Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive RuneScape/Archive 3

message: I'm starting to notice a major increase of content and participants in this Task Force. I think it would be a good idea if we massively overhaul the project itself. For example:
*We should move Participants and Templates to subpages so we can expand on their content, rather than having restrictions on the content to put on the main project page (example: WP:ASUE)
*Try to expand the RuneScape collaboration, and perhaps create templates for it (see template on top of WP:AID
*Shorten the name of the project page, since it's obstructed by those 2 templates in the header
*Provide guides on dealing with spam, fancruft, and not-cited info.
*Try to advertise this project and attract more participants for collaboration
*Just try to improve the task force in general
This task force is continually growing, and we simply don't have the right resources (templates, fancruft/spam guides, etc.) to provide to the participants who edit RS pages. Other suggestions are welcome.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 03:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Im all for those suggestions. Especially the advertising and subpages bit. Many people who edit the RS main article do not visit this task force - • The Giant Puffin • 20:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should I contact all of the participants in this task force, or would that be considered spamming?--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 03:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just add it as an announcement.  If they're true participants, they'll notice an announcement has been made.  Going around to everyone and telling them might be borderline spam, an announcement would be a better idea.  Agentscott00(talk) 03:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done! Now all we have to do is wait...--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 04:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm here... we can start now...  → p00rleno (lvl 81) ←ROCKSCRS<Font Color= "light blue"> 12:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I support moving to the shorter page name. I suggested this one and you're right, it is too long. Greeves (talk • contribs)  13:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the shorter name too - • The Giant Puffin • 10:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe moving is unanimous and I doubt it would have been controversial anyway. I'll move the page and all applicable sub-pages. Greeves (talk • contribs)  18:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a bit nervous losing the task force pages, I'd prefer someone else do it actually. I moved the main page and I got all the links. Then I moved frame and nothing new came on the main page and I rved it all. Sorry. Greeves (talk • contribs)  18:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the one who designed the original project, I know how all the subpages etc. work, I'll give it a shot.  Agentscott00(talk) 19:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It appears to have gone fine.  For some reason, I had to edit+save the main page afterwards (with no changes) to make the new content appear.  I believe that that's why it didn't work for you, Greeves.  Now we have to remove all the old redirects  Agentscott00(talk) 20:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The talk page archive wasn't moved before, but I have fixed this now. Greeves (talk • contribs)  18:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mm, I overlooked that.  The talk page moves by default, but not the archives, as they are subpages.  Now that that was fixed, it looks like mostly everything is done.  I've fixed most of the links pointing to redirects, but there are still a few pointing at the old Wikiproject address.  I'll go through them all again sometime soon.  AScott00 20:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: What about a small blurb on the main page, and have a link saying "See main page -here-"?  using a few <includeonly> or <noinclude> scripts we could easily do it with one subpage, or just use two with one on the main page and one for the separate full page. Agentscott00(talk) 22:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've tried this out, and it seems to work fine, but leaves a few ugly white spaces on the pages.  I'll keep it for now, revert if you wish.  Agentscott00(talk) 22:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some tweaking around as well.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 00:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's looking better for sure! One idea would be to have the main page (the portal-type one) as almost a navigation page all leading to many sub-pages. Greeves (talk • contribs)  18:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great - • The Giant Puffin • 11:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What shall we do with the Collaboration? Should it go to a separate subpage?--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 01:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The current collaboration is ____.  Some things to be done are: x, y, z.  You can help!  Click -here- for more information" <-- something like that maybe? I'll keep it as the includeonly type though.  The way you made participants there's no need for the include scripts, as it's a link rather than inclusion for the page. AScott00 03:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What WikiProject MMO does for it's MMOGCM, is we have a template saying just the name of the current article.  We can just use it anywhere needed. Greeves (talk • contribs)  23:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But could we at least consider establishing a suitable venue for this? A small paragraph on the main project page will not help us to expand this project beyond its current limitations!--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 02:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, given the fact that this is a wiki, and that all of our pages have some flexibility, we should be able to change the main project page as needed.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 02:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But how would we be able to do that with the portal-like interface. Greeves (talk • contribs)  01:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That, my friend, is the beauty of the wiki! We really don't have to use a portal interface, but if you want to, there is always some way to fit that template in...I'll see what I can do.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 02:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe change the layout so its less like a portal? This is a Wikiproject, not a portal, after all - • The Giant Puffin • 11:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the English Wikipedia there are three other porjects working in the same way (as far as I know). I believe that on other Wikipedias (like the French Wikipedia for instance) this is not uncommon. I generally prefer without the turnkey/portal thing but it does add a uniqueness to the page. On a side note, I changed the name of this section to WikiProject MMO Sidebar/Turnkey Interface as this is also discussing weather to keep the turnkey interface. Greeves (talk • contribs)  14:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some meddling with the /top subpage, and I used a NavFrame to show the sidebar. It looks *really* weird when you open it, but at least it's a start.  AScott00 04:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hightly doubt this is possible, but could it be automatically closed and when you click show the sidebar goes over the other parts of the page? Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 20:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is possible, but only with advanced knowledge of the MediaWiki software in which we can mess around with...Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 23:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there anywhere that we can post questions like how to do this on Wikipedia? I think since   is generally used by new Wikipedians, people checking the requests wouldn't be expecting a question like this. Then maybe an experienced Wikipedian could help us out by either (a) doing it or (b) telling us about that kind of code. I wonder if you would need html or something (all I know in html is links, bold text, etc.). Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 04:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can try the Help desk, where there should be more advanced Wikipedians that can help you out.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 04:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 15:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe we can do the [show]/[hide] thing on it...would that be a good possibility?--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 02:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, sorry about that. I've never been completely happy with the length of that thing. I concur with Ed, see Wikipedia:NavFrame. Let's not hide too much though, it needs to be fairly conspicuous. CaptainVindaloo t c e 15:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the show/hide thing should work - • The Giant Puffin • 18:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I fourth that! I think that (once again) we have consensus! Greeves (talk • contribs)  01:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! That was a pretty small discussion...looks like not many people want to participate. :( Anyway, the main point of this overhaul is to expand the project, hoping that we could get some help from other editors, including those in WP:MMOG--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 02:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay, show/hide thing - • The Giant Puffin • 10:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Would someone intergrate the NavFrame thing into the template (I have tried working with those things before, but it aways ends in tears ;) ). Maybe we should not just restrict it to cruft, maybe have two show/hide buttons, one for fancruft and one for general info (use British English, etc.). Greeves (talk • contribs)  14:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean to nag, but when is this going to get done? As I said, I have tried using NavFrames before and I have always done horribly. I might try again though. Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 19:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This still hasn't been done and I have found  so I'm wondering if this could replace it while the old template redirects to it. Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 21:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I already fixed the template.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 22:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright! I guess I should have checked it first, LOL. Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 22:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That shouldn't be a problem. We merged with the MMOG to work together, right?--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 03:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: A collaboration is intended to give users an article to focus on; when there are a half dozen articles, that is already focused. I definitely support this. By the way Ed, I hope that you don't mind that I moved this section with the rest of the overhaul for organizational purposes. Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 19:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 04:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't think there's much we can do. It's been slow across the board since christmas. Next time I subscribe to members, i'll post on Forums/Off-topic asking people to join in. If it were possible to post pictures, i'd head-swap Jimbo with Lord Kitchener and post that. :-D CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created a template that might help: . If you see someone who regularly contributes to our articles, put this on their talk page, inviting them to our WikiProject. (If they don't have a welcome message, use  instead.) This should help attract attention. Pyrospirit Flames Fire 01:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive Overhaul 

