From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Forum archives

Shortcut: RS:YG RS:YEW

The Yew grove is a page where community members can discuss larger changes to the wiki, such as policy proposals. It serves as a way for anyone to get involved without having to find the relevant discussion page. Messages should be left on this page, not on the talk page.

What this page should be used for:

• Policy proposals or changes
• Discussion of community processes (such as RS:AOTM)
• Changes to significant wiki features.
• In general, anything that the community at large would be interested in.

What this page should not be used for:

• Discussions about deleting a page. Use RS:VFD
• Requests for adminship. Use RS:RFA
• Discussions about the Wiki's theme. Use RuneScape:Theme
• Discussions that belong on an article's talk page.
• Anything that does not have a wide impact.

Contents 1 GEMW annoyance 2 "LOL NOOBS GO **** YOUR MOM" 3 Explicitating who may participate in RfAs, AotMs, VfDs and the like 4 Drop table/Input and consensus NEEDED 5 Yet another skin thread 6 Recent changes refreshes automatically 7 When is an edit minor ? 8 Special:Userrights

[edit] GEMW annoyance

As probably a lot of people have noticed, many other users are updating only the current price on Exchange: pages, and not the times and last price. I think we should discuss if we should employ a policy saying that if it's done wrong, we just revert the edit. I've been fixing other peoples' incorrectly added prices for a while now, and it's rather annoying. This (Nothing meant towards this specific user. Just an example.) is what I'm talking about, and it's happening a lot.

I vote Neutral on such a policy I mentioned earlier. I'm fine with fixing others' incorrect doings, but it's getting annoying.

So, yeah, discuss, vote, whatever. Chiafriend12 16:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Uh, I don't know if I understand this correctly, but it took me about 5 seconds to fix that mistake. I think reverting is just counter productive. =P Tes^Fan 22:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I admit I'm still new to wikia format and templates, so this may be a dumb question: Is it possible to simply update the GE Market Watch template to automatically add the current time of the edit, and the price of the previous version, to their respective fields? Or is something like that just no possible/viable? Regabuh 22:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral It would be easier to just use the current price and date and leave out the last price and last date now that Runescape is introducing the GE price database. I would update the prices more if I only needed to update price and add 5 tildes and not copy old price and copy old date. I'm more interested in the current prices in the various articles that utilize the GEMW data which depends more on the current info and not on past prices. I can always go to RuneScape if I want to know the up-to-date price trends; I don't trust the trends arrows in GEMW anyways because they are not always updated or may be in error. Chrislee33 23:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - I think that if your already taking time to revert the edit it wouldn't take that much more time time to correct it, now that the GE database has been released couldn't someone create a bot to pull the prices for each item off of there once a day or something? and does anybody know why the wanted pages are full of exchange pages that have been created? Reddo 01:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment It's funny Reddo should mention bots - I'm doing just that very thing with User:PointyBot at the moment. Give me a few days and I should have something up and running which will be able to update GEMW prices automatically from the Grand Exchange Database on the RuneScape site. Pointy 01:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose I'm not sure if this is true, but from what I've heard, rollback reverts are only for "simple vandalism". Those who update the price are usually trying to help the wiki, and it is our policy to always assume that at first. So, if we consider it being done incorrectly "simple vandalism", wouldn't that be against the policy? Butterman62 (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "LOL NOOBS GO **** YOUR MOM"

Special:Log/block

In other words, there's been a huge amount of vandalism lately. Unlike the usual 1-3 blocks a day, admins are dishing out 7+ of these a day. I'm suspecting that it's a Total Rune, Buck Nell, or www.4chan.org invasion, but that's just me. Seriously, what the hell is going on? Abyssal talk skills over money

Out of the 18 IP addresses blocked today ("today" being the day in my time zone):

• 11 North American
• 5 European
• 2 Australian

• 13 appear to be residential/business ISPs
• 5 registered to schools/universities

