RuneScape:Yew Grove/Archive1

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents 1 Wiki logo 2 Image pages 3 Familiar's Special Moves 3.1 Merge with Albino Rat 3.2 Should we Merge? 3.3 Result 4 Bot Status for Nq2h Bot 4.1 Purpose of Nq2h Bot 4.2 Why Bot status? 4.3 How to start Nq2h Bot 4.4 Consensus Needed 4.5 Discussion 4.5.1 Support 4.5.2 Oppose 4.5.3 Neutral/Other 4.5.4 Pointy's Points 4.6 Nq2h Bot has been Botted! 5 Forum archives 6 Item infobox 7 Bot policy 8 ChickenBot 9 PointyBot Repairs 10 Requests for page protection 11 All editors are equal clarification 11.1 Comments 12 Image of the Month 13 Accessibility of Pages 13.1 Screen Resolution 13.2 Internet Bandwidth 13.3 Default Skin 14 Edit - Load - Insert, if blank inserts Main page BUG 15 PointyBot Source Code 16 dungeon maps 17 Cannot be made using smithing skill 18 disappearing images 19 image shadows 20 Total Rune vandalism 21 Shop Image Policy 22 New color scheme 23 a little help moving a page 24 Byting off templates 25 Sitenotice Exceptions? 26 Random Exchange??? 26.1 An Exchange namespace 27 Custom Monaco Skin for Runescape 28 Update to the user treatment policy 29 Weird Medal

[edit] Wiki logo

Okay, let's have a vote on which Main Page logo to use in quartz format: Image:wiki.png or Image:wiki_wide.png. If you support, you are voting for Image:wiki.png, and if you don't, you're voting for Image:wiki_wide.png. (Am I doing this right, Chia?)  C Teng ^talk 02:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I use Monobook, so it doesn't affect me one way or the other, however, I'd definatly have to say that Image:wiki.png looks much neater, and more professional. Sorry, webmaster point of view there... Ben^Talk_{Contributions}^Editcount_RfA 03:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no voting here guys. Monobook uses wiki.png, Quartz skins use wiki_wide.png. End of story, you have no choice. Quartz skins MUST use that logo, it's written into the coding. Christine^Talk 03:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Could we not change the wiki_wide.png logo then? I mean, it's not like there's no choice, theres gotta be some changes we can make. Even if we can't use the wiki.png logo, use something else. Ben^Talk_{Contributions}^Editcount_RfA 03:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

He's got a point, everyone likes Image:wiki.png better, we could change the image.  C Teng ^talk 04:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I much prefer Image:wiki.png76.232.1.32 09:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have just created an account and switched to the monobook skin, this is what I have been looking for all along. Why is monobook not the default skin as seen to public users? I personally think that smoke looks disorganized and unprofessional.Tebuddy 09:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Smoke? We're talking about quartz skins.  C Teng ^talk 21:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Smoke is the name of a Quartz skin. -.- Christine^Talk 22:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You think monobook is better than quartz, Tebuddy? I accually disagree (and apparently a lot of other users). But this is a discussion of which is better, Image:wiki.png or Image:wiki_wide.png.  C Teng ^talk 01:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that the Monobook logo has a diferent size than the Quartz skin one, if it was resized, it would look really ugly or small, also, if we made a new one, it may be even worse than the actual one, let's evade problems and let it as it is. Jigo22 01:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

C Teng, learn to read a discussion before adding in a new comment. -.- There is no voting here guys. Monobook uses wiki.png, Quartz skins use wiki_wide.png. End of story, you have no choice. Quartz skins MUST use that logo, it's written into the coding. It doesn't matter which you think is better, the wide one has to be used for quartz because of its size. Christine^Talk 01:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Even thoguh christine has a point, its written into the coding it can't be changed, Christine could lighten up a bit and be a little less,-how do I put this delicately-, rude. Puremexican

