Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject RuneScape


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was No Concensus-Default Keep. — xaosflux  Talk  18:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject RuneScape
This project has a very narrow scope and could easily be covered by it's parent WP:MMO. My argument is listed in my comment here (where there are also other comments for and against). Greeves 03:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I just barely didn't feel strongly enough about this to nominate it. To note, it was created when there were 11 articles under the scope, but now mergers and deletions have brought the number down to 5, soon to be 4 if I get my way with a merge. -Amarkov blahedits 03:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 *  Delete Delete and Give a Sub-Page at WP:MMO. My points are above and on the project talk page. Greeves 04:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - the RuneScape series of articles has been very strongly criticised in the past for containing large amounts of crufty, poor-quality articles and self-confessed game guides; in the short time since its creation this WikiProject has helped clean this mess up considerably because it allows a location to coordinate our efforts. Now, the critics are silent, and in some cases, satisfied with the series. You may also see on the talkpage community efforts to deal with new bad articles (blatant gameguides and the irredeemably crufty - so called 'rogue subpages'). The project is older than the week-old WP:MMO in projectspace (MMO spending months unedited, forgotten, on a user subpage) and has five times more members. The only way MMO can look after its 500 articles is with subprojects - but these subprojects would be part of WP:CVG and nothing much would be done with WP:MMO - it would be unnecessary administration. Finally, I don't think having "a very narrow scope" is breaking any rules - true, there are guidelines advising against this; but the Wikipedia official policy Ignore all rules states that "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them" - has this project not helped improving Wikipedia? CaptainVindaloo t c e 04:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The Wikiproject has helped clean things up? By my count, two of the three merges, and all of the AfD discussions, were not started as a result of the project. That leaves one merge, and I don't even remember what I think it is now. -Amarkov blahedits 04:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Two merges:
 * RuneScape weaponry -> RuneScape combat
 * RuneScape armour -> RuneScape combat
 * And I intend to start the merge of RuneScape combat and RuneScape skills into RuneScape gameplay from here, when the time comes.
 * Minor merges of what isn't PRODded.
 * Thankfully no AfDs yet, but plenty of PRODs. XfDs should be a last resort.
 * Coordinating counter-vandalism, such as bringing up the vulnerability of images; these get vandalised an awful lot because the Image: namespace isn't well patrolled.
 * CaptainVindaloo t c e 04:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If I may, I will re-quote the Council guide. I am aware of WP:DELETE and the council guide is not a rule nor an official guideline. Some of it (such as the part which I am about to quote) is simply common sense.


 * "...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...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."


 * Collaboration on the talk pages of the specific articles can be happening more and WP:MMO should cover the articles well. I know that your vote cannot be changed, but I want everyone else to be made aware of this and before they vote either way I recommend they take a look at the original discussion here. Greeves 00:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to mention that the reason that WP:MMO was on a user sub-page as opposed to a project page was because we were following the council's procedure before starting an new project; the project was proposed, we got support, and there were no objections. The temporary project page was a user sub-page. Greeves 17:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are a fair number of Runescape articles in the encyclopedia, and a number of editors working with such articles. I feel that the condition for having a WikiProject is not whether it is broad or narrow in scope, but that it has had a reasonable amount of activity. Even if you wanted this project merged with a higher level project, the discussions here ought to be kept and not deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete for now - I'm fully in favor of keeping any WikiProject that two or more people are using, but it doesn't really look like anything is going on here. Most of the discussion and planning is at Talk:RuneScape. BigDT 16:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It should be moved. Talk:RuneScape is for the article, not any project planning. - Mgm|(talk) 12:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed! Look at the to-do list on Talk:RuneScape; it has way to much project coordination on it! Greeves 17:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - it isn't offensive, and it will help bring Runescape-related articles up to better standards, provided enough people join. Yuser31415 (Review me!) 22:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - We're trying to write a damn encyclopedia, and deleting this Wikiproject isn't going to help. It's not doing any harm, and it's a good centralized location for improving the RuneScape series.  The series needs some serious help, and this project is a great way for collaborative improvements.  Sure, there may not be as many articles anymore, but some were deleted due to reasons which could have been fixed by a group work on the article(s).  Agentscott00(talk) 01:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that there were never that many articles under the project's scope to begin with; I believe there were about 11. I will quote the guide again.


 * "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."


