Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games/RuneScape/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →


Note: I would like to mention that all conversation here takes place when the RuneScape task force was a separate WikiProject. The move had not yet taken place at this time. Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 04:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Contents

I have absolutley no clue for organizing wikiprojects. HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Storkian (talk • contribs) .

This WikiProject might get deleted, but I'll give it a shot at improving the main page. Agentscott00(talk) 04:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Outline of layout --->Storkian

Welcome to the RuneScape WikiProject!

Goals
  • Improve Wikipedia's coverage of RuneScape.
  • Create guidelines and information for articles about playing RuneScape.
Scope
  • The project most some RuneScape articles. We are still waiting to recruit members.

Members

  1. MyName (talk · contribs) (He felt like creating the WikiProject to improve our understanding about the game.)

Open tasks

  • Try to make the RuneScape articles part of the WikiProject.

Categories

  • Category:RuneScape
  • Category:Wikipedians who play runescape
  • Category:RuneScape Skills
  • Category:RuneScape Quests

...

Templates

  • Under Construction...

Related projects

[[Category:WikiProjects|Runescape]]

Do something with this... Its a sample of what i am going to add.

--[[User:Storkian|Storkian] 14:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

work in progress tag

you might want to move or remove the work in progress tag. as it is now its hard to see. Exarion 17:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The work in progress tag doesn't belong there, I removed it and it'll show up as fixed when I save the page. Agentscott00(talk) 17:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


Current Collaboration

Many other projects and/or large groups of pages based around the same topic have collaborations of the month/week/etc so I've added this section to see what we come up with for it. Any suggestions as to the first one can be made here. For now I propose helping to clean up/merge RuneScape_weaponry. Ideas? For now the subpage on the WikiProject will remain blank until we've got definitive content for it. Agentscott00(talk) 04:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Why's the main page of this project still list merging RuneScape Weapons and RuneScape armor with RuneScape combat as the current collaboration? That was finished quite a while ago; maybe we should work on something else, like merging Wilderness (RuneScape) with RuneScape locations and rewriting RuneScape locations. --Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 15:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Because Combat still needs a little work. Citations, mostly. The Wilderness/Locations merge could be the next collaboration. CaptainVindaloo t c e 15:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
About that... If anyone could help me on a possible Locations rewrite, I could really use some help with it. I only have a few sections done yet, and those probably still need work. --Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 16:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Computer and Video Games WikiProject

I have added this WikiProject to the WP:CVG related WikiProjects list, as we now have enough members to be a valid project. Mamyles 21:42, 03 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism to images

Remember to check images for vandalism, folks. They don't get as much attention as articles, and I reverted some vandalism earlier while checking Category:RuneScape Images that was several days old. CaptainVindaloo t c e 03:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

WTF!!! I didn't notice the 3rd one when I was adding Fair Use Rationales! BTW I'm consulting Green again about the fair use rationales. I need to check if they're OK. =) Ed ¿Cómo estás? 03:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that earlier. I watchlisted all the contents of the category while I was lurking about in there. Sorry if I was interfering, but I modified the rationale for RSlogo3.jpg to reflect that we have permission to use it for whatever we want (within reason) provided we comply with the license (and all that involves is purging vandalism and phishing, which we already do). Therefore, we can actually probably use that image - and anything else in the fansite kit - on Wikipedia namespace pages. CaptainVindaloo t c e 03:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm not consulting Green about your edits. I'm consulting him to make sure that the fair use rationales satisfy WP policy.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 03:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't think you were (consulting Green about me, that is). I just noticed your edits on the old watchlist, and thought I'd add an extra point about it being the fansite kit and we can knock ourselves out with it (not literally, mind you). That reminds me, I'm still not sure we have the correct license for it: {{logo}}, {{promotional}} or {{FairUse}}? Maybe the addition of {{Withpermission}}? CaptainVindaloo t c e 03:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Only problem with {{Withpermission}} would be "..the copyright holder has granted permission for this image to be used in Wikipedia. This permission does not extend to third parties." - the fansite kit license does allow the images to be used elsewhere, so we might need a different form of a withpermission template. Agentscott00(talk) 17:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I didn't like about it. We may have to create a bespoke template. But surely Jagex can't be the only company that releases fansite kits with licenses like these? I would have thought there'd be a license tag for this kind of situation. CaptainVindaloo t c e 17:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
If I can't find one, I'll post it on WP:RT, either someone will tell me I'm blind and that there already is one, or they'll possibly make one. I'd do it myself, but image copyrighting + sourcing is a touchy subject. Agentscott00(talk) 17:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
{{Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvided}} might work, if we paste the license.txt file underneath the template on the image page. I'll do that for now, so we've got something. Agentscott00(talk) 18:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, that might well do. I already copy and pasted the contents of license.txt into the image description. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll add an editprotected request that someone categorise that template, so its easier to find. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Hang on, what about this one? CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Hehe, I've already saved it under that one. I fount it on the talk page of the one I suggested, and I went and used it, forgetting to mention it here first that I had changed my mind >.< Agentscott00(talk) 18:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Userbox