, 01:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, yes, I agree, and second of all, I was referring to Nq2h's idea, change wiki wide. That is, assuming the vote is won.  C Teng ^talk 01:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Change the image in the smoke (quartz) skin, or change the default skin is what needs to be done. Tebuddy 05:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment For some reason, there's no way to change the default skin to monobook, only to a different quartz theme. There doesn't seem to be an interface page for it either. On the topic of logos, however, someone will probably need to design a new one for Wiki_wide.png (assuming to decide to change it). Wiki.png can't simply be stretched into the size required for the quartz logo without making it look deformed. If I understand correctly, the last time we needed a new logo, several people just submitted their ideas and they were compared; it seems logical to do the same thing here. Skill 08:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think changing the default skin would be a good idea; I'm not sure it can even be done.  C Teng ^talk 12:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it can. -.- Christine^Talk 19:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Skill is right, we can't use the same logo, perhaps we can submit ideas and choose one, but it would be better if we uploaded them to Imageshack or Photobucket, now we have to wait for the decision of the community Jigo22 17:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:New-wiki-wide.png is a logo I made based off the other one in paint.. only took about 10 minutes. Anyone else who wants to make changes or improvements is welcome to, as I have no decent graphics program on this computer. Ben^Talk_{Contributions}^Editcount_RfA 18:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I also made one here, I can add more Runes if you want: Jigo22 18:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ben's is great. I say we use that one.  C Teng ^talk 20:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I like that it's adapted from the old logo. I've uploaded a new version under the same name as Ben's in which I removed lines and misplaced pixels created by cropping through airbrushing and just edited some incorrect shading. That can be reverted if need be, but I don't think he'd mind since he said he didn't spend much time on it. Everyone else should keep submitting logos though and we can put it to a vote. Christine^Talk 22:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks great. Does this count as the community decision, or should we put a link at the top of the wiki and have a longer one?  C Teng ^talk 01:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I like bens as well.Tebuddy 06:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Christine, do you want to go one step further? I thought it be nice to make the number of runes on each side of the title symmetrical...you could easily do this by having one extra above the title, leaving 4 on either side. That's my only criticism, that it's not symmetrical. Endasil (Talk) @ 21:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well Endasil, I only spent a few minutes on it. I knew that it'd have to be repositioned eventually but thankfully Ben did it so I didn't have to XD Christine^Talk

_Flickr 23:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've made it a little more symmetrical now. Compare with Ben^Talk_{Contributions}^Editcount_RfA 23:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

So, are we using it?  C Teng ^talk 17:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless I see some other comment as to whether we should keep/change it, I'll upload it to the wiki logo on Friday (8 February 2008) Ben^Talk_{Contributions}^Editcount_RfA 18:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the "p" cut off at the bottom. Skill 18:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you Skill, I didn't even notice it was messed up. Ben^Talk_{Contributions}^Editcount_RfA 18:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I updated the logo earlier today, and haven't gotten a comment yet. I guess everyone likes it enough that they're not ranting. Ben^Talk_{Contributions}^Editcount_RfA 08:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's awesome! Thanks, Ben.  C Teng ^talk 23:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion/question Is it possible to use a series of the logos so that the individual ones match with standard offered skins? I'm guessing the skins are implemented through different css. If it is possible to auto-select from a series then the shadowing effect could be made to match the background colour of each skin. I would be more than happy to recreate the logo into a series with a little help on the coding. Anyone? --kytti khat– 12:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can believe it, no, it's not that simple. The Monaco and Quartz themes have the style information for where to find the image embedded in a style tag in the HTML itself, which overrides anything you could put in the CSS. What I have done for my sandboxy skin is specify an extra CSS attribute for the logo which sets its visibility to hidden, so it doesn't show up at all. But I haven't thought of a way to override the name of the image being used. Endasil (Talk) @ 21:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image pages

I noticed that image pages no longer let you know when pictures have a transparent background : a few days (weeks?) ago, if an image had a transparent background, it would have a tiled background on the image page. Now the background is white, so it's impossible to see quickly if the background is transparent or just really white... Can't this be reverted to what it was before ? Patheticcockroach_(Talk) 07:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki was upgraded to a new version yesterday, I would suspect something to do with that. If it is because of the upgrade and not a setting that someone changed, then it's hard-coded and might be hard to change. Skill 07:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed too. It would be good if there was like a non-transperant category too. Then people who can make images transparent can go through the images like the Wanted Pages and Category:Needs Image. ^Chicken7 11:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If you do a hard refresh now the checkered background should show up, but it's a little off from what it was before. The image used is Image:Checker-16x16.png. It's sysop protected because of the potential for abuse, let me know if there are any changes to be made (there probably are). Skill 22:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed that. Thanks, it's ok for me :) Patheticcockroach_(Talk) 16:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Familiar's Special Moves

