape Wiki cannot contain non-Runescape affiliated information/articles.

I really do hope that the article is kept in its original state, as it's better off staying that way than being merged to a totally irrelevant article such as Riot. I don't see how a riot would have anything to do with SwiftKit, unless you're talking about the Rule 7 Protest, which is insignificant. Besides, the article has already been rewritten several times to adjust to the neutrality concensus policy of Wikia.--  Fruit.Smoothie ^TalkContribs  03:27, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Merge into Riot (edit conflict 3 times in a row...) I predict a massive riot coming the way of this thread. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 03:30, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Keep I would like to redirect SwiftKit, not merge it, to Riot, as this would have both benefits of the doubt. --  Fruit.Smoothie ^TalkContribs  03:31, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Redirect means that you want to delete the entire article, replacing it with a redirect to the Riots page. I feel that this is not what you mean. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 03:37, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Merge to Riots - For reasons outlined above. Star Find 03:35, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Redirect would be much better than Merge, seeing as how it would still have relevance to the original article. --  Fruit.Smoothie ^TalkContribs  03:47, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Merge to Riots - Just as RS:PDDA covers players, we should not give programs articles as well. Another factor is that it is written without a RS:NPOV. This client does not deserve an article, nor do any other clients/programs/etc. Per Psycho. 03:55, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Keep it When I say SwiftKit, this includes previous incarnations ie SwiftSwitch. Firstly, there is no reason to delete it, its not advertisement or a brochure. If you can find any part that isn't factual in the article please show me. It is information on an important feature of the RuneScape game. SwiftKit, no matter how much above users may wish it is a part of RuneScape. Many historical evens have happened in result of SwiftKit. Its not a brochure, we have all that information on our site. Psycho Robot says "The vast majority of content is information about the product" what do you expect its a wiki entry about SwiftKit, you don't go to the cooking wiki page and expect information about farming do you? Yes it does have context of how it relates too RuneScape, whatever gives you the idea that it doesn't.

It should NOT be merged into the riot, the riot topic is about something that SwiftKit as an entity was not associated with. It also doesn't make logical sense, merging a topic about a specific client, with something about a rule. They're two different topics, why would you merge them.

"If that's not enough, they can google it." on that premise you could delete the whole wiki, oh, we don't need a farming topic, they can read about it on the skills page and if thats not enough they can google it.

It doesn't matter the opinions on whether which client is better or not, SwiftKit is the most popular and is more commonplace.

There is no "advertisement" stuff, it is an analytical list, advertisement would contain opinions and appealing attention grabbing content. For example if I stated how many downloads to date it has have, or if I say if its so many times faster.

I would like to say again SWIFKIT IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH AND IN GAME 'RIOTING' The 'riots' if you want to call them that were about the rule change, not SwiftKit.

Swiftkit is also not associated with RuneScape or the RuneScape Wiki. Psycho RobotTalk 04:25, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

It has no official association with RuneScape, but its associated in the sense that you use it to play RuneScape. Thats what an association is; isn't it, a connection between two things... Your argument there, RuneScape has nothing todo with the RuneScape wiki, does that mean everything has to be deleted, because it has no association with the wiki? SwiftKit-Zanith 05:00, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

SwiftKit being the most "popular" is pure speculation. If I added to the Hill Giants page that they were the most popular free monster, then it would be removed very quickly even though it is probably true.

The analogy that you use seems to hinder more then help your argument. If you went to the cooking page, you would hope that there is a section showing how farming relates to cooking without advertising what you can do with farming. You would want to hear "you can grow your own baked potatoes, which can then be cooked using cooking", not "you can make spirit trees from spirit tree seeds at level 85. Farming is also a skill requirement for While Guthix Sleeps". _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 05:02, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Well then, according to Psycho Robot, then the farming page isn't needed to, you can get all the information from the cooking page, and the rest you can just google it. I thought that what wikia was, for information. SwiftKit being most popular is not speculation, we toggle download counts and provide them, this system isn't don't fraudulently as can be verified by multiple people let alone myself. If more people are downloading it, then doesn't that make it the most popular?

Ok, so lets put it this way, if somebody was coming looking for information about RuneScape clients, yes clients for the RuneScape game. They came here seeing as its a RuneScape wikia. Now, its not advertisement having the article there, it serves no advertisement purpose. If we wanted to advertise, there is a big square at the side where we could advertise. I implore you, find one part of the article which isn't factual. Please, tell me, what part of the article would you deem as an advertisement, please look up the definition first hand. I'd understand if you wanted to merge it with a 'Third Party Client' article, but to delete information completely, or to merge it to something which has nothing todo with it makes utter nonsense. SwiftKit-Zanith 05:22, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

I think that you are interpreting Psycho's google comment the wrong way. The wiki should try to include as much information as possible if it directly relating to RuneScape. If you wanted to know about Monty Python, you would only come here to see how Monty Python directly effected RuneScape (ergo, the references in-game), not the storyline of Monty Python and the Holy Grail which would require you to look elsewhere. It is the same as SwiftKit; you would only come here to see how it has effected RuneScape directly (the rule seven riot), not what you can do with SwiftKit.