None of them look like open proxies... in other words, this is a product of our growth recently rather than an attack by one or two persistent vandals. (Over 200 accounts/IPs made 5 or more edits last month.) I notice there have also been a dozen or more blocks given out for each of the last few days, as well, and if I were to check their locations, the results would probably be similar to those above. Skill 04:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I've always wondered why some IPs are just registered as "residential/business"... don't these things have a country? Patheticcockroach_(Talk) 06:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The databases I use (the ones linked at the bottom of IP talk pages) all seem to have registration addresses... not sure what you mean. Skill 07:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, nvm, I misread, I didn't notice you made the same list twice (1st, the 18 IPs by country, and 2nd, the same 18 IPs by school vs non-school). Patheticcockroach_(Talk) 13:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious about the security system on the wiki. It seems that the majority of vandalism is perpetrated by anonymous editors, so why do we allow anonymous edits? I know that the wiki is open to everyone to edit, but if we do it by account, the kiddies who vandalise may be less inclined to do so if they have to set up an account, as I imagine most of them have the attention span of a gnat. I'm sure that this has already been discussed before, but it would be nice to hear the reasoning. Hurston 14:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that there are plenty of anonymous users that make positive edits, as well. Especially in the past few months, I've noticed, there are quite a few more anons that add content. I'm sure it would eliminate most of the vandalism to disable anonymous editing, but we would probably lose all those other anons, as well as the fact that it's highly unlikely that Wikia staff would do it for us (none of us can). Skill 23:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see a huge problem in this.. there are plenty of admins and regular users reverting it and blocking the offenders. Like Skill said, it's a product of our growth. Vandalism is vandalism. Just because there's a lot of it in one day, doesn't mean there is an attack or invasion. Lexmarkman^talk  02:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I don't think vandalism is the biggest of problems right now. I have never seen live vandalism on the wiki. That's because the admins do such a great job reverting it. Keep up the good work admins, Cheers, ^Chicken7_talk ^{support-the-namespace} 05:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Chicken, cheers to the admins, to the bearaucrats...but what about regular users like me and ben? Its really not just the admins reverting vandalism. Just something to refelct on. Puremexican

, 04:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, Regular users do a lot of the work as well. I just meant like blocking other users and stuff. Cheers, Chicken7 _>talk^>sign 06:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Resurrecting an ancient topic, I'm not concerned about vandalism in the mainspace (anyone with a brain realizes that chickens do not drop d chains). What I am worried about is vandalism towards the GEMW: It's very difficult to detect, and compromises the GEMW's credibility as a reliable price guide. I have no opinion over what should be done to protect the GEMW, but it's an issue that really needs to be solved. Abyssal talk skills over money

One thing we could do is semi-protect the GEMW pages. I am very hesitant to do that, as I've also seen some useful anon edits there as well... but the GEMW pages (especially the individual item pages) are rather technical for the new wiki user to understand.

Once a useful bot is made for extracting the data from the Jagex pages and at least transferring the more useful data to here is done, the requirement for anon updates on the hard price data is going to be significantly reduced. They certainly aren't doing anything more than simple vandalism, and other than the item pages I haven't seen them doing something like hacking into the templates.... which could do significantly more damage.

BTW, while I'm wading through some of the bot scripts... is there anybody currently working on a 'bot right now for extracting the Jagex price data? I would prefer to make something cooperatively than to spin my own in "competition". --Robert Horning 22:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

PointyBot's got a list of 3200 items in an Access database it scraped from the Exchange site, and 7000 prices points for those items, but I've hit a problem with how to upload those prices in a way that allows it to work with more than one person running the bot. I don't want to be a critical point of failure on the GEMW prices so I need to make it so multiple people can run the bot and it 'just works' without flooding prices and charts all over the show. I'm trying to make progress, but I'm stuck for time at the moment, so I can't make any promises I'm afraid. If someone else beats PointyBot to the punch that's fine with me :-). In the meantime, if you want a data-dump of items let me know and I'll post it somewhere in table form if that helps. Pointy 00:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Explicitating who may participate in RfAs, AotMs, VfDs and the like

This RfB has brought forward a disputatious issue in regards to whether the applicability of one rule found in UotM is or can be blanketed to those other areas where opinions of support and oppose are found. There are some that argued that it did however, after having researched past RfAs which took place after the policy change found in UotM, I did not find a single example of someone being denied a vote due to lack of mainspace edits and to the contrary, found examples such as this one (that took place six months after the UotM rule was initiated) where someone with less than 50 mainspace edits was challenged but ultimately allowed to participate in the disucssion. So as of right now the reality is that de jure and de facto, the only place where one must have a minimum of 50 edits is UotM. Despite this, we have some users and at least one administrator who believe that this policy should or is extended to other areas. And so I have created this discussion so that we may finally clarify and crystallize the rules.0 Let me clarify now that this discussion does not include UotM since the rules was already publically discussed and had been developped exclusively for that area and additionally, the 50 edit requirement in a situation where only support votes are allowed and no negative vote can be expressed makes sense. So now as to who may participate.