Okay, as this seems to be a common discussion between the familiars pages, I'm moving it here. Basically this discussion is: whether or not we should merge the special moves with the familiars page. Here is the comments from Talk:Cheese Feast:

[edit] Merge with Albino Rat

I disagree, under the RuneScape:Granularity policy. "All items are worthy of their own article." As this is an item, technically, it does deserve it's own article. However, the title should be changed to include "Scroll" at the end, as that's technically the items title. Ben^Talk_{Contributions}^Editcount_RfA 02:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree. This page's content should be added to albino rat, but remain an article by itself.

This is not an article about an item, but a move, therefore RuneScape:Granularity doesn't apply. The entirety of the content of this article could be added to albino rat for simplicity. Chocotard 07:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see that now, I assumed that it was about the item. If that's the case, maybe all of the move pages should be merged as well? If so, maybe we should move this discussion somewhere more visible to all users? Ben^Talk_{Contributions}^Editcount_RfA 05:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I think they should be merged, if only because they are relatively small in and of themselves. Whether to merge them into the familiar or scroll pages, I don't know... Hurston 00:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Because there are not enough different opinions, here is mine. Considering that the summoning pouch and the familiars' special exist solely for the purpose of the familiar itself, I strongly feel that all 3 should be one page. Before you respond to that statement, please consider that if any one is looking for information on any of the three (familiar, pouch, move), it is much simpler to have all of the info presented on one neat page. None of the three really have a lot of info by themselves. Currently there is just way to much clicking and opening new pages to find all the information. This way would make the most sense. --Degenret01 04:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Should we Merge?

With my understanding that this is just a special attack from the familiar, does it deserve it's own page? If so, does every special attack from weapons deserve their own page too? Maybe our best solution is to include the section in the article, and then create a Familiar special attack page to compile the listings of all of them, similar to the Special_attack article? Ben^Talk_{Contributions}^Editcount_RfA 17:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Idk, personally I think if all spells get their own page, then the special attacks for familiars should too. Christine^Talk_Flickr 01:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand though, there are already a bunch of weapon special attacks that don't have their own pages, and each of the pages would be ridiculously short. I think that perhaps there should be several articles that list special attacks, so as the special attacks page doesn't get too long. For example, maybe there could be a page for low-level familiar special attacks, mid-level, etc. Skill 03:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind multiple articles, or maybe even ones grouped by effect. Something like Familiar_Effects/Attacks or Familiar_Effects/General. But take a look at the length of these articles. Cheese_Feast is probably at the length it will get to at a maximum, and it's one sentence. There's not much to expand on either. Ben^Talk_{Contributions}^Editcount_RfA 03:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What I think is that it should merge as then it would be convenient to people to read! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.154.112 (talk) 08:48, 1 February 2008.

Indeed... the reason why spells have their own pages is because you can't bind one spell to another thing. In the case of special attacks, you can bind one special attack to one weapon, so the special attack is developped on the weapon's page, like a part of it. For Summoning, it's quite the same : you can bind one special to one familiar, so it's logical to have it on the same page, as long as it doesn't make too big a page. The granularity stuff is okay, but when it splits things that go together into tiny little bits that requires you to open 10 pages to get a comprehensive info about one single item/whatevern, it does hurt readibility, particularly when the Wiki is hosted on such a slow server, where loading a new page is so long that I usually make my edits while doing something else at the same time... Patheticcockroach_(Talk) 05:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Result

It seems the result is pretty much consensus to merge. If that's the case, I'm going to start this. Ben^Talk_{Contributions}^Editcount_RfA 18:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

READ THIS: Skill and I have gotten the layout for merging the Familiar, Special, Pouch, and scroll pages together. Please check out Spirit wolf to see what we've done.

