Portal talk:RuneScape/Archive02

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Maintainers

On the portal directory, as you might already know, we have only listed J.J.Sagnella, The Giant Puffin, and myself as maintainers for the RuneScape portal. However, we seem to have more active maintainers than just the three of us. So I'm suggesting that we instead link to Portal:RuneScape/Maintainers. This page would be linked to from the main portal page, as well as the portal directory. Does anyone have any feedback about this idea? Dtm142 01:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Good Idea. J.J.Sagnella 06:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good, there are a lot more people actively maintaining the Portal than before - • The Giant Puffin • 08:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
How are we going to organise the page? I think it should be like [ Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts this], I wonder what everyone else thinks. J.J.Sagnella 15:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure. It would be alphabetized. We could only link to it on the main portal page. We couldn't actually subst it. Dtm142 18:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
No it's a sort of hierarchical alphabetcial order. I'm thinking it could have ranks like the page such as "5-10 Portal edits" and everyone in that category alphabetised and then something like "10-20" and then maybe "20+". It's my suggestion, I'll see what you think about it. J.J.Sagnella 18:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea of categorizing it, would it be overall edits made or useful edits made? Agentscott00(talk contribs) 19:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Useful edits. Things like reverting vandalism or cleanup or additions. Contradicting yourself in an edit (eg adding X to RuneScape then removing it in edit two then re-adding X in edit three) and vandalism don't count. J.J.Sagnella 20:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll support this - • The Giant Puffin • 20:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
What I'm wondering is whether it is edits to the portal or to the series. There will be very few on each person for portal, but this is the portal.. J.J.Sagnella 21:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Just one interesting point here - how would we be able to keep track of the useful edits made then, unless we watch the portal history closely. Looking at automatic edit counters would most likely just show all edits, not the useful ones. Either way, this is a good idea, since there's multiple people helping on the portal now. Agentscott00(talk contribs) 22:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The edit count thing would be very difficult to keep track of. It should just work like a WikiProject. The goal is only to make a list of the people who maintain the portal pages, remember. Dtm142 22:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
If nobody else has anything to say, I'll create this on Saturday. Dtm142 21:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
So can you just run through again how the page is going to work? J.J.Sagnella 06:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay.

1. We are going to link to it from the portal directory in the maintainers spot.

2. We are going to link to it from somewhere on the portal main page.

3. It will list, alphabetically, the names of all of the maintainers. Dtm142 14:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

And run through again who counts as a "maintainer"? J.J.Sagnella 15:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"2. We are going to link to it from somewhere on the portal main page."(Dtm142) The Bottom right hand corner has an available space. I'll try to put a box there. p00rleno 16:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC) (Done however the link is broken p00rleno 16:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC))

Anyone who edits the series and portal on a regular basis, makes constructive edits, and wants to be listed will count as a maintainer. Dtm142 15:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
No we're seriously going ot have say where we draw the line. An edit very month to the portal? Every two months? Or anyone that wishes? If it's one every month, the list can't be much longer than 20 or so... J.J.Sagnella 19:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, one good edit a fortnight, minimum. And if the list goes longer than 20, we can revise how the list is devised again. Nathan M 11:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the box won't be able to fit all of the maintainers. I just tested with a list of users. We don't need to include the box on the portal page, we'll only be able to link to it. Dtm142 18:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Most WikiProjects don't have a limit as to how many members they have. I know that this isn't a WikiProject yet, but I'm thinking that the maintainers page can work similar to one. Dtm142 15:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
So Can I have an example of such a page? J.J.Sagnella 15:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Userboxes/Members (as an example). Dtm142 16:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Is the list in existance somewhere? Maybe we should put forward a list of names and just vote for a certain number of maintainers? - • The Giant Puffin • 14:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linkspammers

