Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rune Mysteries

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 3vruna (talk | contribs) at 01:42, 4 November 2004 (+cmnt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Rune Mysteries

also for Imp Catcher and Romeo & Juliet (quest)


A single quest in the RuneScape game. Fancruft; well-intentioned, I'm sure, but fancruft. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:38, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. We don't need this level of granularity in video game topics. — Gwalla | Talk 22:34, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Subtrivial. Ian Pugh 22:56, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • There are a number of these pages linked from the RuneScape page. We should be consistent and keep or delete all of them. My personal opinion is that they are unlikely to ever grow any bigger than their current size, and should therefore be merged into a single article. Shane King 23:03, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Somebody deleted the list of quests and I didn't bother restoring it. I also unlinked the list of cities and list of mini-games so people don't create more. As for this one, delete obviously. Joe D (t) 23:15, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is part of the series of the quests in the MMORPG RuneScape, and hundreds of thousands have people, if not milllions have played through these, including this one. Saying this is trivial and does not to be covered because its a video game is very non-NPOV and being biased against video games. It would be like saying historic battles do not need to be covered in war topics or diseases in biology becasue you happen to think they are trivial. I see that some of you people as well like to do 'subtrivial' topics. I notice this Schizopolis or Melonpool- article's which most certainly less people have seen or heard of then this quest. If the same sort of bias was applied I would say this is trivial and we do not need such granularity, but I do not because we need to respect ALL forms of art. 3vruna 23:16, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I beg your pardon. I have nothing but respect for the video game as an art form. I myself have contributed dozens of edits and articles to video games, particularly pertaining to arcade games. But, using my standard argument to defend my own seemingly inconsequential work, they stand alone as separate works in and of themselves, something that this cannot claim to be. This is, as Gwalla said, granularity. Perhaps it is not subtrivial, which I will withdraw, but my vote stands. Ian Pugh 23:39, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • If you belive that, then this is matter of the information's location at the very least, not the existence of page becasue those other pages contain granularity as well. In addition, on that logic every listing for webcomic coudl be considered a depended granuarlity of that subject, and the same for episodes of a show. After some searches I would point many instances of granularity that already exist on this wikipidea such pages for Klingons, 343 Guilty Spark, Cloud City, Black Mesa Research Facility, and so forth. If this must be deleted then so too should the others. You can say well those are 'well known'- well they are well known only among a community- the same as this, which is a commonity that consists of hundreds of thousands of people. I suppose it is a smaller one in the scheme of things but it is still bigger then many other topics listed here. Either way I am agaist descriminating agaist even small communities and saying they are not important enough to exist, as that is a very dark road as history has proven and wikipedia should follow that path. 3vruna 00:49, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Some of them? I'll agree with you there; they call me a deletionist, anyway. The topic is one of considerable debate on Wikipedia. Some articles that you cite - such as, say, Klingons - have frames of notability, however. I've watched a little Star Trek - not nearly enough to know much anything at all. But I know what a Klingon is. Other minor Star Trek characters sprinkled around, though, deserve deletion. Some of the pertinent articles need cleanup, sure, but what many people aim for in this respect is some kind of notability that can be widely understood by those outside of its fanbase, without the need for paragraphs of knowledge that only fans can possess. Ian Pugh 00:33, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, "NPOV" pertains to the articles themselves, not VfDs - the very purpose of VfD is to gather opinions of why we think certain articles should be deleted. And Schizopolis was the last "indie" film by very-much-notable director Steven Soderbergh. As it stands, it looks like you're doing some good work for Wikipedia, but this is how VfDs operate. Ian Pugh 23:49, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Eliminating content is way of achieving a bias. I did not mean you opinion was out of place, but rather the information's removal would be a way of making things overall POV. If we deleted all the individual pages of say books of given author as granularity of his work while leaving other more popular authors, that would be not fair to lesser known author and making thing biased against them.3vruna 00:49, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • We wouldn't do that. Although shows and books and such are popular, many try to discourage every bit of minutiae of said media from entering the site, because it is unencyclopedic. I've worked hard to try and delete the various articles pertaining to Futurama, which is a show that I adore, but Wikipedia proliferates with said minutiae on the subject. Sure, I understand them, but who else can? Ian Pugh 00:33, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • Ah but that is wrong, the wikipedia does do this. In fact one of the quest articles was already deleted without a VFD or disscussion. That is act of bias against video game art and a disrespect to the RuneScape community. People's view of what is and what is not minutae is warped by what they have and have not been exposed too. The goal here is education, and a articles job is to explain so people CAN understand the subject. On the logic that the details of things that people who are outside a subject do not understand or relate too should not be on the wikipedia, then the details of subatomic particles and obscure species should not be present for example. This is of course not correct, just as it not correct that other similair subjects grow unhindered yet runescape's growth is descriminated against. 3vruna 01:46, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