1. Copy pages together, add appropriate headers
2. Update infobox on the scroll, and the pouch to infobar.

The pages should fit together neatly after those changes. Ben^Talk_{Contributions}^Editcount_RfA 06:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bot Status for Nq2h Bot

[edit] Purpose of Nq2h Bot

Nq2h Bot was designed to help accomplish some of the boring, repetitive edits normally done by wiki users. I have been testing Nq2h Bot all day, and it's currently at a stage where it is running without any problems. Some of the early features will include:

• Categorizing jpeg images with the {{jpeg}} template
• Categorizing the GEMH images with the Category:GEMH Images category.

Here's a list of other features planned for the future:

• Update infoboxes on all pages when the infobox itself is changed.
• Automatically welcome new users - Consensus says not a good task.. so lets no do it.
• Update all items price to the proper {{GEPrice}} template.

If anyone has ideas, or needs something to be done, feel free to ask that it be added to Nq2h Bot.

[edit] Why Bot status?

• Bot status removes bot edits from Recent changes, unless you specifically show them.
• Bot status allows Nq2h Bot to access links from the API for 5,000 pages at a time, rather than 500 for non-bot accounts.
• Bot status would allow Nq2h Bot to edit faster, without causing problems. That would reduce the current wait-time from 8 hours (30 edits/hour), to under 40 minutes (6 edits/minute). Imagine how much more work it would get done going at 10 times the speed!

[edit] How to start Nq2h Bot

Currently, I am the only user allowed to run Nq2h Bot, however, I am working on a feature to allow sysops on the wiki access to him. He is run entirely from a web browser, with no downloads. The only catch is that the web browser must be left open the entire time he is running. I'll get this set up as soon as I feel Nq2h Bot is secure enough.

[edit] Consensus Needed

According to Wikia policy, community consensus is needed to update a user to a bot. That's why I need your help: please vote for support/oppose of Nq2h Bot receiving bot status, and give your reasoning behind it. Thanks! Ben^Talk_{Contributions}^Editcount_RfA 01:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Support

• Tes^Fan 02:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Ben^Talk_{Contributions}^Editcount_RfA 03:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• ^Chicken7 08:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Chrislee33 09:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Jigo22 14:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support, although I've got a couple of comments:
  • I'd question it auto-welcoming new editors - it's not very personal.
  • Be careful with the {{GEPrice}} thing - not all "Exchange:" article names exactly match the item's article in the main namespace.
  • Avoid sharing the "Nq2h Bot" account and password if/when you release it to other sysops (even if it's just compiled into the executable). Each sysop should really request their own bot account and log on to your code with that id, otherwise you won't have accountability if someone abuses it. Pointy 18:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Skill 18:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support, but I agree about the new users - that shouldn't be a bot task. Christine^Talk_Flickr 19:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

i supportGypsydog2 17:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

[edit] Neutral/Other

[edit] Pointy's Points

• Okay, if there's no consensus, I won't run any of the specific bots.
• {{GEPrice}} - That bot specifically is a difficult one. There are a few checks built in:

• Reads Exchange: templates and finds the matching title mainspace article.
• Checks for the item infobox, and only ONE item infobox.
• Checks that the item name is spelled the same.
• Checks that the item image is the same.

If any of these checks fail, then the bot will require manual confirmation.

• For other sysops: The code is based online, on a server, and is run entirely from the browser. The code isn't downloaded, so the username/password is secure on the server. There's going to be an implemented "SHUT OFF" switch, in case of abuse/problem, linked from the user page, and in every Edit summary. That way if it goes haywire, it's easy to fix. Once the link is clicked, Nq2h Bot could only process one more edit before it is forced to shut down. There is no manual override, and it must be changed by me. And, of course, there is no way to send custom commands to the bot, I set up an initialization file, which starts the basic settings (IE, for categorizing the jpeg images, it loads all the .jpg, .jpeg, .JPEG, and .JPG files from the wiki to a list to be processed.), and passes that to the actual bot, who runs that info. The only potential for abuse would be to modify the settings, which, I am rewriting the bot framework to save to a file on the server (rather than using GET paramaters in the url.) As I said, this won't be done until Nq2h Bot is completly secure, to my standards, which is to prevent hacking from experianced users, and not just mistakes by sysops. Ben^Talk_{Contributions}^Editcount_RfA 18:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • A comment on the shut off switch: there would have to be a mechanism to prevent abuse of that switch, wouldn't there? And if it's restricted to sysops only, then how is it different from blocking? Unless it's just a link to the block page? Skill 18:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I was going to put a simple password on it, so that it wasn't restricted just to sysops, but I could, of course, give the password to trusted editors. And, of course, someone like me who needed to quickly shut off a bot going out of control. Nothing too hard of a password, but something that would prevent ips from forcefully shutting it off. Maybe, like BotNq2h1 or similar. Ben^Talk_{Contributions}^Editcount_RfA 18:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nq2h Bot has been Botted!