We seem to have a unique situation to do with the fansite linkspamming in the article, so I whipped up some specialized Runescape-specific warning templates in my sandbox. Comments on quality and usefulness are greatly appreciated. Feel free to modify them, just don't try to add them as templates yet, or you'll add my entire sandbox. (also posted at Talk:RuneScape) CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Useful Specific but not to general. (redundant intended) Working on making a Deleted Link image. p00rleno 19:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:RsNo.JPGp00rleno 19:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean to swap the Stop Hand in the 4th level warning with that one? Might as well, seeing as it is public domain. CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, it gets a bit fuzzy when scaled down. Hang on, i'll see what I can do. CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll create the templates as portal subpages in a bit. The image can always be switched. CaptainVindaloo t c e 20:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
They are up, and ready to go!
Add them using: {{subst:Portal:RuneScape/rs-fan}}. Just hope the admins will block someone who keeps at it after number 4. Wikipedia:Spam should apply in such a situation. The stop hand in number 4 can always be changed. CaptainVindaloo t c e 20:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Do we want a small box in the btm right hand of the Portal linking to an index of these warnings for easy access when this talk article is removed? p00rleno 12:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Portal:RuneScape/templates - Done. Just add a link from the main portal page, I need to leave for a while. Agentscott00(talk contribs) 17:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorted. Also, just so everyone knows, I've changed the wording in the templates slightly to include all RuneScape related articles, and changed the hidden comments to correct a formatting error and compared them to standard Spam templates, rather than Test templates. I've refreshed the templates on the listing page to reflect those changes. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
You've done a fantistic job making the new section. Your name has been added to the list of RuneScape maintainers in bold in your honour! J.J.Sagnella 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much! CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'm getting carried away with this now, but its just a final touch. Template:rsf, Template:rsf2, Template:rsf3 and Template:rsf4 redirect to our link warning templates, so theres no need to type out all that other lot. CaptainVindaloo t c e 21:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism from IPs

I have noticed there have been high amounts of vandalism from random IPs such as 68.218.231.245 and others. If any maintainer is an admin, they should be blocked. p00rleno 12:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RuneScape Oddities Article

Im putting this on Talk:RuneScape as well: Should we have an article solely devoted to the things in the "did you know section? The stuff is interesting, and outside of the Portal, it will recieve many more edits, and we can rotate out old ones for new ones to make the portal more intersting. p00rleno 12:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

And it's gamecruft when in the main article namespace and is likely to be deleted. Here, as it is a portal it gets saved. J.J.Sagnella 15:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links for the smaller articles?

Okay, we've made a decision about the external links for the main article and portal page. I won't be proposing against it anytime soon. However, I'm hoping that we can reach an agreement for the external link section of the other articles in the series, such as RuneScape skills and Construction (RuneScape). Anyway, here is what I'm proposing:

1. We will only link to one guide (or category of guides). We will link to whichever is the best and most complete. The official Knowledge Base guides are always preferred.

2. If there is another notable link to something that isn't a guide, it should be included too. Again, it should link to the page itself, and the official site is always preferred.

I have already started doing this on some articles, but I need a consensus on this so that we can make it official, and so that people don't revert the links. Comments? Dtm142 22:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but on the construction article or economy article you'd have to remember a second link is needed. Also be somewhat leniant in spam warnings and instead ask the person who changed the link to discuss it on the talk page.J.J.Sagnella 06:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that the links on the construction article look pretty good to me. But I agree, the spam warnings shouldn't be given out that lightly. Dtm142 21:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone have anything more to add? Dtm142 22:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I take that as a no. Therefore, this will come into effect tomorrow unless anyone else comments. Dtm142 17:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References from Runescape.com

I'm going to have a go at eliminating anything too much like a game guide over at RuneScape armour, as well as adding a few references. Is there any specific rule preventing references from the RuneScape knowledge base? CaptainVindaloo t c e 11:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not that I know of.Should be OK - • The Giant Puffin • 12:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
It is actually reccomended they be added. (RE: Runescape's TO-DO list) p00rleno 03:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RuneScape armour (AfD)

I've finished making some changes to the article to eliminate the game-guide type stuff, the main complaint at the AfD debate. Before, after,diff. Opinions? (a bunch of stuff I cut from near the end now lives in my Sandbox.) CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks a lot better than before, just from quickly glancing at it. Strange idea here, but do you think we would be allowed to keep the article as a subpage on my user space? I was going to keep a backup of all the information in the article on one of my subpages in case it ever became useful again, then wondered if we'd be able to use it as an actual article (just as a subpage though). Crazy idea, but nice if it's allowed. Agentscott00(talk contribs) 17:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
That would be a good idea. I don't think there is a rule against keeping content backed up in User: space, unless its something controversial deleted for a reason. Have a look at Wikipedia:User page. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Does this mean it can be withdrawn from the AfD? Or at least kept? - • The Giant Puffin • 08:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it will be possible to withdraw the AfD, but I suppose it would be acceptable to keep offline, User: or Portal: space copies. It is good information in that article, and it would be such a shame just to let it be deleted. CaptainVindaloo t c e 08:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It has been kept for now with a result of "no concensus". To keep this article, it seriously needs to be made less like a game guide so it is less likely to be nominated in future - • The Giant Puffin • 18:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Made Just For Maintainers!