While "popular" is pure speculation, most visited is a slightly different. If you want to call it the most visited fansite, then you would have to find a reliable, unbiased source which also had the information of other competing programs which would be cited after you state it. If you don't do this, then the claim would be pure speculation.

Now what do I consider an ad for swiftkit?? The intro, about and gallery sections are all advertisements since they only talks about the program itself and what it can do, not the effects it had on RuneScape. The "Does SwiftKit Break the Rules" section is a bit dodgy. While It doesn't break any rules, Jagex thoroughly recommend that players don't down load it along with any other 3rd party software. (I heard a J mod say this yesterday on the forums) This would need to be added for it to really be neutral.

If someone wanted to look for Swiftkit, they would have to look the same place as famous players and clans. By allowing say an article on Zezima, we would in extension allow an article on so many non-noteworthy topics to have pages made about them that it is just best to cord the whole area off and say it is out of bounds. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 06:40, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Keep Theres no point in merging it with somthing else.Its great on its own-- User:Dmck2b 08:04, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Keep Remove anything too adertising about it though. --Degenret01 08:48, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Merge with riot if anything remotely advertising is removed otherwise delete, however, if kept perhaps a policy not to make articles about third party software, unless needed specifically, should be added, I mean what's stopping articles about programs being added right now? Nothing; and there should be otherwise what's stopping people making wiki one big advertisement for programs? Even java doesn't have an article. Chaos knight 09:07, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Keep and certainly don't merge with something that has absolutely nothing to do with Riots, protests, or other similar kinds of player protests. Yes, there were players that were upset when Jagex went through a phase of banning all 3rd party software, mention of that software, and became upset about any 3rd party software.... heck became upset at 3rd party websites like even the RS Wiki. Perhaps this is the reason why it is suggested to be merged with riots and protests? BTW, Jagex later apologized and took a softer stance against 3rd party software, and in particular gave explicit guidelines over "legal" 3rd party software that could be used with the Runescape client.

The rationale given for deleting this article, that many of the features of this software has been incorporated into the regular client interface, is IMHO some rationale for keeping this article as well. It is explicitly due to this software that motivated the Jagex developers to incorporate some of its features into the game. If software like this can motivate Jagex on this level, it seems like an excellent point to find out what drove Jagex to make those features. Just like the GEMW pushed Jagex into making the GE Database (there was nothing like the GEMW on any other fan website), there have been other player-driven changes to the game as well. It is unfortunate that Jagex steals ideas from things like Swiftkit and elsewhere and does not give credit to those sources of inspiration. For me, that makes preserving an article about the source of inspiration like this all that much more important, as if we don't keep track of that background, who will? Jagex isn't keeping track of the history of this game, so that falls on our shoulders here on this wiki and for other fan websites. --Robert Horning 17:31, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Keep, rewrite. - Although not part of RuneScape in itself, it is still allowed to be used instead of the RuneScape Client, downloadable on the RuneScape website. When it was named SwiftSwitch, it was banned because it unfairly allowed players to world-hop quickly, which was against Jagex's standards. However, it was renamed SwiftKit and is now kept in compliance with Jagex, aswell as having many of the features players would otherwise not use on the RuneScape website. Alot of players I know use Swiftkit and to me, it's officially become part of RuneScape, albeit unofficially. All of this information pretty much says that this article deserves to be kept. It's a part of RuneScape history. Merging this article with Riot is just absurd, in my opinion. If the context of the article bothers you, re-write it so it becomes less of an advertisement and more of an informational + historical article. The1AndOnlyMike 17:39, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Merge - It doesn't really deserve an article. Oli4burggraa ^Talk 18:03, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Neutral - But if you're going to merge it, don't merge it with riot. Rioting has extremely little to do with SwiftKit. ~  Telos ^Talk  Mah skillz 20:47, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

Keep Swiftkit is such a big part of the game for so many players, and goes beyond the comparisons of famous players. It has had an impact on the game and how many other tools/fansites have done that?--Varthlokkur 00:44, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Keep I don't really see why you want to merge it with riots, they're two entirely different subjects. Swiftswitch is an important part of rs and its history, and it's different from other 3rd party software because it has had an impact on the game, and Jagex cared about it enough to make a newspost about it. Mortyst 15:45, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Comment The reason I suggested merging it with Riot was because the riot was the only historically significant event related to SwiftKit that was currently documented on the Wiki. If anyone has any other suggestions as to where it should be merged, then say it, but I don't think the current article should stand, as it is nothing more but an extended product description. Psycho RobotTalk 21:37, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - but rewrite it to have it more focus on how it has effected RuneScape. SwiftKit is much too significant to be transformed as a sub-note to an article. --Zpoon 01:16, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

Total tallies so far...