message: I actually think I liked it better to have the page name as Wikipedia:WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games/RuneScape instead of Wikipedia:WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games/RuneScape Task Force. The latter is simply too long for the project page to adequately display the page name along with those two images at the top. Any ideas?--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 01:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support moving to the shorter page name. I suggested this one and you're right, it is too long. Greeves (talk • contribs)  13:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the shorter name too - • The Giant Puffin • 10:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe moving is unanimous and I doubt it would have been controversial anyway. I'll move the page and all applicable sub-pages. Greeves (talk • contribs)  18:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a bit nervous losing the task force pages, I'd prefer someone else do it actually. I moved the main page and I got all the links. Then I moved frame and nothing new came on the main page and I rved it all. Sorry. Greeves (talk • contribs)  18:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the one who designed the original project, I know how all the subpages etc. work, I'll give it a shot.  Agentscott00(talk) 19:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It appears to have gone fine.  For some reason, I had to edit+save the main page afterwards (with no changes) to make the new content appear.  I believe that that's why it didn't work for you, Greeves.  Now we have to remove all the old redirects  Agentscott00(talk) 20:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The talk page archive wasn't moved before, but I have fixed this now. Greeves (talk • contribs)  18:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mm, I overlooked that.  The talk page moves by default, but not the archives, as they are subpages.  Now that that was fixed, it looks like mostly everything is done.  I've fixed most of the links pointing to redirects, but there are still a few pointing at the old Wikiproject address.  I'll go through them all again sometime soon.  AScott00 20:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Move