Nq2h Bot has been botted by Avatar today. Thanks to all who supported this! Nq2hBot3 and Nq2hBot4 will be on their way soon! Ben^Talk_{Contributions}^Editcount_RfA 07:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Forum archives

Currently, two archived pages from the old Forum: namespace, Tavern/Archive/Abusive Sockpuppetry and Tavern/Archive/Dreadnought's admin rights are in the main namespace, in subpages of a page about a bar. Shouldn't they be moved somewhere else? Maybe a subpage of this page? Skill 15:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to say that RuneScape:Yew grove/Forum Archive/Page would be the best place. We just gotta make sure we link to them from this page. Remove them from Orphaned pages, and uncategorized pages too, as I hate those pages. lol Ben^Talk_{Contributions}^Editcount_RfA 18:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Moved them to subpages of RuneScape:Yew grove/Forum archives. Skill 00:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Item infobox

With the unbalanced trade update, the street price field in the item infobox is probably redundant, given that prices are now unchangeably fixed to those at the Exchange. Does anyone else think it should be removed? Another issue is the inconsistency between articles with regards to whether the GE price is a single value or a price range. There are advantages and disadvantages to each, I think, but either way there should be a consistent standard for all articles. Skill 10:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• I certainly agree about the street price, that can go. Am I right in thinking that the bot that produces those GE graphs needs a single price rather than a range? Even if that is the case, we can probably display both a single value, and a range calculated from that single value, for those who prefer that. Hurston 11:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • At the moment PointyBot only uses single prices. If it finds a price range it ignores it as I haven't coded it to deal with them (yet). Pointy 01:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Street price is mostly useless. The only exceptions I see is when some items usually traded in bulk are traded in small amounts, like law runes usually traded at 1k for one law rune. But this is quite rare and could be either put only in the article text, or in a special infobox field that would remain hidden unless it's filled (like the current "seller" field), or, probably best put somewhere in an article about prices in general (a few sentences saying basically "sometimes ppl eager to get small, cheap items, are willing to pay 1-10k to get them quickly in a player-to-player trade" - NB : I saw a guy buying game necklace for 10k...). GE price should be a single value, because when using the GEItem template, you are forced to use a single value anyway, so if we want a consistent standard, it has to be a single value. A calculated range won't work, because Jagex are cheating on the ranges. Patheticcockroach_(Talk) 12:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
• Jagex is cheating the ranges? What? Oh, never mind. I agree that getting rid of street ptice makes sense. And also on using a single value on GE price, most people looking will realize that the price is a variable, so it will be plenty useful the way it is.--Degenret01 06:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I just mean that the ranges aren't like average price +/- 5% : the prices often can't go under some low value close to the alch price. For instance, last time I checked, rune javelins had an "average" price which was (almost?) the same as the minimum price. Patheticcockroach_(Talk) 06:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree, many infoboxes have street prices that are beyond the trading limit range now.  C Teng ^talk 20:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bot policy

Thought I'd let everyone know, since this seems to be the place to do this, that I've created a draft bot policy here. Please suggest changes and improvements on the proposal's talk page rather than here. Skill 23:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ChickenBot

According to the new bot policy I've got to get my bot approved before I can start making it. I've already started and It's coming along. It might do things like:

• Detect page blanking and vandalism
• Mark articles that have a low size with Template:Stub but will not add it if it already contains it or if it is a disambig page.
• Do other temporary things like mentioned above in the Exchange namespace section.
• Other Stuff (Ideas here!)
• It might also tag non-transparent pages if I can get it to.