• Keeps: 10
• Merge into riot: 8
• Neutrality: 2
• Comments: a lot

We are not a democracy, we don't base decisions on the number of votes, but the strength of arguments.  Gaz Lloyd ^Calcs!_Awesome 21:28, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Keep, rewrite - I think it deserves its own article. If we have to merge it, we should create an article for programs like it. Merging it into the riot article doesn't make that much sense. It'd be like, if on wikipedia, people merged George W. Bush with stupidity. A lot of people associate the two, and they received a lot of notoriety for it, but they're not the same things. Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 20:55, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Not merge with riot - (Ha, there's an interesting vote.) That's like merging Rune scimitar with Player killing. But otherwise, keep. It's notable, and per what others have said. There's no way to go around that. Chiafriend12 22:10, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - If we are to keep this, then why not add Tip.It's Microhelper or RuneHQ's RuneScape Toolkit? While these you may have never heard of, they also enhance RuneScape gameplay as an addon or as a browser oriented tool. Both of these are legal as well, yet do they deserve an article? No. If we were to allow SK to keep an article, don't all other programs for RuneScape deserve one? As my views go, the most it needs is to be mentioned in the appropriate articles it dealt with (the old rules of RuneScape 1 and 15). The point, only the Windows client needs an article, however small it is. If we are to keep the SK article, would you add the RuneScape Model Viewer as an article do to it being mentioned by a Jagex Moderator and discussed by the Wiki community? (I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes here) 08:02, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

Merge into a new page - Why not merge this into a page that documents all major add-on kits and common add-on features? We could give it a subsection entirely about SK if needed. ~  Telos ^Talk  Mah skillz 05:24, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - This has nothing no do with riot. Telos has a good Idea I think how ever. Team6and7 18:11, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

Keep Riots? Honestly... were talking about a program, sure Rule 7 caused a riot, but it was RULE 7, not SwiftKit. If one was to merge it, merging with riots sounds a bit preposterous. I agree with Telos. Bowler225 02:11, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Keep Bluesonic had the good idea about putting Tip.It, and stuff like that on a page with it. I don't think we should get rid of it

[edit] Gravy Boat of Saradomin

The Gravy Boat of Saradomin is given one brief mention in the 2009 Thanksgiving event. It is never seen or described; all we know about it is that the Sacred Gravy of Turkey Slaying (which does not have a RSW article) comes from it.  C Teng ^talk 22:58, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

Merge/Keep - With either the Saradomin or the Event page. Kazakov 20:30, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Delete as nominator.  C Teng ^talk 02:11, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Could be used in the full one? If not Delete シャドウ Aka Twigy. _{Dane cook} 23:00, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - It is only metioned, is not seen, carried, and has no examine or weight, meaning the article is virtually useless.-- Yödapen6 ^Edits 23:02, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

merge - Just add all the info to the thanksgiving event page for rs:g's sake. 23:25, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

All the info in this article comes from the Thanksgiving event's page.  C Teng ^talk 23:29, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

Merge - Same as above, it is not significant enough for its own article, and if it is in the future then it can get it's own page then. --Josh2 23:59, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

Mege with 2009 Thanksgiving Event - It should just be in the event or in Saradomin's article.

Youdead00 ^Chat 02:43, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delete - This is non-interactive scenery. In fact, its not even non-interactive scenery, since its not even scenery. I strongly believe that a VfD is unnecessary here, but I'd like a second opinion. Psycho RobotTalk 02:50, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - It is presumably an item since the Cook's Brother could give you some of it. By maknig it able to be traded and consumed, I don't think that it is non-interactive scenery. It is referenced, therefore it probably needs an article imo. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 05:51, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

its not an item. You never actualy see it you read that you drink from it. --Xtarn ^{• Talk •} 05:55, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

It is the fact that it is talked about like an item that makes it an item. Arthur Artimus is an NPC even though he is never seen in-game since he is talked about as an NPC. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 06:18, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

I have gone back on my decision after some thinking. While it might be an item, there really isn't much to write about it currently and it would just be speculation. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 07:29, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Though it might exist in the future. ^{(Rofl, shameless crosspromotion there. Today Tonight would be so proud of me)} _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 07:45, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Weak Delete - I'm still not completely convinced that this should be culled from the wiki, as Jagex does have a funny way of taking an item mentioned during an event or quest and making it real. If so, this is something that will happen on a subsequent year's event and not something to necessarily hold your hopes for at the moment. I'm supportive of deletion as it is not an item that can be pointed to, viewed, or even anything more than a reference.... something more like an inside joke. The link should be perhaps made into a redirect into the 2009 Thanksgiving Event though. --Robert Horning 11:10, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Redirect to the event as Robert says, just make sure there is a sentence mentioning it.--Degenret01 13:32, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Huh, shouldn't this be speedy deleted instead? --NuparuMahnika 13:55, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Merge - It is completely valid to keep a mention of it. Just merge it with Thankgiving 2009, its own article, yeah, with only like 5 sentences or less, it is probably not that necessary assuming it is an item alluded to, not a physical object. Bowler225 14:46, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Merge/Delete - Merge any info not already in event page into it; Most likely a joke item rather than a serious one. Chaos knight 16:05, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - This article is virtually useless, at the most keep one trivia sentence mentioning this item on the main article.--Runerune239 16:08, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Merge - It IS mentioned by the Cook's Brother, so why not just merge it into the page? :) \_/Bluepupfrost\_/ 16:51, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Merge/delete - I think that the article should be merged into the Trivia section of the 2009 thanksgiving event. That's where this stuff belongs. 117:20, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Saradomin article - Just stick it in the Saradomin article, much abridged, in the Trivia. Other than that, it doesn't seem to have much of a point.