message: Next order of business: subpages? I'm just raising up this suggestion since it was also mentioned in The Giant Puffins's comment. Basically, I think that the Participants, Templates, and Collaboration could get their own subpages. That way, editors can have more free space to write on rather than having some spacing restrictions on the main project page. I guess this can also tie in with a major redesign of the task force page as well. Perhaps we can have a link directory for all of the project's subpages, like the one on WP:ASUE.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 22:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about a small blurb on the main page, and have a link saying "See main page -here-"?  using a few <includeonly> or <noinclude> scripts we could easily do it with one subpage, or just use two with one on the main page and one for the separate full page. Agentscott00(talk) 22:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've tried this out, and it seems to work fine, but leaves a few ugly white spaces on the pages.  I'll keep it for now, revert if you wish.  Agentscott00(talk) 22:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some tweaking around as well.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 00:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's looking better for sure! One idea would be to have the main page (the portal-type one) as almost a navigation page all leading to many sub-pages. Greeves (talk • contribs)  18:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great - • The Giant Puffin • 11:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What shall we do with the Collaboration? Should it go to a separate subpage?--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 01:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The current collaboration is ____.  Some things to be done are: x, y, z.  You can help!  Click -here- for more information" <-- something like that maybe? I'll keep it as the includeonly type though.  The way you made participants there's no need for the include scripts, as it's a link rather than inclusion for the page. AScott00 03:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What WikiProject MMO does for it's MMOGCM, is we have a template saying just the name of the current article.  We can just use it anywhere needed. Greeves (talk • contribs)  23:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But could we at least consider establishing a suitable venue for this? A small paragraph on the main project page will not help us to expand this project beyond its current limitations!--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 02:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sub-Pages

message: BTW, WikiProject MMO has a sidebar that is placed on all of our pages (with a link to this task force). I doubt that this is possible, but would the bar be able to go on the main task force page. I understand if this is not possible with the task force organized in a portal-like fashion (which I have to say is unique compared to other projects on the English Wikipedia). Greeves (talk • contribs)  23:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, given the fact that this is a wiki, and that all of our pages have some flexibility, we should be able to change the main project page as needed.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 02:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But how would we be able to do that with the portal-like interface. Greeves (talk • contribs)  01:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That, my friend, is the beauty of the wiki! We really don't have to use a portal interface, but if you want to, there is always some way to fit that template in...I'll see what I can do.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 02:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe change the layout so its less like a portal? This is a Wikiproject, not a portal, after all - • The Giant Puffin • 11:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the English Wikipedia there are three other porjects working in the same way (as far as I know). I believe that on other Wikipedias (like the French Wikipedia for instance) this is not uncommon. I generally prefer without the turnkey/portal thing but it does add a uniqueness to the page. On a side note, I changed the name of this section to WikiProject MMO Sidebar/Turnkey Interface as this is also discussing weather to keep the turnkey interface. Greeves (talk • contribs)  14:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some meddling with the /top subpage, and I used a NavFrame to show the sidebar. It looks *really* weird when you open it, but at least it's a start.  AScott00 04:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hightly doubt this is possible, but could it be automatically closed and when you click show the sidebar goes over the other parts of the page? Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 20:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is possible, but only with advanced knowledge of the MediaWiki software in which we can mess around with...Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 23:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there anywhere that we can post questions like how to do this on Wikipedia? I think since   is generally used by new Wikipedians, people checking the requests wouldn't be expecting a question like this. Then maybe an experienced Wikipedian could help us out by either (a) doing it or (b) telling us about that kind of code. I wonder if you would need html or something (all I know in html is links, bold text, etc.). Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 04:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can try the Help desk, where there should be more advanced Wikipedians that can help you out.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 04:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 15:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject MMO Sidebar/Turnkey Interface