This is not a proposal for botting ChickenBot but a proposal to allow it on the wiki. Cheers, ^Chicken7_talk 06:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that the specification stage of the process is referred to above, I think this proposal needs to be more detailed to meet the requirements in the proposed policy. The idea of the specification is to make the developer plan the bot out before starting to code it, and that's probably what needs to be done here. For instance, having some experience in programming a bot myself (albeit one with a very different objective), I don't really see a way to have a bot tag images lacking transparency; at the very least, it would be quite difficult to code. Most likely, we won't be able to automate it any time soon. This is the sort of thing that should be caught while developing a specification, so that you don't go to the trouble of trying to find a way to do it. Again, some more detail needs to be added that explains which of those tasks will be done and in what way.

Moreover, although this is going on a bit of a tangent, there have been a number of bots apparently starting development in the last few weeks. I could probably think up half a dozen or more tasks that a bot could reasonably perform... these don't all need separate bots, do they? Given the number of bots that have been appearing lately, perhaps we need to have a discussion about this in general. I'm sure we could combine multiple bot tasks into one or two bots given that our scale here is fairly small. No offence to anyone, but it really does make a lot of coding and testing redundant to have so many bots. Skill 07:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

OK Then. Well I'm happy to give away my ideas to whoever wants them. ^Chicken7_talk ^{support-the-namespace} 08:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't go scrapping it right away, though... the bot might still be useful. Just that with the number of new bots appearing recently I think it needs to be more organized. Skill 08:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Lol OK. But it was getting tiring anyway. I might just leave it for a while. maybe add that to the policy. Cheers, ^Chicken7_talk ^{support-the-namespace} 08:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PointyBot Repairs

This is more an announcement than a discussion point - PointyBot got broke a few days ago after a MediaWiki update to the way the Image Upload page works. (No damage was done to the wiki - PointyBot just couldn't upload new chart images). I've just finished repairing it so it can use the new page and I'm running a full update now so charts should get refreshed and the Wanted Pages should shrink over the next 24 hours.

I'm also planning to put the PointyBot code up as a download on a public server somewhere so the Exchange charts can continue if I get hit by a bus. I'm cleaning the code up a bit first so it's a bit less embarrassing when it gets picked over - I'll post the location once I've uploaded it. Pointy 23:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for page protection

Perhaps we could make this page like they have on here? It might give an oppertunity for some articles to be semi or fully protected temporarily or permanently because of lots of attacks from different sources (i. e. how the Pay to pk riot was a few months ago). What do you all think? Butterman62 (talk) 23:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Support Butterman62 (talk) 23:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

What types of pages would this be needed for? Christine^Talk_Flickr 02:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

this and featured articles like articles of the month? Bob2006ty^talk 16:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral, I don't think it is needed. But I don't know. Cheers, Chicken7 _>talk^>sign 09:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't they just request it in the Yew Grove? Lexmarkman^talk  13:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that it doesn't seem needed. Christine^Talk_Flickr 16:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It's probably easier to just ask admins on their talk pages or in IRC. Protection isn't used here very often (except to stop talk page abuse), and most active users know which admins are active, so there's no need for a page for this right now. Skill 22:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] All editors are equal clarification