            • What can I say? We're only human, and can only do so much. Some pages are nominated for deletion years after their addition because they had just been found. We're not discriminating. Ian Pugh 02:18, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
              • (Ah, good, I don't seem to be the only one who throws up random pages to look for something interesting to edit and occasionally finds something deletable...) - but, anyway, subatomic particles? Perhaps this is my rapidly vanishing background as a physicist talking, but they're real. They should be there; an article on the Higgs boson - pitched at a suitable level for the readership, since there's a danger of it being abtruse - is exactly the sort of thing an encyclopaedia should contain. Some of the mesons probably shouldn't - we know very little about them, as all they are is a Greek letter and three events in a file at CERN or Fermilab, so it's better served just being an entry on a list... but, now I look at it, they're not individual entries, mostly. This reads like one entry in a game FAQ or the like - two sentences as a summary and then a little boilerplate information; perhaps it would be better to compile a single page of Runescape quests like this? [A wiki would be a very good way to write a game reference for something as broad as, and with the userbase of, a MMORPG - but Wikipedia, by its nature, probably isn't the place for it. Shimgray 13:00, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • Your saying that you plan to delete articles on obsucre species and subatomic particles but just have not gotten to them yet? I think not! My point was the bias comes not only from just unfair treatment (which whether thats time related or not is still wrong is some cases) but from applying an argument thats wrong unevenly. ____ As i just said- if content ont he wikipedia that people who are outside a subject do not understand or relate too it, then the details of subatomic particles and obscure species should not be present for example. ____If the the argument that it does not concern enough people, this too fails because RS involves hundreds of thousands of people, far more then are know of are care about many of the articles that critics here work on. 3vruna 02:41, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
            • Pardon my somewhat cryptic response, but I ignored the comment about subatomic particles, because we are talking about fiction here, not real, existing things, like subatomic particles. Of course, there are worthy subjects that many people will not know/care about. But one idiom that we try to use is that we think of the user, rather than the contributor. There's a chance that someone could have heard of something called krypton without knowing the rest of the periodic table, and would do well to search here. That someone could have heard of Rune Mysteries out of context from RuneScape to the point of interest is impossible. Articles should prove that they are widespread enough that they deserve to stand alone, beyond their parent. And, staying within the realm of fiction, as Wile E. says below, VfD voters don't play favorites when it comes to fan information. Ian Pugh 03:06, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
            • The quest is like a book on fictional subject, it exist in the real world like anyother made-up content like a painting or a scifi movie. Even within that argument, these quests can potentially be found out about outside runescape as they can be mentioned in forums or in real life among people. However, many things that are dependent on a larger topic have there own articles anyway. The idea articles should prove that they are widespread enough that they deserve to stand alone is an opinion about what wikipedia should be, not a policy, and it is subjective in its application even if it did apply here. The counter-arguments do not erode the argument that quests concern a larger number of people then many other subjects and that removing something because outsiders do not understand it is a faulty concept. 3vruna 03:32, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
              • Ah, but is it? That's what the VFD is here to decide: Do most wikipedians consider a single quest in a game to be equivalent to a book, or more equivalent to one chapter in a book? Having looked through the articles I personally would consider them to be closer in equivalence to a chapter, but I am not a gamer and could be persuaded to change my vote to neutral if somebody could provide evidence that a quest is more significant than has so far been shown (lots of fuss from 3vruna, but little evidence). Joe D (t) 05:37, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
                • In this case I believe them to be independent since they are created by different people and can require a lot of work in terms of coding and thoughtful text. It will be a matter of future debate over whether works created within virtual worlds deserve independent recognition. In this instance Im not equipped to get the text of the quests etc. for better proof, although I would contest Iv brought little evidence on the matter in general as I have pointed out many examples. In any case however, It is far to much for me to argue with all these people. Since this ties in to larger debate, this should settled as part of the larger policy debate to which people seem to view it belongs. 3vruna 06:00, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