message: <BR>
Wow! This is the third comment that I am making at once! On all RuneScape talk pages there is a GIANT notice about cruft and such. It is a nice reminder due to the large amount of vandalism and cruft on those articles. However, it is horribly cluttering the talk pages. Would we be able to shorten it in any fashion? Greeves (talk • contribs)  23:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we can do the [show]/[hide] thing on it...would that be a good possibility?--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 02:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, sorry about that. I've never been completely happy with the length of that thing. I concur with Ed, see Wikipedia:NavFrame. Let's not hide too much though, it needs to be fairly conspicuous. CaptainVindaloo t c e 15:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the show/hide thing should work - • The Giant Puffin • 18:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I fourth that! I think that (once again) we have consensus! Greeves (talk • contribs)  01:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! That was a pretty small discussion...looks like not many people want to participate. :( Anyway, the main point of this overhaul is to expand the project, hoping that we could get some help from other editors, including those in WP:MMOG--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 02:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay, show/hide thing - • The Giant Puffin • 10:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Would someone intergrate the NavFrame thing into the template (I have tried working with those things before, but it aways ends in tears ;) ). Maybe we should not just restrict it to cruft, maybe have two show/hide buttons, one for fancruft and one for general info (use British English, etc.). Greeves (talk • contribs)  14:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean to nag, but when is this going to get done? As I said, I have tried using NavFrames before and I have always done horribly. I might try again though. Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 19:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This still hasn't been done and I have found  so I'm wondering if this could replace it while the old template redirects to it. Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 21:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I already fixed the template.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 22:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright! I guess I should have checked it first, LOL. Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 22:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-cruft template

message: <BR>
Hi everyone! For the member list I am wondering if we could merge it with the main one as people should be joining WP:MMO first and then optionally joining the task force(s). I have been copying and pasting names from your member list here and also adding a ref saying also part of the RS task force. I am thinking, we could simply use the one list and use the refs. What do you all think? Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 14:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That shouldn't be a problem. We merged with the MMOG to work together, right?--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 03:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Member list

message: <BR>
I would really like to revive our overhaul that we started earlier on. I think that it would be a good idea if we blend our collaboration with that of the MMOG WikiProject. We have a scarce amount of articles; until we have a larger number of reasonable and policy-abiding articles, the current collaboration is ineffective.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 01:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A collaboration is intended to give users an article to focus on; when there are a half dozen articles, that is already focused. I definitely support this. By the way Ed, I hope that you don't mind that I moved this section with the rest of the overhaul for organizational purposes. Greeves (talk • contribs • reviews) 19:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 04:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration 

message: It seems like not much people are participating in discussions both on this project and all RuneScape subpage talk pages. I think that we need to encourage more participation in this project. Any ideas?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 16:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't think there's much we can do. It's been slow across the board since christmas. Next time I subscribe to members, i'll post on Forums/Off-topic asking people to join in. If it were possible to post pictures, i'd head-swap Jimbo with Lord Kitchener and post that. :-D CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created a template that might help: . If you see someone who regularly contributes to our articles, put this on their talk page, inviting them to our WikiProject. (If they don't have a welcome message, use  instead.) This should help attract attention. Pyrospirit Flames Fire 01:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Participation