Currently, it says all editors are equal regardless of in-game powers (i. e. modship) or RuneScape wiki powers (i. e. adminship). I think that we should extend or clarify the policy to say that all editors are also equal regardless of in-game levels or experience. I've had some, er, problems with it before that have hampered my editing and I'd like to make sure it doesn't happen on the wiki again because of mis-clarification. What do you all think? Butterman62 (talk) 23:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, responding to previous discussion, as a note of clarification, obviously, if someone who has done a given quest and someone who has not done it, and they are arguing which particular fact is right, then, yes, the argument of the one who has done the quest might have more weight. However, it's when you have edits like this and this that there is a serious issue, and these types of edits need to be stopped. I think that everyone on the wiki should have an equal right to edit, and such behavior demines the purpose of a wiki. Butterman62 (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: I think there is widespread support of this. When can it become real? Butterman62 (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Butterman62 (talk) 23:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• SupportChicken7 _>talk^>sign 00:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Man, people have bragged "i can 2hit you so buzz off" too many times. I don't know why this isn't already listed. Chiafriend12 00:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Yes, too, I've been told such things, such as "please let the high-level _ fix this", "unless you have the experience, don't edit". It needs to stop :). Butterman62 (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - This reminds of me of that whole slayer edit war....... Christine^Talk_Flickr 02:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Leaning toward support Agreed that the "my str is higher then ur str stupid noob" bullying sucks. Still, if a level 99 woodcutter says that the dragon axe is faster than a rune axe, I'm more inclined to believe him than someone with 60 woodcutting who says it isn't. EARTH_obama08
• Strong support I have got this said to me a few times. Why isn't it here already? Bob2006ty^talk 17:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support In the context of articles and administrative stuff. There was some talk below about this impacting the forums. Personally I don't think we should be applying this policy to forums at all, the policy is meant to establish a commonality between editors, not forum members. It's not that I think that forum members aren't equal, it's just that this policy isn't, and should not, be extended to the forums, as it's not applicable to them. I also agree with what Abyssal/Earthere said, that relevant experience shouldn't be dismissed. If you're editing a quest page having never done the quest, and are countering what someone who's done the quest is writing, don't expect your argument to hold much weight. Endasil (Talk) @ 22:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support I think the idea of this is that players with more experience aren't automatically right, although they may be correct anyway. It's simply to prevent dismissal of newer players' arguments without consideration in discussion or editing. Skill 23:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Ok, spank the bullies.--Degenret01 23:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Seriously, this kind of stuff doesn't belong on the Wiki. This is the kind of immature behaviour that many players in-game exhibit, and maybe Jagex tolerates it, but it isn't accepted here. Ilyas Talk Contribs 21:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I didn't think people accually did that here.  C Teng ^talk 21:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

When you say you want clarification exactly what are you hoping to have happen? I think a few idiots considering themselves better because of thier RS accounts hardly merits any sort of attention. Are there so many that it's hard to ignore? I am really curious, as I haven't seen any. But I don't go on forums or anything.--Degenret01 11:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not really that there's a lot of people, it's just really annoying. I don't you'd want me saying something like "ok well duel me ingame and can hit doubl 72s on you ooo what now?" (Okay, that's a bit exagerated.) or anything. (I don't mean to be starting an argument, but since you said "I don't go on forums or anything.", it gives me the idea that you've never seen this. I'm just trying to give an example.)

It can be even more annoying when a veteran wikian, and most likely an admin, like Sacre Fi for example, gets bullied by a new user who judges others by their levels. Chiafriend12 11:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Degenret, it's not the problem that people just bully others on the wiki (though that could be considered a personal attack). The problem is that someone reverts another user's edits solely on the fact that he/she is higher level/better in that area then others. Butterman62 (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree its awfully moronic of them to think they are better based on in game stats. What I am missing here is this - What exactly are you proposing to solve the problem? If these goons dont respect the wikia way as it is now, how is restating an ideal going to help? Please understand me, I am not trying to argue for doing nothing. Or accepting it. I'm trying to see how this can be resolved is all.--Degenret01 03:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The page only covers wiki things, like adminship, 'cratship, editcount, etc. (last time I read it). An important thing it does/did not cover was levels in-game. In RuneScape, as we all well know, higher levels stereotypically like to make fun of lower levels by calling them "noob"s, insulting them, bullying and such. If a high leveled editor (let's say level 135) reads the page and understands that they are equal to sysops in say and such, they may think that they can still bully others depending on level. Chiafriend12 06:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Degenret, what I think would solve it is have the policy say, for example, "you can't do that". In other words, it would be like a rule, which, if broken, could lead to consequences. Butterman62 (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you think it could help, ok. For some reason I get the image of the local thugs being reminded that thier selling crack is illegal and thier expected response to that. But if you block people for a couple days for being jerks and breaking rules, hey, it could work. I'll go to support now.--Degenret01 23:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Because of universal community support, the proposed clarification will be carried out in RuneScape:All editors are equal. EARTH_obama08

[edit] Image of the Month

I've brought this up a few times in the IRC, ad it hasn't really gotten anywhere. So, the idea is simple: Like articles, images would be voted on monthly to be featured on the Main Page to show the best of the best images on the wiki.

This has been, you could say 'tested', on RuneScape Fan Fiction. It goes just fine when people act like it's a voting for a featured article, but an image instead. On RuneScape fan Fiction, we give credit to the photographer, and require permission by them to feature. This doesn't have to happen here though. If Tarikochi went inactive, that would decrease the possible featured images by a few hundred, and may pose an annoying problem.