              • (Ah, good, I don't seem to be the only one who throws up random pages to look for something interesting to edit and occasionally finds something deletable...) - but, anyway, subatomic particles? Perhaps this is my rapidly vanishing background as a physicist talking, but they're real. They should be there; an article on the Higgs boson - pitched at a suitable level for the readership, since there's a danger of it being abtruse - is exactly the sort of thing an encyclopaedia should contain. Some of the mesons probably shouldn't - we know very little about them, as all they are is a Greek letter and three events in a file at CERN or Fermilab, so it's better served just being an entry on a list... but, now I look at it, they're not individual entries, mostly. This reads like one entry in a game FAQ or the like - two sentences as a summary and then a little boilerplate information; perhaps it would be better to compile a single page of Runescape quests like this? [A wiki would be a very good way to write a game reference for something as broad as, and with the userbase of, a MMORPG - but Wikipedia, by its nature, probably isn't the place for it. Shimgray 13:00, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I edited the two paragraphs from the article's originator together so that they represented one vote, rather than appearing to represent two. 3vruna, if you look at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mote Prime, you will see that I voted for deletion (IIRC, I originated the VfD) there. Now, that article is about a planet that figures into a pair of famous science fiction books. Does the fact that I voted to delete that article mean that I am biased against books? Or biased against science fiction books specifically? No. It means that there is simply no need to give a separate article to things that will be of no interest except to people who are interested in the base article. Your counter-examples are bad examples; you are equating the removal of the only article on Melonpool and the only article on Schizopolis to the keeping of Runescape to one, maybe two articles, instead of the 141+ you're trying to expand it to. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:01, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I only included one bold vote so I thought it was pretty clear, but combining them is ok I guess. You ask a question does this mean you are biased- in fact the answer could be considered yes. Its a matter of relative point of view. If some subjects are allowed to extend into detials and other are not that is biased. Whether a detail is consider subtrivial granulization- indeed at what point information is 'too depended' is a function of a subjective POV. You say they are bad examples, I disagree because they illustrate my point. Those articles can still be considered a granulization, such as of web-based comics in the case of melonpool. There are of course better example I pointed out later, such as guilty spark. I understand, the argument that using the objective measure of user base (such number of people who would care about say, kingons), that some things can be discounted as too granualized for the wikipedia. The problem is that wikipedia doesn't seem to discriminate against more or less well known topics, otherwise there are thousands and thousand of subjects that should not be covered. In fact I see the opposite that wikipedia thrives on obscure topics that few people care about- such as pages listing the characters in little-known web comics. However, even on the grounds of relative importance based on the number of people, these articles still succeed as there are other subjects that involve much less people that have far more articles- it must be understood that literally hundreds of thousands of people know of these quests. 3vruna 01:18, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • First of all, one of the reasons that there is so much granularity to Star Trek is because it's Star Trek. It is not heading on its fourth year of popularity, like RuneScape, it is heading into its fourth decade. Can you honestly say that RuneScape has had (or is likely to have) anywhere near the same amount of cultural impact as Star Trek? (Trust someone who grew up in the 1980s to tell you, what seems huge now will not necessarily last. We thought breakdancing was going to be an Olympic sport.) Secondly, even for Star Trek, there is too much granularity -- but saying "Those other subjects have too much detail, so you must allow me to make separate articles for the eighteen different Customer Support members of RuneScape's publishing team" is a tu quoque argument that will not hold up. Thirdly, since you are still holding up Melonpool as an example, I repeat again: it is a bad example. Melonpool is a single work in the medium of webcomics. It is perfectly plausible that someone who is not interested in the medium of webcomics, per se, might be interested in this specific webcomic, just as one does not have to be interested in all movies to be intererested in Schizopolis -- but is there anyone who's going to find anything of interest in Rune Mysteries if they're not already interested in RuneScape? -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:20, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I specifically pointed out several examples, notice in addition to Star Trek example [[Klingons], I mentioned 343 Guilty Spark, Cloud City, Black Mesa Research Facility, and so forth. However, the counter-arguments for ST do not hold up becasue the wikipedia does not descriminate on how old the subject is, in fact its a point of pride that very recent occurences are quickly