Should we create a userbox for this Wikiproject? I would be happy to create it. =) Ed ¿Cómo estás? 20:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Rds.JPG This user participates in the RuneScape Task Force.
{{subst:User:Agentscott00/userboxes/wprs}}
For some reason, when I preview it here, there's a black dot in the upper-left, but not on the actual template page. Tell me if it goes weird for you. Works fine now, it's a really basic one, go ahead and change it if you want. I found the image for it on the RuneScape Images category, an it was fairly small, so I used it. Agentscott00(talk) 20:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I also created {{User:Ed/User RuneScape}} --Ed ¿Cómo estás? 21:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Ed/User RuneScape

Armour/Weaponry rewrite

I've already posted this at Talk:RuneScape, but that seems to have gone out of fashion. I've finished a rewrite of RuneScape weaponry and RuneScape armour. I propose that this rewrite replace the equivalent section in RuneScape combat, and for weaponry and armour to be redirected to combat. I've designed the new section to satisfy deletionists and keep crufters off. It may be spartan, but it can always be expanded reasonably. There have been a lot of 'List of equipment in game x' type articles on AfD lately, and we might be next; i'm quite confident that this version is encyclopedic. Obviously, this is a big change, WP:BOLD notwithstanding, so I thought I'd check first on here that everyone agrees. If you want to make any improvements, go ahead. I'll be adding the appropriate merge tags to weaponry and armour shortly. CaptainVindaloo t c e 03:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Current collaboration maybe? I had suggested weaponry for it, armour/weaponry merging into combat would be a good first collaboration. Agentscott00(talk) 04:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. CaptainVindaloo t c e 13:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
By the way, the ranging and magic sections of the rewrite could do with a little expansion by an expert, ie a ranger or mage ingame. I can't explain them very well as I can't be bothered to fight with bow or spell. This could be the current collaboration. If anyone wants me to, i'll move it all to a wikiproject subpage. CaptainVindaloo t c e 17:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I'm actually able to edit on my school computer, registered accounts are unblocked I guess. Anyway, I'll add some information to the /collaboration subpage sometime tonight when I have time, go ahead and put some in there now if you want to. I'll try and start re-writing parts of it tonight, you can use my sandbox if you want - I've already got weaponry pasted into it. Agentscott00(talk) 21:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ready to merge?

Are there any objections to this merge? Quite a bit of stuff (probably mostly cruft) will be gone, but i'll leave links to the last versions of weaponry and armour at Talk:RuneScape combat, incase anything needs retrieving. If nobody objects, i'll perform the merge within the next couple of days. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll start doing little bits of work today, and add the Template:Underconstruction to all three. I've got today off school in lieu of Remembrance Day being held on the weekend, so I'm free to start working. Agentscott00(talk) 17:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
K. There'll be a very short, spartan weaponry and armour section left in the combat article (the section in my sandbox), and the weaponry and armour articles will redirect to combat. The new section can be expanded where necessary. I'll add citations and make the images from weaponry/armour into a nice little gallery. It might be a good idea sometime for a bunch of us meet up somewhere ingame, wearing sets of each type of armour and get a screenshot of that, for the materials part, but we can worry about that later. I'll get started now then, I've got it all prepared; all I need to do is copy and paste the sandbox content, and it'll be ready for expansion. Next I'll redirect weaponry and armour, and for my last trick I'll try to remember how to make a gallery that keeps Tarikochi's GIFs animated (<gallery></gallery> doesn't). CaptainVindaloo t c e 17:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Right now I saved a copy of what I've done so far to the Combat article (added at the end), it's very short, and I only included melee weapons and mage weapons. For now, I've got to go for a while, but I can come back later and see what's been done by then. Agentscott00(talk) 18:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's that. I've merged in the new section, redirected the articles and fixed links and redirects. I've also added some citations, and added Tarikochi's animations as a gallery at the end. The gallery is in a table, and because i'm no good at tables, it looks like someone stepped on it, so that'll need an expert's attention. CaptainVindaloo t c e 20:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Tree Gnomes

Hi, can someone from this project have a look at the article Tree Gnomes? It needs a bit of work, or maybe it can be merged with another article or a list as there isn't much content. --Canley 08:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

What?! An article about tree gnomes?! All I can do for it is to rePROD it, they aren't nearly notable enough for an article here. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this WikiProject really necessary?

We currently only have 7 articles counting the main one. This isn't really broad enough to require its own WikiProject. Even at its peak, the RuneScape series never had enough articles to need a WikiProject.

I have listed myself as a member anyway, since I contribute to the series a lot. I am not going to list this for deletion, since I don't want to be seen as a traitor to Wikipedia's RuneScape community. I would like to have a discussion here before bringing it to Wikipedia's wider community.