I'll put in its trivia section.  C Teng ^talk 19:48, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - It is only metioned, is not seen, carried, and has no examine or weight, meaning the article is virtually useless. —86.86.214.162 (talk • contribs) forgot to sign this comment.

Delete - Obviously we know hardely anything about it. Merging with the Saradomin article is a great idea. If more is found out about the "Gravy Boat of Saradomin" then I new article should be created, but only then. kvoth

Keep - It's a gravy boat...OF SARADOMIN! C'mon guys, how cool is that? You don't see gravy boats from Saradomin every day. --  Fruit.Smoothie ^TalkContribs  22:12, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - I was going to suggest a merge, but after reading so many mutually exclusive places it could be merged to, the simplest solution is to keep it. --MarkGyver 00:07, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - No reason for it to exist, just merge it, and delete this page.--Sirnot 04:40, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - I think that it is notable enough. Oli4burggraa ^Talk 09:58, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - The article is unhelpful and useless. It has only information stated in the KB. A merge would fit. 13:09, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - If the problem is that the page is too short, why not just add the stub template to it and/or add more information? --MarkGyver 17:51, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

There is no new information to add to it. It's mentioned for one sentence. More than half of this article, in fact, isn't directly related to the Gravy Boat.  C Teng ^talk 17:59, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Keep/Merge - I think that this is something worth keeping! I mean, maybe it will be mentioned again in some quest or something. If you must get rid of it, just merge it with the Saradomin or 2009 Thanksgiving Event Page Compdude123 20:14, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

But, it hasn't been mentioned again, and no clue has been given that it will be mentioned again, and, RS:NOT#CRYSTAL.  C Teng ^talk 20:29, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Also, it's now mentioned in the Saradomin and 2009 Thanksgiving event pages.  C Teng ^talk 20:29, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Merge/Keep with saradomin and 2009 thanksgiving event. Sir Adunkley^(Talk)(Sign) 03:43, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Delete No use because it is only a event item that you can't obtain so not worth having an article about it. Rswfan 11:44, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Delete Theres no need for this page to exsit. Can the gravy boat of saradomin help you on a quest? No. Can the gravy boat of saradomin help you power up? No. Can you take a ride on the gravy boat of saradomin? No. So theres no need for this page to be on the wiki. Who knows if it even exsit, the cook's brother is probaly crazy.Supergrunt8 11:59, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Keep This is one of those things that often turns out to be significant later. Or it's a red herring that people will be searching on and not finding an entry will be confusing and frustrating. Either way, we were told by an NPC that the thing exists, so it's an item in Runescape, even if we don't understand it right now.

And the event isn't even over yet!!! How can people be passing judgment on an item that could pop up during the event??? Mamabear47 18:46, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Because RS:NOT#CRYSTAL.  C Teng ^talk 20:02, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Comment You make a good point, but if something is not notable (such as a particular bush in Falador)and then turns out to be incredibly important, there's no need to give it an article until this unvieling occurs. Likewise, if the Boat is not important now, then we can wait to give it an article until it isl. It's just good sense. —The Gremlin (talk • contribs) forgot to sign this comment on 15:07, November 28, 2009 (UTC).

Keep - For the same reasons as Lucien's daughter. ~  Telos ^Talk  Mah skillz 20:09, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Aww, Telos, I was going to use her as an example. Well, yeah, per Lucien's daughter and RS:G. Chiafriend12 22:18, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Jagex very rarely makes a passing reference to something without a plan to expand upon it later. References like this have been made before, and they tend to show up again before long. For instance, the Quill of Armadyl. Although this subject hasn't exactly "paid off" yet because it hasn't featured prominently in the game or its greater storyline, its passing reference in Postbag 20 was backed up 22 postbags later, and this obviously is going to play into something bigger in the future. I would not be surprised if the Gravy Boat shows up again, and because of this I say keep it. Morian Smith 00:02, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Lucien's Daughter is the biggest waste of space ever. Unlike the Gravy Boat, it shouldn't even exist, since for all we know, she doesn't. There should just be a note about it. Bad example. —The Gremlin (talk • contribs) forgot to sign this comment.