Add This Template To your pages maintainers!!! There is also a version for any portal at This Location. Have Fun, and feel free to fix any errors. :P p00rleno 00:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This user helps maintain the RuneScape Portal.




I changed the colours a bit (red and black didnt really work), centred the text and made the hyper link white - • The Giant Puffin • 11:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, That works way better. :) p00rleno 22:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is there only runeHQ listed in fansites?

most non-runeHQ members despise runeHQ. tip.it and runevillage should definatly be there. much more notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pure inuyasha (talk • contribs) .

J.J.Sagnella and I had a long, exhausting debate about it back in Portal talk:RuneScape/Archive01. It was eventually decided that we'd only list RuneHq for now. Dtm142 22:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Completely true. To cut a long story short, Wikipedia's rules state we may have only one fansite which is the highest traffic. That is RuneHQ.J.J.Sagnella 06:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Did it ever occur to you that the only reason RuneHQ may be getting more traffic is because idiots left it as the only link here in the first place? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.177.79.232 (talk • contribs) .

We measured the traffic before we got the number of links down to one. J.J.Sagnella 17:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Either add more fansites or remove them all. You cannot justify having only ONE fansite linked, especially one such as this.

[edit] The Annoying Ex-MfD Notice at the top...

Can we shrink it or make it go away entirely, as the dispute is long done, and it is just lengthening the page without real reason. (No one looks at it anyway...) p00rleno 16:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if we can throw it away yet, but I just tried to make it less intrusive without removing anything crucial. Hyenaste (tell) 15:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks O.K now - • The Giant Puffin • 09:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Didn't even notice it at first... good job. ː p00rleno (lvl 75) ː 22:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RuneScape series up for deletion again.

The series is up for deletion again. I encourage you all to go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape armour (2nd nomination) and give your opinions! Dtm142 16:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Booooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!! Lousy people always putting things on the afd list!!!! → p00rleno (lvl 75) ←ROCKS

[edit] Fancruft template - need feedback!

Crossposting at Portal talk:RuneScape and Talk:RuneScape

In preparation for new subpages to replace these fancruft filled ones, I have written a template message to be placed on the Talk: pages of the articles (with maybe a commented message at the head of each article). As this is potentially controversial, feedback and opinions are pretty important. The message is located as usual, in my Sandbox, although I may shift it to another subpage sometime. If you can see anything wrong with it, go ahead and change it. I am making this to try to prevent a situation of an overwhelming amount of fancruft, as we have seen with the current set. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

After a final polish, and as there are no other objections, I have created this template in Portal:RuneScape/Fancruftguide, and shall be transcluding it onto subpages shortly. I won't be substing it though, so any improvements will be reflected immediately on the subpages. It is producible using: {{Portal:RuneScape/Fancruftguide}}. As Hyenaste suggested, I'll modify it into a user talk message too. CaptainVindaloo t c e 17:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usertalk version

I've modified this template into a version for usertalk messages. As ever, feedback and any improvements are appreciated. CaptainVindaloo t c e 20:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afd Again

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape armour (second nomination) Several articles are up for deletion- for the second time this week... Just thought you might like to know....- User:Merlin Storm

[edit] Mofunzone

Hello all,

My name is Zachary8222, And I am a member at a fansite called 'Sal's Realm Of RuneScape'. I have noticted you added 'Mofunzone' as an affilate with runescape, However jagex does not list them as an affilate, So I am requesting we delete them. 65.32.58.197 13:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any confirmation? Like a list of official affiliates? If so, then I'll happily remove Mofunzone. CaptainVindaloo t c e 14:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there even a list of affiliates? Theres no link to such a list on RuneScape.com. Not that I can see - • The Giant Puffin • 17:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Aha. Found a link to it on Miniclip. Mofunzone is indeed an affiliate. See http://www.runescape.com/lang/en/aff/miniclip/affiliates.ws Dtm142 03:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anyone can argue with that.
Nope, It would be insane to argue. → p00rleno (lvl 76) ←ROCKS 00:09, Tuesday December 12, 2006 (UTC)
It is confirmed then, it is an affiliate - • The Giant Puffin • 18:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/u/n/Portal_talk%7ERuneScape_Archive02_639b.html"