So who should be allowed to participate in these discussions? I'd like to start off by reminding everyone that these requests for admin, for an article of the month even the vote for deletion is not simply a question of getting a democratic majority but of a general consensus formed between those people participating so though while 60% of the people may think an article should be deleted and 40% think it should be kept, they can come to a concensus of a merger. As a corollary, in a situation where 70% of the people voice a support opinion without cause and 30% of the people state that they oppose but provide then first and foremost, there is an evident lack of consensus and second, it is not the vote that matters but the argument behind it and so a strong, reasoned and persuasive minority vote will determine the end result over a weak and generic majority vote. We don't bring votes here, we bring arguments and no argument should be nfor reasons that go beyond the breadth of the argument itself. So if a new user or an anonymous IP or an administrator or a bureaucrat gives a unique position or a good idea either in support of a position or person, in opposition or to form a consensus, their voice should not be nullifed and striken out simply due to the mistrust of others. This is probably why there is no rules banning them and why we should explicitly state that yes they can participate. To buttress this, I'd like to quote other official policies.

First of all, we find these truths to be self-evident, that all editors are created equal: "Editors come in all shapes, sizes and powers; from the bureaucrat, to the admin, to the standard editor, to the unlogged IP address. It's also possible that although you do not know it, the editor you're talking to is a player moderator, forum moderator or even a Jagex staff member. In addition, a member may have very high levels in some skills, and specializes in them a lot. An editor's status, popularity, attitude, demeanor, or in-game experience may influence the way we think about them. However, there is no person on this wiki that has more authority than another, no matter what, because all editors are equal."

A good contribution is a good contribution, a good idea is a good idea and so if someone gives a good reason why an article should be deleted or a person shouldn't be an administrator, their "title" should be irrelevant. I also know that a concern of some people would be sockpuppets. Well first, I would say that all editors must assume good faith in others: "Assume that when an editor makes an edit, it was to help the wiki, not to vandalize it. Since anyone can edit, we must assume that most people who work on the wiki are trying to help it, not hurt it. If you are positive someone made an unconstructive edit, then feel free to correct it." Remember, we aren't really "voting" since the majority will not automatically mean that something passes or fails. If there is reason to believe that an editor may be a sockpuppet such as being the single edit of an IP or having come back after two months of nothing to vote, then you can note that in subscript without striking out their comment and if the proof is incontrovertible, then it may be removed. Regardless, ideas are what reign in these fora and if you provide a good idea to support your position and indicate that a particular person or persons parrot someone else or don't even provide any reason, then in the forming of a final concensal agreement, they would not have any particular influence.

Finally, let's remember what the Runescape community is not:

"a democracy: Community decisions are based upon consensus, not polling. When contributing to a discussion, an argument should be given for your point of view, instead of simply voting. Others will then respond to your argument, and eventually a consensus should be reached one way or another. Once all arguments have been made and responded to, the discussion may be closed by an administrator or bureaucrat, regardless of the time elapsed since the nomination. Closing administrators are given limited discretion in determining whether a consensus has been reached in a discussion. If you feel that the decision made was poor or did not reflect consensus, you can appeal the decision on the closer's talk page, or at another community process. Decisions should never be made simply on the basis of majority vote."