Merge with 2009 Thanksgiving event - It is only brifly mentioned during this event and thus does not deserve it's own article, but it does deserve to be mentioned in a more relevant article. The1AndOnlyMike 13:21, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

Delete and Merge per others Team6and7 02:45, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - As people have said, it's as strong a candidate as Lucien's daughter or the Quill of Armadyl. As long as they are allowed to exist, the Gravy Boat is also a valid article. Phoenix316 ^talk 17:12, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

Merge Just add the info to the thanksgiving 2009 page. --Morgan--

Proposal - We create a page called the Fabled Gravy of Turkey Slaying, then merge the Gravy Boat page into that.  C Teng ^talk 17:32, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

Support C Teng's idea - Much better than having it outright deleted. ~  Telos ^Talk  Mah skillz 19:43, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Pheonix, I have already said that I do not believe that Lucien's Daughter is valid. It's worse than this article, actually, since, while we know the boat exists, we know no such thing about the daughter. It was just mentioned in passing by one who we already know lied. —The Gremlin (talk • contribs) forgot to sign this comment.

[edit] RuneScape:No page

I don't see why we use this; you're supposed to delete the article, not redirect it to a page that tells you what the Special: deleted article page would. It says it's to remove wanted pages, but aren't we supposed to remove the redlinks from the pages instead of redirect them to this?  C Teng ^talk 22:24, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Edit - Robert Horning says that it's to prevent recreation of pages, but we have Special:ProtectedPages RuneScape:Blacklist Special:ProtectedTitles. Also, if this is deleted, then we should also delete File:No image.PNG.

Delete as nominator.  C Teng ^talk 22:29, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Per C Teng シャドウ Aka Twigy. _{Dane cook} 22:26, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning to keep - I see what you mean, but I think its useful for pages which are deleted which have far far too many links to manually remove them all.  Gaz Lloyd ^Calcs!_Awesome 22:47, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Use a bot. We don't want blue links linking to no pages.  C Teng ^talk 22:48, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - No page has too many links to manually remove; after all, the links were manually added in the first place. Also, someone could make a bot to automatically remove the red links. Finally, if a page is really so important that there would be too many red links, why would it be deleted in the first place? --MarkGyver 17:48, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - The reason to hang onto a page like this is useful if there is a page that is consistently being recreated due to vandalism or a "popular" non-item article page that keeps being created by new users. I'm trying hard to think of what would be the case here on this wiki (Sailing if it is deleted or the Black Party Hat?), but it is something I've done on other wikis, where the page has been fully-protected as a re-direct and then sent to a page like this as a catch-all to keep those pages from being re-created again. As an administrator tool, this could have some value. Still, the above comments have value in terms of questioning the usefulness of a page like this. --Robert Horning 20:48, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Why not use Special:ProtectedPages?  C Teng ^talk 20:50, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you are implying here. You can't protect non-existent pages as they simply don't exist, but you can protect a page that is simply a re-direct. Fully protecting a page whose content is just a redirect keeps the page from being recreated. Are you implying that we simply create a redirect to Special:ProtectedPages? That wouldn't explain to a reader or end-user of our wiki to explain why a page is protected, where as this particular "No page" page can accomplish this minor and modest task. --Robert Horning 14:31, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

Hey, here is a compromise.... merge all of the links to this page with Non-existency? (or the other way around?) --Robert Horning 15:06, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

Wait, sorry, I gave you the wrong link. I can't find the right one, but RuneScape:Blacklist explains it.

Found it: Special:ProtectedTitles.  C Teng ^talk 18:23, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Same reason we have File:No image.PNG. Per Robert. 19:12, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

I actually think that should be deleted too.  C Teng ^talk 20:29, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Per Robert. Oli4burggraa ^Talk 21:59, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - I think it is very humorous and is also informaing.   Ppi802   22:02, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

It's not really humourous, and not informing at all.  C Teng ^talk 22:48, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Per Gaz, sometimes there are far too many links to manually remove, and there's no where to redirect, a good example I think would be Fake image. Psycho RobotTalk 22:03, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Edit- I Just checked fake image and there aren't that many links. But I still think this page is useful. I couldn't find the Special:Deleted article page Teng was talking about, but if it does exist then we should delete this and use that instead. Psycho RobotTalk 22:10, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Special:ProtectedPages?  C Teng ^talk 22:48, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't give any information as to why a user which followed the link has ended up there. Psycho RobotTalk 22:51, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the deleted page thing I was talking about was, we delete the link to the nonexistant page, then, if someone tries to search it, they get, this page does not exist, here are some search terms; if they try to create the page, ProtectedPages blocks it.  C Teng ^talk 22:54, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Basically, I mean users shouldn't be following links to nonexistant pages.  C Teng ^talk 22:55, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree that when possible a redirect should be used or theh links removed, but what happens when that's not possible? If we were redirected to that page, a user wouldn't know why they were redirected there. It'd be confusing to a new user. Psycho RobotTalk 20:22, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

You also can't redirect to special pages.  Gaz Lloyd ^Calcs!_Awesome 20:29, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

No, no redirects, I mean this:

• We get rid of anything that links to RuneScape:No page
• We delete page

No redirects, just, it would be like the page was deleted (which is what we should do).  C Teng ^talk 22:19, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Its awesome... Per gaz —   Manyman ^{TalkEditSign!}  22:05, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Keep, but completely rewrite - The tone is way too informal and the article doesn't explain enough about why the page might not exist, but I think this article is needed. ~  Telos ^Talk  Mah skillz 23:35, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - I can't really say merge; my argument is that it is useful, showing that it once existed; I actually used it today when click a broken link -- Porp1 21:05, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