added. I cannot predict the future, but I do know RS has had impact on the millions of people who have tried it in the present day. As for Melonpool- correction- it is bad example for not disproving your argument about the potential for people finding out about things elsewhere. I already stated in my other posts that its possible that people can hear of RS quests elsewhere, even if thatindpendent discovery thing was a actual guildinle and not a opintion about page worthyness. Melonpool worked well for my argument that the point at which a detail becomes trivial is subjective, such as a persong considering Melonpool a trivial granulaiztion of web comics. And finally, I agree with your somewhat off-topic rejection of inclusion of the support reprentatives, I actually removed them just while ago as they were too un-encyloopedic. Once again though, its not just the bias- its bias in applying a faulty concept. 3vruna 04:21, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • This is definitely not something important enough that it warrants its own article... perhaps a list of all of them would work, but not inside the RuneScape article... perhaps something like List of RuneScape quests, or something similar? [[User:Mo0|Moo the wonderful cow]] 23:18, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This and the others in its series, as one- or two-para articles, are obvious merge-and-redirect (not delete) to the main article. I say redirect so as not to encourage the articles' recreation unless and until they're long enough to warrant real articles - David Gerard 00:02, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: waste of resources. Another one for the fan sites. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:39, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • If this is waste then so are the other articles that are about content within a universe. As I pointed out earlier many instances of granularity that already exist on this wikipidea such pages for Klingons, 343 Guilty Spark, Cloud City, Black Mesa Research Facility, and so forth. Until other information that is similair or concerns less then hundreds of thousands of people is removed then it this has just as much right as anything else. 3vruna 01:56, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't play favorites. You'll doubtless be happy to know that I vote quite consistently to cut fancruft out of Wikipedia. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:49, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • The failure in the arguments against is not just there is a bias (which I will dispute you don't play favorites), but that the reasons for it would be wrong even if it were excuted evenly. If removal of content on the wikipedia that people who are outside a subject do not understand or relate too is policy, then the details of subatomic particles and obscure species should not present for example. If the argument that it does not concern enough people, this too fails because RS involves hundreds of thousands of people, far more then know or care about many of the articles that critics here work on. Take your article on Olinde Rodrigues- a handy piece of mathmatics fancraft?- it would be dismissed as an overly obscure biography who worked on subject that few outside of mathmatics would care to understand on the aformentioned logic. However, those arguments I believe incorrect, and would of course support you in making this page and would not dismiss it that way. 3vruna 03:10, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • "There is a lot of useless crap in Wikipedia" isn't an argument for including more useless crap. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:45, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • The issue is not just there is a bias (i.e. some things are left so other things can too), but that the logic of change is also incorrect. The point of examples was that to show the error of them if the arguments to be applied evenly. Your articles are not useless crap, but under the flawed arguments some would be considered such. Since they are not useless crap other things that are also not useless crap are ok. Also, can we please just keep unique new arguments in one spot in this debate. (comment from before consolodation) 3vruna
  • Merge. Don't see why this can't be on the RuneScape page or on a combined list of all such quests. Gamaliel 03:12, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Break outs from games are a Bad Idea. First, whether millions have played it or just two guys in a basement, you're dealing with a thing that has a very short lifespan. How useful would 8 articles on Bard's Tale be? It was extremely successful, set the pace, is remembered fondly. It was a great game. However, it is gone. Such is the nature of games. So, even when they have enromous bases of popularity, they are transient. The "well, you can come back later and delete them" is a silly argument, as no one sees the junk routinely. A single article on the game is all that is justified, and then only if it, by itself, is notable. Subplots, characters, quests, are all entirely beneath the need of documentation. Geogre 04:53, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Break outs off of a subject are not only not a bad idea but part of part of the streanth of wikipedias information, as many topics and subtopics are covered. The quest is not something that is released and then goes away persits as it is part of MMORPG, but even if it was not on that logic then old bookd should not be covered because they 'past there prime'. 'Well you can come back later' was never a argument either way. Many games, books, and movies have multiple pages for subplots that are justified. The arguments taht support that these are beneath the need for documention would also elminate many other very cleary encyclopedic topics. You can say those should be gone as well, but that kind of general remocal is not with wikipedia's charter.