"a bureaucracy: Wikis are not intended to be run by a cabal of administrators, or for that matter, experienced editors. Policies and guidelines should achieve a consensus before they come into effect, and should be written down in project space for all to see. They should be designed to improve the wiki, but can be ignored in cases when they are not accomplishing this task. All users should be able to participate in the development of policies, and in other discussions. There is no power structure of any sort. Administrators are not "higher" than regular users in any way, other than having access to administrator tools. Likewise, bureaucrats are not higher than administrators, except again that they have access to bureaucrat tools. All editors are equal. "

Our policies say so, the spirit of Wikia asks so and so far this place has shown so: all editors are equal, there is no hierarchy and everyone should be able to participate in discussions. Let's make this clear to all.--Diberville 23:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Support the idea of allowing newer users to vote - Ok, first off, that was one of the longests posts I've ever seen on the Wiki or on the Wiki forums. Second, isn't the same thing happening in the U.S. with voter ID cards? Third, it's "we hold these truths..." not "we find...". Anyways, to get back on topic I'd like to back up what you said earlier in your post. Indeed, since many people say that we are not a democracy and that we aren't actually "voting", I find it very interesting that some of the same people are trying to limit who can vote. Like you said earlier, if we really aren't voting then what difference would a sock puppet make? If someone just comes in and says "support - so and so is my friend irl" and that person joined yesterday and has 2 edits, it doesn't really matter since it's a consensus. If their "vote" doesn't contribute to the discussion or doesn't counter a previous arguement then it means nothing. If a new person who has been here one day and has 2 edits comes in and makes a wonderful point and supports it with links, their opinion SHOULD be considered, as it contributes to the discussion. I really don't think these "rules" are helping the Wiki at all... Ilyas Talk Contribs 00:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ilyas, none of the supporters have listed ANY links to validate their argument. Because a large number are new and know nothing about why Chia would be be good, because they don't know the community at all. Christine 01:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Support unrestricted voting. In any discussion where we get a load of spammy 'me-too' votes the closing admin can simply note that these were treated as such when writing up the summary. It would only be a problem if we counted votes and used majority rule, but since we look to consensus instead I don't really see it as an issue. Putting a restriction on voting would, however, prevent 'unqualified' editors from making positive contributions to the discussion and that is A Bad Thing. Pointy 00:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest an OBJECTION keyword to respond to comments which really should be taken with a grain of salt:

Example:

Support Endasil is my best friend, he would make a great sysop! Signed, SomeNoob

OBJECTION This user has only made 10 or so edits in the last year and clearly is voting in the interest of Endasil and not of the wiki. Signed, SomeDenizen

This would allow us to clearly mark points to which we take exception while not removing their intrinsic right to have said it. Endasil (Talk·Contribs)  @   14:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

@Ilyas: I think the reason Christine (whatever, I'll name names) is so adamant on clearly marking those votes is because the process is so dependent on one person: the presiding bureaucrat. We know that Dtm will always look at the arguments, we trust him to do so, but what if an inactive 'crat stumbles upon the decision, sees all the supports and less opposes, and without really reading the whole discussion decides the result? I think a few of us are kind of nervous that all of that would rely on one person's discretion (all the more reason to be very picky with choosing a new bureaucrat) and so we want to make certain things clear to any presiding 'crat. That said, I agree with diberville, and to clarify my stance, I don't think we should be striking-through new users' comments. It's not a vote, and so clearly inlining an objection or a comment to a Support/Oppose vote that doesn't have a shred of reasoning behind it is sufficient. Endasil (Talk·Contribs)  @   14:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

To Christine - But what does "assume good faith" mean? It means not to assume everything is bad and to at least give people a chance. We wouldn't be doing that if we put a ban on ALL new users would, in fact, NOT be assuming good faith. Ilyas Talk Contribs 15:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

To Endasil - All the more reason we need crats who are neutral and not on one side or the other. Ilyas Talk Contribs 15:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I've been involved with two other fairly largish wiki communities (Wikibooks and Wikiversity), and the long-time precedent that has been invoked in those communities was in regards to not vote counts, but the quality of the argument being presented. This keeps out sock puppetry... which is from all appearances the reason you are trying to exclude new contributors. Or am I mistaken about this?