Well, the point of my nomination is because you shouldn't click blue links to nonexistant pages.  C Teng ^talk 22:16, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Seems redundant to go to a page so that it can tell you that there isn't a page of that name. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 07:10, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

Neutral - I want to see Robert's response to ProtectedTitles. But I am kind of leaning towards keep for No image.png because there are many images that link to it and removing them sometimes may make rereading hard because someone will go up and down the page saying "HUH WHERES THE IMAGE WERE TALKING ABOUT ZOMG" Cheers, 07:07, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

I do stand corrected on the point that there is now a tool to block pages from being re-created and not even have a link to any page at all. Keep in mind that I'm an ancient Wikimedia admin that sometimes gets stuck in a rut doing things a certain way because it simply worked and didn't pay attention to all of these new fangled tools like the ProtectedTitles page. In the past, this and many other "hacks" were done by admins because of limits of the software that now have explict tools to get the job done. Still, I think it is useful in some situations to explain to users why certain classes of articles have been deleted rather than simply leaving them as a blocked red-link. "Soft" redirects (where a page points to external content and not much else) is one of those situations, as would commonly searched terms. All I was trying to point out is that there might be a reason to keep a page like this, even if other tools are available that may do the job as well. To me, a red-link says we can create an article on the topic. What would be sweet is if somehow MediaWiki software converted everything on the Protected Titles page to a "black-link"... i.e. displayed the "link" as if it didn't even exist in the first place. That, however, isn't something that is currently a part of the software and what is a limitation at the moment. --Robert Horning 09:57, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

Then why don't we just delete all the blocked redlinks?  C Teng ^talk 17:43, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

I hope this was just an attempt to be absurd to demonstrate an objection to this idea. There are certainly links that should remain as redlinks, for example "Poop" is one of those that does not deserve any kind of redirect and should remain as the protected red-link that it is. Similar other words far more offensive fit in this realm as well. Presuming that Sailing is deleted, I would suggest that it be redirected to a page like the one under discussion and protected from editing. That is the kind of link that should be protected. I am suggested that somebody who types in [[Poop]] into their user talk page or something that won't be instantly deleted on the spot, that the red-link shouldn't even show up. That is my wish, but something that won't happen any time soon due to limits with the MediaWiki software. There is a role for both kind of link protection methods that would be useful to the greater Runescape community. --Robert Horning 14:53, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

Keep + rewrite - It seems like it was written by a 12 year old. The1AndOnlyMike 13:39, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - I laughed when I read this, but since it does serve a legitimate purpose, it should be kept, although, maybe a more serious rewrite should be in store. Honestly... " Or maybe you just got lost. Or someone wanted you to get lost. The point is, you're not there, you're here. And there's nothing here." I don't know, that part is a bit unnecessary Bowler225 02:28, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - The article was fine here, but here it was completely rewritten by Psycho Robot. Why? I'm going to revert to the earlier version for now, unless there is strong opposition. ~  Telos ^Talk  Mah skillz 19:19, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Active users

This is not a list of every active user on the wiki. Also, several of the users in this category are inactive, but since they are, they did not take the active category off their userpages. For example, Lestatjh3 is in this category, but he hasn't been active since June.  C Teng ^talk 14:35, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator.  C Teng ^talk 14:35, November 27, 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Yea. I remember this. I don't see the point of really adding active user category to our userpages. Some users end up leaving/stop contributing to the wiki and forget to remove it. Powers38 ^{TalkI'm stalking your talk page, beware.} 14:42, November 27, 2009 (UTC)
• Automate similar to Category:Profitable Alchemy Items. It would then list all users that have signed in within the past 90 days or whatever arbitrary time. However, if no one has the interest and expertise to automate it, then we might as well delete it. --MarkGyver 17:44, November 27, 2009 (UTC)
• Automate or delete - If we can't automate it to make it accurate, delete it. ~  Telos ^Talk  Mah skillz 21:16, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Does anyone know if it's possible to automate it?  C Teng ^talk 21:19, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Special:Statistics provides you with much better information than this, but doesn't list who are the active users. As well, this list for deletion does not entail the majority of active users.
  Ryan M ^{(Bluesonic43)}
  07:22, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Look at Bonziiznob's userpage. --NuparuMahnika 07:27, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

• Automate/Delete - Automating it would be awesome. Having to manually do this kind of defeats the purpose. I do like the idea though. Oli4burggraa ^Talk 21:59, November 28, 2009 (UTC)
• Automate/Delete - Possible, but hard. Cheers, Chicken7 _>talk^>sign 07:00, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
• Automate/Delete - Per others. Monstermas22 07:07, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
• Automate/Delete - Yea its unused unless there a automatic way to do it. 32 Supawilko 18:31, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - useless page, waste of space. --Morgan--

Automate/Delete - For 2 reasons: Firstly, it doesn't contain all active users, 2ndly since its not automated this could easily contain users who haven't been on for months even years. Chaos knight 10:05, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Quest spoiler

This seems to go completely against the logic behind the creation of the spoilers policy. I am not sure what else to say. I haven't added this to the template since I am not fully sure how to add it without making it appear in the template.