Now, it would be very lopsided for stills when running against animations. A good still would probably be beat out by an animation. For this reason, I've thought up that there would be a IotM (Image of the Month) and AnotM (Animation of the Month) sections in the same page. This way, still photographers (most of us) would have our 'time to shine', and not always be beaten by animation makers (a few of us).

Recommendations? Views? Discuss pl0x. Chiafriend12 02:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support-Lol 'pl0x', Yes I think it's a great idea. Cheers, Chicken7 _>talk^>sign 09:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral-Sorry I'm neutral now from reading others views. Cheers, Chicken7 _>talk^>sign 05:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose-I'm not sure I like the idea of voting on the creativity of images on the wiki. In my opinion, photos should be functional (they should only be there to add understanding to an article), not an expression of artistic skill. Implying anything else will bring competition and bloatedness to article images, when in reality, an image for an article should either be suitable or not. This idea makes sense in the context of Fan Fiction, however I don't believe it makes sense in the context of a functional wiki. I definitely oppose the best animation idea, for another reason (which will be discussed further in another section): we should keep the front page as minimalistic (from a bandwidth perspective) as possible. Remember, this is the first thing that people see when visiting our site for the first time. If the very first thing they see takes 20 seconds to load, they'll probably just leave and find another site. Endasil (Talk) @ 21:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Considering that many of our images are there as vanity pieces, this will only make "getting your image on the wiki" even more tacky Atlandy 22:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose- I read this proposal last night and had no opinion, until I came back today and read why people are opposing. They make an awful lot of sense.--Degenret01 23:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - I agree with Endasil.  C Teng ^talk 12:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Accessibility of Pages

I want to use this discussion to talk about how we can bring the wiki to all varieties of user situations. I'm going to break it up into subsections as this is more of an umbrella topic. Feel free to add more subsections.Endasil (Talk) @ 21:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Screen Resolution

I think it's acceptable to assume that users should have a resolution of 1024x768 or more (800x600 would be too narrow of a target to shoot for, in my opinion). I keep my resolution at 1280x1024, and don't notice many issues with pages being too cramped at that resolution. I want other users to comment on their experience with the site. Is anyone using 1024x768? List your resolution and your experience on this site. Make note of any articles which have overlapping images/sections or are generally too cramped at your resolution.

To check/change your resolution in Windows: Right-click on the desktop, select Properties. Click on the "Settings" tab. The resolution is set under the heading "Screen Resolution" Endasil (Talk) @ 21:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have 1280x800. Everything's fine for me. Chiafriend12 22:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

At 1400x900 I don't notice anything, either. My old monitor was 1024x768, though, and I think there was an occasional problem or two, nothing major. (Can't remember much, had this one since two months ago.) The other computer uses the old monitor still, guess I could check on there if there's anything now. Skill 23:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Internet Bandwidth

Wikia, as great as they are, have a history of having notoriously slow hosting. We shouldn't be compounding the issue with large pages, if we can help it.

One of the things that makes pages larger are animated GIF images. Let me say right now that I am not against using animations where appropriate. I think in cases such as Special Attacks and weapon pages, these animations greatly enrich the user experience.

I think, however, that there are situations where animations aren't appropriate or necessary. Items is an example. This page contains 3MB of images, with only a KB or two of text. Something to ponder:

• Load time of 3MB on the fastest dial-up connection: 75 seconds
• Load time of 3MB on the slowest broadband connections: 34 seconds

Therefore, users with basic dial-up connection are waiting at least 75 seconds for a page to load whose text would take a quarter of a second to load. Further, these images don't really seem to add anything to the actual content of the page.

Now, if this was an isolated case I would just edit the page, but I wanted to get more into the philosophy of how we use animations, and images in general. I would suggest that

1. Non-animated, uncompressed png images can be used (in moderation) on any article simply to enhance the viewing experience of the user. While not having to be directly related to the article, it should have relevance and if indirectly relevant, should at least have a caption that is directly relevant
2. Animated GIF files that are non-trivial in size (>100KB, which is most of them) should only be used on pages where they are directly relevant, such as a special attack animation on a weapon page, or a skillcape animation on a skillcape page.