delete. Not notable. No potetial for encyclopedic entry.CB Droege 01:53, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • The article is not only notable, but encyclopedic. Runescape Quests have been completed by and are known by hundred of thousands of people and are the indepent artistic works of the people who created them. To say a story line that has been seen and read more then many films and books listed here is not notable becasue simply becasue it exists inside of a computer game is like saying that a page on muesum cannot have links to articles about the works contained in them. 3vruna 05:22, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • A museum does not create the works that it contains, nor is the articles' inclusion in the museum the only aspect to that work of art. Consider The Godfather, Part II, which has two separate storylines - that of Michael Corleone in the 1950s, and that of Vito Corleone in the 1910s. Millions have seen the film, and each one probably has a preference as to which plotline works the best (Michael's story is my personal favorite). Yet we do not have two separate articles describing those individual plots, and they do not deserve to have such, because they are inclusive of the same entity. Ian Pugh 05:40, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Whether the two plotlines are independent or related is a subjective choice over how you interpret the artistic vision for the movie either way they are an interwined within the same movie. Also, there are artistic pieces that consits of collection or work created by other people such the film precious moments, such works can clearly be be examined both as collectiion and the invidual works for some content was used can be examined as well. Quests are self contained plot lines within a virtual world that are for the most part independent and and often have different authors. As such they can be viewed collectivelly as part of RS in general or indepently. In any case, It is far to much for me to argue with all these people. Since this ties in to larger debate over this sort of thing, this should settled as part of the larger policy debate over the matter of indivudiall pages for indpendent that are part also part of a collectivem, partially-independent works, and dependent nested works. 3vruna 06:19, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC) 06:18, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Could someone perhaps point me to an explanation, if one exists, why Wikipedia doesn't use the extant directory-style hierarchy for things like this? It seems to me that the ability to have topics like RuneScape quests/Rune Mysteries, RuneScape quests/Imp Catcher would not reduce the accessibility of the articles, but would make it clear that it's highly specialized information...At any rate, merge into an article fullof Runescape quests. --jpgordon{gab} 05:35, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge with RuneScape Also in favor of deleting all the fancruft listed by 3vruna, but of course that is not the topic of this VfD. Ashibaka ✎ 19:59, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fancruft. --Improv 20:22, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Give concession speech, 3vruna. Terrapin 20:25, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, although I think the basic plot description could go on a list somewhere. Even I wouldn't argue to keep an article about a single chapter from a book (except in certain very special cases), and I agree that this is roughly equivalent. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 00:32, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: I must admit I have done some of these quests at one point but no article should be written about them. If 3 have articles the other 50 shuold too. We don't want 50 articles floating around which will be worthless in 3-6 years. FAQ.com has the same content. Also, saying that an article exsists for guilty sparks and others is no defence for this article. If you want you can bring those up for deletion too. (Not that I'd be willing to do it.) [[User:BrokenSegue|BrokenSegue]] 01:10, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • All of these arguments revolve around deleting it because it is unimportannt fancraft. However, wikipedia does not remove things that are unimportant, let one pages about something concertns hudreds of thousands of people. So the issue become individual pages on fancraft, which has not been definatively proven to be deletable material. Its pretty clear, and I will agree these could just put on the rune page, however in the interetest of this matter of fancraft wasting people's time It needs to be resolved. That is because if fancraft truly should not be here then It should not be anywhere. So what must be done is to collect as many example of fancraft and put deletion notices and put them for massive debate. It must be understood that if this sort of thing was actually not accpeted then I would be as a big a propent of its removal as you are. However, until then I vote keep for all the fancraft listed here. 01:39, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rune_Mysteries&oldid=7087507"