Delete - As nominator. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 07:05, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

Keep, Sorta - It should be removed from quest guides, because it's pretty obvious that they are guides. But I believe it should be kept on things like the Cryptic Clue Fest, because there are probably quite a few not aware of our spoiler policy, and we don't want to accidentally ruin events like these for people. Sidenote - I added the template. To do so next time, use <noinclude>{{vfd}}</noinclude> to add the vfd template. 07:12, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

Strong keep - This template should have only been used in non-quest articles, and for spoilers from sources other than the actual game. For example, from the book Betrayal of Falador.

It should be removed from quest guides, because it's pretty obvious that they are guides.

The spoiler statement in quest guides was already there in Template:Quest details, and since this template basically said the same thing, I decided to transclude this template in that template as well.

This seems to go completely against the logic behind the creation of the spoilers policy.

How would people know about the policy if there are unaware of it? At least this template points to the spoiler policy. The policy, IMO, was created to say that the wiki is not responsible if we spoil anything for the reader.   az ^talk   10:50, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if ignorance is a good reason. Anyway, is it possible to create a dismiss button which is placed on the spoiler template (like the dismiss button on the sitenotice), and once it is dismissed it does not reoccur again?? Hopefully everyone should be aware of the spoiler policy this way, yet there will not be a distracting yellow message on every page. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 05:36, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

Support Yanks' idea, if possible - I find it very annoying to have this appear in all the quest guides, etc. A dismiss option would be lovely. ~  Telos ^Talk  Mah skillz 18:32, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - A template mentioning a spoiler is not needed. This particular template is ugly and I was saddened when I saw it on The Temple at Senntisten article. Maybe put a little text in italics at the top or something, but this is really not needed. The1AndOnlyMike 13:42, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

Delete It is possibly arguable we don't need any spoiler warning on any page, I can not imagine anyone reading an article and NOT expecting all of the information we have. Why else are they here? At the very least it should certainly be taken off quest guides.--Degenret01 13:48, December 8, 2009 (UTC)

Keep Quest guides, well, OBVIOUSLY, they will be spoilers. Other articles that people may not expect, i.e. ones with a background to it in the middle of an article, and I have seen quite a few, SHOULD have this appended to it. And since when does the "appeal" of a template as long as it makes sense to a viewer even come into play? This template is quite clear and visible. Bowler225 02:22, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

Delete for Quests, Keep for other stuff - For quests it would be obvious to get spoilers, but for some things I think not - Like Betrayal at Falador. Oli4burggraa ^Talk 17:42, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

Delete, but put spoiler warning on main page- So newcomers to the wiki can know that it does contain spoilers. Mjs961 20:15, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - I HIGHLY, HIGHLY doubt that every single user of the RuneScape Wiki reads every single one of our policies. This includes the spoiler policy. Would you rather have a template that says "READ OUR POLICIES BEFORE READING THE OUR ARTICLES" all over each and every article? I don't think you would. 01:36, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Delete As most people are most likely using quest pages for guides and/or to view rewards couldn't it easily be said that they know there are going to be spoilers? Chaos knight 03:11, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Keep --Muhahaa 11:03, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

KEEP - What's the point in deleting this? --  Fruit.Smoothie ^TalkContribs  20:24, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dragon Slayer/Pure's Guide

Merge with Dragon Slayer Why is this an article? There's already a guide for dragon slayer shouldn't anything in this be moved there? Chaos knight 02:20, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Dragon Slayer I read the whole thing and the only difference between the "pure" guide and the normal guide is that the pure uses poisoned iron arrows and waits till the lesser demon and dragon dies of poison rather than fighting it themselves. That one small change does not justfy a second article. Secondly, what pure would do Dragon Slayer? It gives the dreaded DEFENCE XPPsycho RobotTalk 02:27, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Delete and redirect - Doesn't deserve it's own article. The poison method, at best, deserves a brief mention in the main article. ~  Telos ^Talk  Mah skillz 05:00, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Delete and merge what little content is original and unique to the Dragon Slayer article... in a condensed form as well. I admit that "pure" players (especially F2P pures) may like some pointers on how to accomplish the task of slaying Elvarg and keeping their purity at the same time, but writing a completely separate quest article just for that purpose seems to be a little over the top. I also agree with Psycho... you can hardly be called a pure when you have finished this quest. --Robert Horning 18:13, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Merge Pures follow the same path until the battle, so put it there, their own article is really not necessary (and in my opinion, shows a bit of favoritism to a pure). Bowler225 21:06, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Merge This should be merged with the origanal article and put parenthases or something detonating that this is for pure only.   Ppi802   21:12, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Per everyone. Should Demon Slayer's pure guide and Vampire Slayer's pure guide be deleted too? They're both basically a copy of the main article. --Iiii I I I^Talk 21:15, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Put that one up for speedy delete, it's just a shorter version of vampire slayer at least the pures' guide to dragon slayer offers something to be merged. Chaos knight 02:41, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

