Talk:RuneScape/Archive 15: Difference between revisions
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
Is it true that on subpages, we may only link to RuneHQ, even if a link to another fansite page would better? I understand that only RuneHQ is allowed as a fansite ''on this page'', but does that also include all RS pages? [[User:Hyenaste|Hyenaste]] <sup>[[User_talk:Hyenaste|(tell)]]</sup> 01:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC) |
Is it true that on subpages, we may only link to RuneHQ, even if a link to another fansite page would better? I understand that only RuneHQ is allowed as a fansite ''on this page'', but does that also include all RS pages? [[User:Hyenaste|Hyenaste]] <sup>[[User_talk:Hyenaste|(tell)]]</sup> 01:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC) |
||
:We've been discussing that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_talk:RuneScape#External_links_for_the_smaller_articles.3F here] and decided the decision was no. The rule of only runehq only applies for this article and the portal. [[User:J.J.Sagnella|J.J.Sagnella]] 05:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC) |
:We've been discussing that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_talk:RuneScape#External_links_for_the_smaller_articles.3F here] and decided the decision was no. The rule of only runehq only applies for this article and the portal. [[User:J.J.Sagnella|J.J.Sagnella]] 05:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC) |
||
'''RE:Talk Page Post from Hyenaste''' Seeing this i guess that link could go back. [[User:Poorleno|p00rleno]] 16:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Construction AFD == |
== Construction AFD == |
||
Revision as of 16:29, 4 July 2006
 | Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead. |
 | This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations. |
 | RuneScape/Archive 15 was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (No date specified. To provide a date use: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
 | Please use the archive parameter to specify the number of the next free peer review page, or replace {{Peer review}} on this page with {{subst:PR}} to find the next free page automatically. |
Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.
Previous discussions:
- Archive 1 (October 28 2004 to May 1 2005):
- Archive 2 (May 1 2005 to October 30 2005):
- Archive 3 (October 31 2005 to January 28 2006):
- Archive 4 (January 29 2006 to March 5 2006):
- Archive 5 (March 6 2006 to April 3 2006):
- Archive 6 (April 3 2006 to May 7 2006)
- Archive 7 (May 7 2006 to May 23 2006)
- Archive 8 (May 24 2006 to June 12 2006)
- Archive 9 (June 13 2006 to July 3 2006)
General Reminders
- Spelling- RuneScape is a British Game and uses British spelling, so British Spelling must be used. This rule applies to all articles in the RuneScape Series.
- Fansites- Wikipedia policy is that the one (1) most popular fansite may be included and no others. For this reason, only RuneHQ.com shall be allowed.
RuneHQ only on subpages?
Is it true that on subpages, we may only link to RuneHQ, even if a link to another fansite page would better? I understand that only RuneHQ is allowed as a fansite on this page, but does that also include all RS pages? Hyenaste (tell) 01:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- We've been discussing that here and decided the decision was no. The rule of only runehq only applies for this article and the portal. J.J.Sagnella 05:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
RE:Talk Page Post from Hyenaste Seeing this i guess that link could go back. p00rleno 16:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Construction AFD
The Construction article is up for deletion. Its an important article and needs to be kept - • The Giant Puffin • 07:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed, I voted for keep. Nathan M 08:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- I beg to differ. Sorry, but an article for an individual skill is a little unnecessary, it would be much happier in RuneScape skills. We really have to get some of these subpages reorganised, no wonder we're getting hit with AfD's constantly. CaptainVindaloo t c e 14:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- The article RuneScape skills is already heavily oversize, i cant see how much "happier" it could be suit inside. GSPbeetle complains Vandalisms 15:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sure some stuff can be cut out. There is no need to describe in minute detail everything that can be done with construction (indeed, such would violate WP:NOT). I have yet to recieve an objection to using the RuneScape.com knowledge base as references in RuneScape armour, so we can link to that if anyone wants the details. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
"RuneScape Wiki" link
I am suggesting that we should relink the RuneScape Wiki back. Many RuneScape skills article are being deleted for a reason "there's an even better article on the RuneScape wiki", however there is hardy seen a link to the RuneScape wiki is found in runescape related wikipedia articles. As those articles are already being deleted, therefore i proposed to add this link. GSPbeetle complains Vandalisms 15:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)