  This shouldn't be an issue that "majority rules", but to look at intelligent discussions about the various issues that are raised. In other words, a VfD discussion that has 25 votes in support that are mostly "Yeah, ugly page...needs to go", and one very well thought out and reasoned reply that demonstrates policies where it fits within the scope of the project and why such a page is desperately needed within the project.... I think the reasoned reply should outweigh all of the other essentially meaningless votes against. In other words, improve the discussion, don't just count votes. Or simply put, don't rely simply upon the vote totals.<p>Along this line of thought, it is much more likely that a brand-new user could come up with a substantially coherent argument for one side of an argument... or perhaps even come up with a truly novel solution that might even resolve the issue in some way that all parties can agree upon. I know this takes maturity and it is much easier to simply count votes. But this attitude can help resolve issues without having to worry about such petty problems like how many edits one of the participants in the discussion has made or not made to represent how valuable their ideas are in the discussion. --Robert Horning 17:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what he's trying to say. Ilyas Talk Contribs 17:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

As a note, this no-voting precedent was made quite a while before RS:NOT, where RFA's were mostly decided by vote count, and the issue was raised when real-life friends of the nominee would vote. Since RS:NOT was made, and has been trying to move RFA's and the like into a consensus with disscussion instead of a voting booth, I think the precedent is redundant now (I feel I can safely say no one here wants to prevent IPs and new users from partaking in disscussion). Of course, we still have the issue of people going "Support - name", but that's a different issue entirely. =) Tes^Fan 17:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

True, but now that it is a consensus, it would make no sense to deny new users the right to "vote", or really just add to the discussion. Ilyas Talk Contribs 17:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, that's the point I was getting at.

And as I said in my somewhat sesquipedalian speech, so far the rules and actions of most people do follow this ideal but a small minority spuriously claim that only some may participate (as seen in the above linked discussion) and so that's why I created this— to explcitate, that is make abundantly clear, that everyone may participate and that an opinion, good or bad, can't be thrown out due to arbitrary non-existant rules that throw good faith and the Socratic nature of Wikia out the window.--Diberville 17:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying that only some may participate...I think we all agree that a valid point is valid no matter who said it. But the problem is that most of the new people "voting" don't even have a point! If I could think of the ideal (not saying it would be possible or practical) we would have a discussion where nobody really supported or opposed, but only said some valid premise with a link or two to prove its validity. If we could get to that point, signing comments wouldn't even mean anything...either the premise would be true or it wouldn't, end of story. Endasil (Talk·Contribs)  @   00:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I can tell you from discussions in IRC that at least two users are under the imprsession that IPs or new users are not allowed to participate in these discussions, valid point or not and that these are the rules despite all the contradictory evidence I showed them which is why I think it absolutely necessary to state that anyone can participate. As you can see in the discussion, one even restored the strikethrough "per policy" which doesn't exist anywhere but in the user's mind. And as an addendum in suport of your paragraph below this one, it is a sysop and crat's responsibility to look over a discussion to find a concensus or maintain the status quo in the case that one is not present; strikethroughs are unnecessary. If one believes they are required for the closing admin, then it means one of two things: either the sysoping of the admin was a mistake or more probably, the strikethrougher does not assume good faith in the ability of the crat or sysop. In either case, the person contributing to the discussion should not be punished because of the shortcomings showcased in others.--Diberville 00:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, at this point, I think we all agree that this wiki is NOT a democracy, and therefore newbie votes don't really have a theoretical affect. The only argument I've seen to strikethrough such votes is that it provides a visible note to any presiding 'crat or sysop. But, I think I've demonstrated we can achieve the same thing by objecting or adding comments to an invalid point, a sheep vote, etc. So is there any other reason that justifies removing a new user's intrinsic right to participate in these vital wiki discussions? Endasil (Talk·Contribs)  @   00:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not sure about using the word "objection" though - it's a bit over-formal and it's kind of confrontational as well. I think "comment" is more appropriate, and it avoids adding new 'special words' to the process. Pointy 00:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you've contradicted yourself here Endasil. Yeah, this isn't a democracy in the sense that we don't have to strictly count votes. But what is being suggested here is that new users do in fact have a voice... based on the quality of their argument. I know this is a bit much to ask from a bunch of fans of a game that is admittedly strongly biased toward the teen-age demographics (and asserted to be largely a pre-teen game by some harsh critics.... I don't want to flame this point any more), but maturity and an air of compromise is something that needs to be made in order to let the whole wiki concept work. Writing a massive document (you can call this wiki to be a player's handbook for Runescape) collaboratively is a very difficult task and can push differences to the front if you let them.