 * There could be progress in WP:MMO or even WP:CVG as well (if not more, by spreading the word of RS articles to a wider audience). 'Nuff said. Greeves 01:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Call me a traitor but... Delete. We have what, 6 articles, counting the main one?  Even at its peak, the RuneScape series didn't have nearly enough articles to deserve its own WikiProject.  I decided not to nominate this for deletion, but I did not promise that I wouldn't vote.  The series could still use the extra administration (taking care of rogue subpages and the like). Dtm142 01:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Ter e nce Ong 09:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you make a comment/reason as to why you vote in this fashion to help the rest of us know why you believe in keeping it? Greeves 22:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete not enough articles, memebers, and achievements to keep and can be covered by WP:MMO. Also others as said above. Orfen  User Talk | Contribs 00:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:MMO has even fewer members, has existed (as more than a short text string) a shorter time, as of 01:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC) it's talkpage is a redlink and it has seen only one new article (currently up for AfD) created and only copyedits, some referencing and its template added to existing articles. There is no minimum number of members for a wikiproject - informally the requirement is 'at least 2', the articles requirement is not a policy (it isn't even marked as an essay or guideline) and I can't find any 'achievements' requirement. CaptainVindaloo t c e 01:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This is all because WP:MMO is a new project. Is there anything wrong with starting a useful project? I think not! As I have previously stated, there is no need for a project with such a small scope. I like the idea of putting an RS sub-page on WP:MMO and the current members joining WP:MMO. But to have a full separate project is unnecessary. Greeves 23:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I just don't think it makes sense to judge a project on percieved achievements, or lack thereof. All projects start out with zero achievements, so if having no achievements is a deletion arguement, then every project would be deleted as soon as they start. But WP:MMO has "achieved" even less - so by the same logic, WP:MMO should be deleted in favour of WP:RUNESCAPE. And that's not going to happen. What exactly is wrong with having a limited scope, anyway (apart from the wikiproject council 'advise against it')? Remember, we do more than organise copyediting here - this is where the urgent decrufting operations are organised, rogue pages dealt with, vandals countered - three problems this article series has much worse than any other MMO article series i've checked. For example, see Wikipedia talk:Special:Mostrevisions (Special:Mostrevisions not working lately) - RuneScape is number eight, due to vandalism. We even see game account phishermen from time to time. Dealing with all this is part of the scope, too. And those wikiproject council guidlines are for any wikiproject, about any subject, which will not necessarily have to deal with any of these problems alongside looking after its articles - when was the last time you saw a woodworkingcruft article or blatant balletguide? Or someone replace a Horticulture and Gardening article with HORTICULTURE SUX LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!1111one? CaptainVindaloo t c e 04:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge. Okay, so its a nonstandard comment for a WikiprojectFD, but.... The thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject RuneScape went from "Hey, this project seems too small" to "Up at MFD, go join WP:MMO" pretty quickly; in fact, that happened before any possible project merger was broached or discussed, and before valid concerns like the one (overexpansive scope) raised by CaptainVindaloo could be addressed (aside: its handled elsewhere with subpages, which are permitted in projectspace, and are really darn handy, too!).  Wikiproject:MMO is a great idea with no staff right now, and it (and its articles, seriously) could use help.  I understand why the nomination was made, and I'm by no means questioning the nominator's intent, but I'm certain there's a better way than this (like maybe some form of phased merger plus some publicity requests to join?) to achieve consensus and to help editors work together on bettering the encyclopedia.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 11:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Great idea with a sub-page! They could be separate from WP:MMO to have their own workspace yet they are not their own project. In the case of delete, I think I might put up a sub-page for them at WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games/RuneScape. Greeves 23:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The MMO project can become a parent of the RuneScape project. I don't see how deletion is required here. - Mgm|(talk) 12:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per CaptainVindaloo. Project is more active and has more members than WP:MMO. Even if abandoned or merged, this should be kept as a historical archive. I doubt a merge works. Are the Runescapers even interested in editing other MMO articles? - Mgm|(talk) 12:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Merging the projects isn't even neccesary; they can exist simultaneously.
 * Comment: WP:MMO is already it's parent. Greeves 23:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep-RuneScape has had frequent vandalising edits on itself and its related articles. This has led to frequent semi-protection and the necessity of vigilant watching of all RuneScape articles. The frequent Wikipedia editors on RuneScape are currently trying to attain GA or FA status, but their efforts are hindered by the frequent annoying edits made to the series. Having a centralized discussion relating to all RuneScape pages would allow us to debate over various articles and how to deal with vandals. This, in my opinion, is the purpose of the RuneScape WikiProject. I look forward to this WikiProject helping to improve all RuneScape articles.-- E d  ¿Cómo estás? 00:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, too little content, too much fancruft. I think we should also delete the Portal.EMG Blue 14:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that if you think that, you should create a MfD for that. -Amarkov blahedits 16:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We still need one or the other. Without some form of main page, rogue subpages will keep popping up and the series will ultimately die off. Dtm142 23:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. The project is our best way of coordinating between articles. We're trying to reach FA status for the main article, but there's no way we can fit everything into one page. So, we have to link to the other pages, and main articles for sections of a featured article should be at least A-rated; we need to bring the quality of all the articles up. WikiProject RuneScape has really helped in reaching this goal. -- Pyrospirit Talk  Contribs 03:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongest Possible Keep- Also, undelete some of the previously deleted articles, fix them up and we have one of Wikipedia's best Wikiprojects. --Fred McGarry 11:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Closed: Any votes/comments from here on will be ignored. December 22, 2006 was the final day. Time for an admin to come and sort this matter out. Greeves 19:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Sorry, there is still a couple days left. I thought is was six days, not eight. I apologize for any inconveniences. Greeves 21:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. From what Pyrospirit's told me this is an important project. Also, I see many devoted editors of the Runescape page want to keep this project, and if it is helpful to them there is no reason to delete it. Kalai Eljahn 16:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would recommend a merge to be more efficient to all involved. However, if users want to use this method of collaboration, then go ahead. Just keep in mind that the idea behind many of these delete supports is that it would benefit the very efforts of this WikiProject to do some slight reorganization. If anything, keep a dedicated talk page, but remember to go to the parent project for wider discussion that isn't game specific. If that can be done with the way things are now, then great. -- Ned Scott 04:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Closed: This time, I am almost certain that time is up. Eight days would have ended at 3:21AM in UTC this morning. Greeves 14:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * An admin should be coming soon enough. Greeves 16:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.