I still think that the portal is necessary, since portals serve as a main page for the articles and this series could use the extra administration with all of the rogue subpages popping up. Dtm142 02:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that the Wikiproject is handy for centralized discussion and organisation; but by far the most useful feature is the Current Collaboration - perfect for making an organised effort to clean up our articles. This should also prove useful in getting the main article to GA status, and, who knows what beyond that? First ever MMORPG featured article anyone? CaptainVindaloo t c e 02:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
UNRELATED-- If RS goes featured, we need to have a Pking Party on RS. --/unrelated-- But due to the huge amount of interest, yes thins wikiproject is needed. → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKSCRS 8:25 am ET 20 November 2006
IMO, interest or not, this is not appropriate for a WikiProject. I would like to quote some text from a guide created by the WikiProject Council. The original guide is here.
"The first question that must be asked when someone has an idea for a new WikiProject is: "Is a separate WikiProject the best approach?" The answer depends on two very distinct factors.
First, is the topic broad enough that the extra administrative overhead is worth it? Obviously, we could create separate projects for every article should we wish to; but, just as obviously, we don't, as it would be much easier to simply collaborate on the talk page. In general, if there are less than a few dozen articles within the projected scope of the project, it would probably be more efficient to simply work within a larger project which includes them. Similarly, the number of potential members should be considered; if you are the only editor working in a particular area, creating a project probably isn't worth it.
Second, if the topic is broad enough that some manner of formal organization is worthwhile, is an independent WikiProject the best answer? The best way to determine this is usually to look at other projects on similar topics, and at the "parent" WikiProject for the broader topic. In some cases, each similar topic is handled by a separate WikiProject; if this is the case, then creating a new one is a good idea.
In other cases, however, the projects are not separate, but are instead task forces of the central WikiProject for the area; in this case, approaching the central project—which typically has a more developed framework for dealing with sub-groups—with the idea is usually the more effective approach. (This applies equally to inactive projects being brought back to activity; the "parent" project will often be willing to adopt the inactive project as a new task force, in which case its members can offer considerable assistance in getting it running.) If this is the case, reading the rest of this guide is probably not required; the larger central project will help you integrate with the specific setup it has."
In short... does this WikiProject have a couple dozen articles under it's scope? No, it has seven. Should this WikiProject broaden itself or does this WikiProject have a similar parent project? Yes (Massively multiplayer online games WikiProject which has approx. 569 articles under it's scope). "Is a separate WikiProject the best approach?" No.
I do not want to be rude in any way at all but this project is not necessary in the least. It can easily be covered in WP:MMO and it only has 7 articles. Supporting a community that you are a part of on Wikipedia is important, but an unnecessary WikiProject like this is not the right way to do it. I shall put this up as MfD.
The matter of the portal was also brought up; I do not believe that one for RS is needed either. Perhaps one for MMOGs in general would be more appropriate.
Also, I do not believe this to be disrupting this WikiProject as I am simply putting up a very valid point in a polite fashion. Thank you for your time. Greeves 03:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
You may want to look up the history of the RuneScape series of articles - it has problems of cruft and vandalism (8th most edited article) far worse than any other MMO. This WikiProject has, since its creation, seen the series take a considerable turn for the better; with several of the worst articles merged and even deleted by members of this project. The collaboration system will make it a lot easier to finally get the main article to GA, and you can see below the community dealing with unnecessary pages. There are plenty of members for this project, and it doesn't need a whole lot of administration; its main use for centralized discussion, which article talks are ill suited for (as the 15 Talk:RuneScape archives will attest). This project is the best option in these circumstances, the book won't take account for this. It comes under WP:CVG as a task force project, and it is older than WP:MMO (at least in project space) and has five times more members - MMO having three and being moved from an abandoned user: subpage eight days ago. The same arguement for Portal:RuneScape, plus the fact that our very successful maintenance templates are a part of it. CaptainVindaloo t c e 03:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
None the less, before creation you should have had a couple dozen articles under the scope and you had about half that; 11 articles. With the many members that you have, they could easily move to WP:MMO and specialize in RS articles. Also, similar maintenance could be through the MMO project... there could even me an MMO portal! Sure, this project may be older, but it had no use in the first place with 11 articles (IMO). Protest the delete on the MfD page for this deletion. Greeves 04:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
But being members of WP:MMO specializing in RS articles would be a WikiProject RuneScape. Trying to discuss issues to do with one series of articles at a project talkpage with 500 articles would be like having a hushed discussion about classical music at Glastonbury. CaptainVindaloo t c e 17:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
No consensus... I still do not see the point in the project, oh well. 142.161.165.221 01:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, that last comment was mine but I forgot to log in. Greeves 01:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Something else to look out for...

Rogue subpages. This one, for example. Are we not broadcasting "GO TO RUNESCAPE WIKI!!" loudly enough? CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Should we make a specific template for those who create rogue subpages broadcasting it even further? → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKSCRS 12:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Possibly, yes. Something annoyingly large. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)