For myself, I find strikethroughs to be offensive and a deliberate attempt to squelch a conversation. If a decision has to be made and action taken (presumably by an administrator), the person taking the action can be expected to be intelligent enough to be able to discount votes on their own. Let the words written stand on their own. There are exceptions to this concept, but that should be an exception rather than the rule. --Robert Horning 12:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, where did I contradict myself? I've said that we're not a democracy, and that everyone should have the right to speak their piece. I've said that strikethroughs tend to remove a user's right to speech and that instead we should be simply responding to comments with no weight (Support Endasil he's my cousin) with deliberate rebuttals. If you're confused about the way I used "newbie vote", I meant that specifically to refer to the type of voting that's been happening on Chia's RFB--that is, a vote by a functionally inactive user with no useful argument--NOT to mean any comment left by a newbie. So, if that's not what you think is contradictory, please tell me what was. Endasil (Talk·Contribs)  @   21:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Though I expect this conversation to continue, based on the pre-existing rules, everything said here and on parts six, seven and eight of RuneScape:Gaming_the_system, I am immediately removing the strikes from the RfB since they are effectively currently breaking the rules and gaming the system right now even if we all immediately change out position on this issue. If you see anyone restoring the strikes, please revert and inform them of their mistake.--Diberville 21:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Drop table/Input and consensus NEEDED

Because I do not want an edit war or something (or to get blocked) I say we need a discussion regarding a drop table. A drop table would have the average number of charms someone could expect to get by killing 100 of any of the listed creatures. This is not the same as a drop log because its' numbers will be based on the experiences of 2 or more people. More whenever possible. When the table was up I referred many people ingame to it and it was greatly appreciated by them. I further state that the table should stay based upon RS:IAR for any who would like to argue that it violates a rule. People, we need a consensus on whether it should happen. Please input.--Degenret01 02:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I know I am new as a registered user, but I have used this wiki for about 6 months now. So I am not a total noob. (Just a minor one). I am not sure that the table can be called a lot different than a drop log (isn't it like a SUMMARY drop log?) but the point regarding RS:IAR looks very valid. Even the statements of Butterman seem to suggest he would have not done so had he been aware of that. But shouldn't this be on Yew grove to get consensus? --Varthlokkur 03:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really Yew Grove appropriate. It's only affecting one page, and IMHO that should stay on this talk page. However, as to the drop log point, as far as I'm concerned, it IS a drop log. As far as I'm concerned, it DOES help the article. I'd rather a list like that then a T/F thing over which monster drops charms. Although, I'd prefer more than just 2 people killing 100 monsters each. So we'll need to work on that. =P Add at least 5, and probably at least 500 monsters, averaged out to be charms per 100. Ben^Talk_{Contributions}^Editcount_RfA 04:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Degenret has a point with RS:IAR. I also told him on his talk page that I disagreed with the RS:SG policy, and that we could attempt to change it (I've initiated a policy change before, specifically RS:AEAE). And to be honest, I didn't know this policy existed on the RuneScape wiki before (but I've seen it on Wikipedia). Also, I realize the table's potential benefit to the wiki. However, also, it could also cause a lot of problems. For example, let's say a user did some testing, so he changes up the table a bit to say "20 gold charms" for so and so instead of 15. Then, someone disagrees, he says it's 10. Then another person does it, and he gets lucky and says it's 40. And on and on and on. However, the table could help and as everyone says, "anyone can edit" and "if you don't want your contributions to be mercilessly edited, then don't submit them". So, maybe it wouldn't be a problem, but then who knows.

Also, to another point, I think this should be on the yew grove, because maybe it's only affecting one page now, but it might will affect more later. Some day, someone will come along and try to do the same thing for, say, abyssal whip drop rate from abyssal demon. Then someone changes the rate, and someone disagrees with that rate, and someone disagrees with the table altogether, and here we go again. Butterman62 (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and Varthlokkur, your opinion is valued just as much as everyone else's. All editors are equal. Butterman62 (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Since this is a Yew Grove topic because we are talking about changing board wide policy, I'm going to move it over there so to those who wish to add their two cents, please go here: RuneScape:Yew_grove.--Diberville 21:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another skin thread