If it is declared that pure guides like are a good idea, then they will have to be undeleted. I think it is easier to just give those two guides the same fate as the dragon slayer pure guide. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 03:30, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, merely figured since right now they're just copies of the normal articles that they wouldn't be missed much if at all, however your logic makes perfect sense. Chaos knight 04:10, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Merge - Since it's basically the same until the fight, a new page is just useless. Merging would be a better space saver option. Muzzy34 00:53, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Merge or delete - Information is useless, but I'm torn between whether to keep it or just merge. A pure couldn't do dragon slayer anyway, unless it was a defence pure, because it gives Defence experiance as the reward. The1AndOnlyMike 13:08, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Calculators/Runecrafter loss in air running

This article contains outdated information. This method is no longer used due to the trade limit changes.

Delete Agreed. And the information is confusing to understand on top of that. Bowler225 21:11, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Delete Checked the history on it, other than the new change it really isn't updated (the last update was way back in April, at least when I checked) if the prices can be guaranteed always to be accurate and such sure keep it otherwise it's fairly useless. Chaos knight 03:25, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Per everyone else, clearly not needed. The1AndOnlyMike 13:06, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Detailed Dfh.png

Simply put, I don't see any way that an image of this quality could be produced from in-game sources. As such I think its something from the RSMV or something like that. I've posted on the original uploader's talk page asking where he got it, but have received no reply. I'm not sure if this really is an RSMV file, so I've posted here to see what other people think.

Delete - as nom. Psycho RobotTalk 21:30, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

Pending - I can only support this if it is an RSMV image, as it is a high quality image. I would give the uploader a few more days to respond before jumping to conclusion. 21:34, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - The high resolution and the, um, rough shading make the image really suspicious. Inhaps ^talk 21:52, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delete, replace with detailed GEMW image - It is not from the GEMW page, so I don't see how it is possible to get this any other way. On all other pages that have the detailed image in the top corner it is taken from the GEMW. To make it fit in, we probably should replace it with a gemw image. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 00:18, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - I just have no idea how you get an image like that, as I'm pretty sure you can't just take a screenshot in-game... It's fishy... --Sir Scizor1 ^{Talk • Click on the presents for your gift!} 02:04, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Too big to be an in-game image. wat --Iiii I I I^Talk 02:07, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - It CAN be an in game image. As a video creator, I know how it can be created. You zoom in your browser like... a lot, and you get highly detailed images of RuneScape. It wont pixelate the game, the game assumes you are running at a MUCH higher resolution. So no, its not too big to be an in game image. In fact, EVERY image can be made more detailed via the same method I just stated. Bowler225 03:07, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Of course my opinion on the RSMV has been abundantly made in the appropriate forum thread, but in this case I can name a few potential ways that this image may have been created using the standard user client interface. I'm not saying that it would be easy or guaranteeing that this image was taken from the user client interface (suspicion that it came from a model viewer is possible), but that shouldn't be the only criteria here. To me, it seems sad that a high quality image is being rejected merely on suspicion that it came from an "illegal" software package. Yes, "illegal" is in quotes because... I've said my piece on that elsewhere, but suffice it to say it isn't really illegal either. --Robert Horning 07:17, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep - Per Robert. Also, isn't this simply a chathead? What's wrong with that? ~  Telos ^Talk  Mah skillz 19:04, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

It can't be the chathead since chatheads don't go this large. _{Evil Yanks} ^talk 05:52, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - I am personally a video maker, and for your information, a video would have nothing to do with an image like this; editing software is good at putting videos together, not creating a new... thing. If anything, it is probably photoshop. Now, as for my argument, we don't know whether or not this actually was created or not; there are some points in the game where the camera gets glitchy, so maybe it's that -- Porp1 18:17, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Free-to-play Runecrafting training --- sub articles

While I'm not necessarily complaining about Free-to-play Runecrafting training, this nomination is in regards to "sub-articles" to this main training guide:

• Free-to-play Runecrafting training/Fire altar
• Free-to-play Runecrafting training/Air altar
• Free-to-play Runecrafting training/Tables

I have considered merging them into the main "parent" article and simply deleting them, but I consider the information in these sub-pages to be simply obsolete and hopeless of salvation in terms of the quality of the information compared to what is now in the main guide. These pages have also been orphans as nothing really even links to these pages and will rarely even be seen by players searching for this information except on a full-wiki search for content. This also accounts for the general dated material here, and what appears to be some very old vandalism as well (teleporting to Falador for crafting Fire runes).

If there is some use for this information not already supplied in the main training guide, I'm certainly open to merging that in or considering some additions to the main training guide as well. I just don't see any value for keeping these backwater pages on this wiki when nobody is using them or keeping them up to date. --Robert Horning 18:04, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

Merge Table article is the only thing I'm iffy on, other than that everything else could easily be merged without much hassle. On top of which it's out of it's very out of date as the air one alone still acts as if the air altar is in Falador. Chaos knight Talk 22:27, December 19, 2009 (UTC)