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, usually two weeks, 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 Pages listed for deletion 4.1 Sailing 4.2 Money making guide/Firemaking 4.3 File:Runescape holidays events halloween-2007 grimreaper-talkto.gif 4.4 File:All posible conversations with Draynor village tree gard.jpg 4.5 File:Black party hat.PNG 4.6 File:Runescapehd combat-multicombat.gif

[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.
5. When the community has reached a consensus, an administrator will close the VfD, and either delete the article or (if the consensus is to keep) add the Previous vfd template to the article's talk 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

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] 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)

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 Robot Talk Cont  01:49, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Changed to Merge, that's what I originally meant but put delete for some reason  Psycho Robot Talk Cont  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^{TalkShoutout!} 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^{TalkShoutout!} 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 Robot Talk Cont  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 Robot Talk Cont  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 Robot Talk Cont  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 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 Robot Talk Cont  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 Robot Talk Cont  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 Robot Talk Cont  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) 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)

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^{TalkShoutout!} 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)

[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 Robot Talk Cont  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 RT1 Aka Twigy. 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 Robot Talk Cont  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)

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)

[edit] File:Runescape holidays events halloween-2007 grimreaper-talkto.gif

I was originally just going to recapture this image in the new holiday event, but as I did it, I realized that it really is exceedingly boring. Death doesn't DO anything to make the player die... they just keel over. As such I don't believe this image shows anything useful, and would be better off deleted rater than replaced. My replacement image (if that is the outcome of the VfD is here. So should this image simply be deleted, replaced with my image, or kept and my image be uploaded under a different name?

Delete - as nom.  Psycho Robot Talk Cont  03:03, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Soft keep - It kinda historical, and it only was used for the 2007 holiday, so don't see the harm in keeping this one. Tollerach ^talk 18:55, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't sure what you meant by keep (as in replace with my image or completely keep) so I clarified up top and provided a link with my image to compare. Would you clarify your position a bit?  Psycho Robot Talk Cont  19:16, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

To me, they are different images from different events, so I'd say keep the old one to be used in the old article and if you want to use your new image with the new event then go for it. Tollerach ^talk 18:44, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Keep both - Use the old one in the 2007 article and put the new one in the 2009 article. -- Telos Talk 22:25, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - It doesn't even show anything. Oli4burggraa ^Talk 14:57, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Neutral, bordering on keep - All this image really shows is the player's HP, which I regard as "showing off". However it's as Tollerach said, it's a historical image. Keep this image for the 2007 event and just make a new one for the 2009 event. The1AndOnlyMike 08:04, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:All posible conversations with Draynor village tree gard.jpg

This image is low quality and contributes almost nothing to the article. To me it's nothing more than an eyesore. -- Telos Talk 00:42, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

Slight keep, but delete jpg - There is a redirect on that page to another [[:File:Allconversations-Draynortreeguard.png|image]] of the same thing. Although it may be a bit large, it does somewhat contribute to the article. Muzzy34 01:04, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - This is what dialogue pages are for.  Psycho Robot Talk Cont  01:20, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

Delete the other one too - No point in having either of them. -- Telos Talk 01:26, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

Delete .jpg - totally delete the .jpg because of its low quality. Maybe a weak keep on the PNG since it does slightly contribute. However, I think just a dialogue page would really substitute for the image and be less of a pain to read. Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 21:23, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

Delete both, replace with dialogue text page - This image is really too big, for people with smaller resolutions to navigate, and a text dialogue page would do much better. Tollerach ^talk 00:48, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Whether the text is on the same page or a separate dialogue page isn't a big concern to me. I'll go with whatever others think is best. My main opinion though is that this image can and should be replaced with text. Tollerach ^talk 16:55, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Do we even need a dialogue page? There aren't really that many possible dialogue options, and if we're adding a dialogue page here why not do the same to characters such as Miss Schism or Aggie? -- Telos Talk 01:27, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

if you think we need dialogue pages for them, Be Bold and do it yourself under RS:G.

Stelercus

01:39, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to make the point that I don't think the Draynor tree guard needs a dialogue page. I don't actually think Miss Schism or Aggie need one. -- Telos Talk 01:41, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Removed wanted pages clutter. C.Chiam^{TalkShoutout!} 07:53, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Weak delete both, make dialogue page/section - Per most people here. The image is a little useless, IMHO. Cheers, Chicken7 _>talk^>sign 11:58, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Slight delete - I like these images, but I think dialogue pages are better. Oli4burggraa ^Talk 15:00, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Create a dialogue page. The1AndOnlyMike 08:09, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

We don't even need a dialogue page. There are only three possible branches of conversation available, and the only one that actually leads anywhere is if you offer the guard stew. The conversations aren't humourous or anything... -- Telos Talk 20:28, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Not even a dialogue page is necessary for this one.  Psycho Robot Talk Cont  20:30, November 10, 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 Robot Talk Cont  01:29, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Weak delete - Per Psycho. -- Telos Talk 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 Robot Talk Cont  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)

[edit] File:Runescapehd combat-multicombat.gif

I don't think this image is necessary. It just shows a bunch of players attacking. It is not necessary in order to understand the concept of "multi combat", which all its being used as. Also, its very very very disturbing.

Delete - As nom.  Psycho Robot Talk Cont  02:00, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Replace - It's a bit helpful for the page, but the outfits need to be changed. Having that many distracting costumes takes away from the image. Muzzy34 02:03, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Replace - Another Tarikochi image, where all players look the same... I agree with Muzzy, the costumes take away from the image. A replacement where the costumes aren't as distracting and where all the characters don't look exactly the same would work well. I don't think just deleting it would be that great of an idea since it does help illustrate what multi combat is. In a shorter form: per Muzzy. Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 02:14, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Replace - I had dug this quotation from you Psycho from the Image Policy Follow-up: "Worst case scenario, you wind up with things like this unholy abomination of hell-spawned demons which echo forever through my darkest nightmares." I love that statement about this animation. Per Muzzy and Kudos. 02:29, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - NOOOOO!!! That image is cooooooool!!! --NuparuMahnika 04:20, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Is that sarcasm? I really can't tell. And if it is a VFD is not a good place for it <_<  Psycho Robot Talk Cont  04:24, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

No really, I think that image is cool. --NuparuMahnika 04:31, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

I think it is cool too >_> Chicken7 _>talk^>sign 12:04, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Save it then and upload it somewhere. Give Tarikochi credit though, she may summon forth her Bowman hat of Doom if you don't! The1AndOnlyMike 08:11, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Replace - The million Tarikochis gets distracting. I thought it was about illegal multi-logging at first Cheers, Chicken7 _>talk^>sign 12:04, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Replace - Please. Oli4burggraa ^Talk 14:54, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Replace - It does kinda look like an unholy abomination ;) Tollerach ^talk 19:53, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Keep - I dunno. There's not much more that you could really show with a new animation. Keep it. --

Mister Craftsman!

Chat • Works • Workshop

23:00, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

It would be better without the costumes. The costumes distract from the image. A new image without costumes would be good. Muzzy34 23:03, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Replace - It's a good example, but the pointless costumes is distracting. The1AndOnlyMike 08:01, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Replace - Replace it with another modern RS pic. Adamant Man ^{Adamant body}Box Book Counter 21:28, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Replace - I've always disliked Tarikochi's outfit. (I never liked the pith helmet outfit either, but that's gone.) ASATO MA SAD GAMAYA 21:30, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - By the way, if someone is looking for a place to get a new animation, Castle Wars would be the best option Cheers, Chicken7 _>talk^>sign 04:56, November 11, 2009 (UTC)