See RuneScape_talk:Theme

[edit] Recent changes refreshes automatically

Hey guys. I've put some code in MediaWiki:Common.js from WoW Wiki that allows the recent changes to refresh automatically every 60 seconds. All you have to do is go to the recent changes page and select the "AJAX" box at the top of the page beside the header (it might take awhile to load). It's useful if you want to keep a window/tab open to the recent changes to patrol the wiki without having to refresh it all the time. It works in Firefox and Internet Explorer 7, though you must be logged in to see use it.--Richard 00:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, how come the admins don't turn green, and staff turn gold, etc? That's what it's supposed to do, but I've never seen it. C Teng ^talk _Wikifest 00:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It might be your browser. I see the colours in Firefox and IE7.--Richard 00:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

My browser? Can I do anything to fix it? C Teng ^talk _Wikifest 00:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any colors for user rights groups either, but yet I'm using IE6. Gotta get that updated soon. Butterman62 (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] When is an edit minor ?

Hi. I'm a pretty new member here on the wiki and am trying to feel my way around without messing anything up. I was looking at RuneScape:Requests_for_adminship/Nq2h and got to wondering, when does this button get checked? For punctuation? Ok. Fixing 1 or 2 spelling errors? Ok. Rewriting 2 or 3 sentences so they make more sense? Maybe not. So I was looking at Edit help and Style guide and couldn't find any information on it. So I asked User_talk:Robert_Horning about it because I saw he knows a lot about the wikis. And he tells me there is no policy so go ahead and start a proposal here to get one. I don't know about all the different edit types yet so I am hoping experienced users can come up with some ideas. —Varthlokkur (talk • contribs) forgot to sign this comment.

For me, I mark edits as minor if it's a small thing, like fixing a few typos, punctuation (as you said above), a link, a redirect, bolding a title, one of those small things. There's really no standard median among users. It varies for everyone. Chiafriend12 04:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

All my edits are marked as minor automatically by wikia, and I don't think a policy makes any sense. It's too easy to forget to check the box, or uncheck the box for those who use it automatically, and what are we supposed to do, punish those who forget...? I don't think a policy is even needed or sensible. Christine 22:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I've seen you mark a lot of major things minor, like signing talk pages, and adding a section to an article? Why? C Teng ^talk _Wikifest 01:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Christine, you can change that in your preferences. Under the "editing" tab, there is a selection for "Mark all edits minor by default". Just make sure that's unchecked. It's usually off by default, but maybe you checked it by accident some time :) - sannse (talk) 09:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I want it like that, sannse.. =\ Christine 02:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

My rule of thumb is, if I'm adding, removing or altering content, that is, if after my edit the information found on the page is different from what it was before, it's a major edit. Anything else, such as the stuff Chia enumerated, I consider minor.--Diberville 01:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The main issue I have about the "concern" over if an edit is minor or not is how it may be perceived in terms of discussions for adminship (what started this whole conversation) or if a user may be considered a "difficult user". I do agree that some nefarious users can take advantage of the situation where most people consider a minor edit to be something to avoid reviewing when pressed for time in either doing a recent changes patrol or looking at their watchlist. It can be an indication for if somebody is being systematically damaging to the project or not. In a broad sense as well, you can gauge the use (or lack thereof) of the minor edit flag to determine how seasoned the editor is in terms of how they apply the flag on what they edit.

But at the same time, don't think this is an issue that should even be raised at all in terms of granting administrator rights. The minor edit flag is a very deep and personal issue, and something that varies considerably from one user to another. While it may be an indicator of problems, it certainly shouldn't be used ever as the "prime" evidence that somebody isn't fit to become an administrator or to get their account blocked. Furthermore, I would consider it to be very rude behavior to be highly critical of another user's pattern of using the flag if otherwise they are making useful contributions to the wiki.

I support continued discussion about what constitutes a minor edit or not, and that is something that certainly would be useful to the newer wiki users among us. Heck, I would like to learn a little bit more about what others do with this flag. But I rank its use as something akin to somebody using the spelling for the word "color" or "colour" and should be treated the same. --Robert Horning 12:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Special:Userrights

If a b'crat wants to make a user an admin or give rollback, the new special page Special:Userrights should be used. This page incorporates Special:Makesysop and Special:Giverollback (which no longer works anyway), so it is still possible to give users rollback rights.--Richard 16:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)