RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Archive 1

From Old School RuneScape Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Replacement filing cabinet.svg
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current project page or contact an administrator for aid if no talk page exists.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was delete.

Magic Enchanting Calculator

The page is redundant - Each page on the enchanting jewelry spell already has a calculator for profit as shown here: Lvl-1_Enchant, Lvl-2_Enchant, Lvl-3_Enchant, Lvl-4_Enchant, Lvl-5_Enchant, Lvl-6_Enchant, Lvl-7_Enchant

Also, it appears there is already a similar page for this Calculator:Magic/Enchant_jewellery, which may also be redundant itself as shown above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monobookskin (talk) on 13:02, June 12, 2017‎ (UTC).

Deleted. -- Recent uploads SpineTalkContribs 13:07, June 12, 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Redirect.

RuneScape:Chat

There seems to be no point in keeping a historical record of this page as the OSRS Wiki chat was barely used.

I am thinking of redirecting this page to the RuneScape:Discord page instead?

Delete/Redirect - As nominator. BGUyLfN.png CJaW7Er.png 03:11, June 12, 2017 (UTC)

Redir --dDbvitC.png Scuzzy Beta hib8CAd.png 13:46, June 12, 2017 (UTC)

ect -- Recent uploads SpineTalkContribs 13:51, June 12, 2017 (UTC)

Closed/Redirected -- Diplomacy is the best /s. BGUyLfN.png CJaW7Er.png 13:52, June 12, 2017 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete.

RuneScape:User of the Month

Used for a grand total of: 1 single week. Template:Uotm and all of it's redirects aswell.

Delete - As nominator. iN008talk 06:36, August 24, 2018 (UTC)

Closed - Lack of interest in the past umpteen days, so I went ahead and deleted it. --dDbvitC.png Scuzzy Beta hib8CAd.png 06:16, September 14, 2018 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Turn into disambiguation page.

Liquid

Strange page with lots of connections to the real world and little use. Seems to have been created for the hell of it. Should be atleast considered! Or possibly reworked. - Krokuspokus (talk)

Delete - As nominator. Krokuspokus (talk) 08:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - Makes more sense to me to turn into a disambiguation page like this one. iN008talk 08:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - That's a really good idea actually. Krokuspokus (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment - [1] I made Liquid a disambig on RSW a while back, it seems like OSRS would have several of these. --LiquidTalk 17:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Make Disambig - The liquid expert himself has spoken 🙌. BigDiesel2m (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Closed - Turning page into disambiguation iN008talk 20:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was delete.

Money making guide/Combining extended super antifire

The NPC Bob Barter (herbs) does this service to noted potions for free. While combining potions can be profitable, the method by which this MMG goes about it is inefficient to the extreme.

Delete - As nominator. Kanga (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete - "what the ****, this might be the worst thing I've ever seen" -- Cook

delete - absolute trash 😂👌 -Towelcat (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete - There's a decanting calculator for this anyways - Crow653 (talk) 05:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

delete - I can also tell you guys from person experience that Spineweilder has a massive Rat pole. Choose OptionTalk-to MitcheII Slayer of Imps (skill: 2,695)    Talk-to MitcheII Slayer of Imps (skill: 2,695) 05:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Archive Delete - This is historical information that must be archived for the good of the wiki! /s Jakesterwars (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Deleted - Theres really no justification for the mmg existing, decision is unanimous. iN008talk 13:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete.

Construction/All milestones

With the completion of the Construction/Level up table this page has less hold and unnecessarily large. It's also unreasonably annoying to maintain.

Delete - As nominator. Jakesterwars (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Closed - The pages will be deleted, as Spine will 🅱️e 🅱️old. -dDbvitC.png Scuzzy Beta hib8CAd.png 03:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete.

Warm clothing

Duplicate of Wintertodt/Warm clothing. Merge?

Delete - As nominator. Yourkittenishungry (talk) 03:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Closed - As it was a mere stub duplication, I went ahead and deleted it. Thanks. --dDbvitC.png Scuzzy Beta hib8CAd.png 04:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete.

[[:Template:Infobox]]

This template provides no benefit to any mainspace articles. It lacks the proper customization to be particularly useful as a userspace template, and is therefore used in only a small number of places that could more appropriately be replaced by a list. The additional maintenance burden this causes when changing infoboxes outweighs the possible value in repurposing the infobox for more customizable scenarios.

Delete - As nominator. Riblet15 (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete - While we're at it can we just yeet some other templates that are only used on like 3 userpages total, and just subst the template they were using onto those pages? iN008talk 02:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete - Seems like a waste. Legaia2Pla · ʟ · 16:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete - Yeet it, its only used on user pages that could use something else. Also, I want this rfd to close eventually. Choppe (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Closure - Template:Infobox will be deleted. -- Recent uploads SpineTalkContribs 01:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Redirect.

Oak (Tutorial Island)

Information has been added to the main Oak page.

Delete - As nominator. Drben50 (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Close - I am the Senate. Redirected to oak. -- Recent uploads SpineTalkContribs 03:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was delete.

User:Jazzachi

Would like to disassociate myself from the wiki.

Delete - Jazzachi Jazzachi (talk) 05:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Deleted - User pages do not need to go through an RfD process; they can be speedy deleted. As such, I have deleted your userpage. If you have any other concerns, please feel free to reach out, either on my talk page or broadly on the administrative requests (if regarding your account). Legaia2Pla · ʟ · 22:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was No.

[[Raw chicken]]

Closure - No -- Recent uploads SpineTalkContribs 22:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can look at the rest of the discussion and determine there is consensus in favor of keeeping the article. Your closure statement reads more like a measured support based on your own feelings rather than a determination of what the rest of the community thinks. ʞooɔ 22:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes -- Recent uploads SpineTalkContribs 22:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Yes.

[[:RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Raw chicken]]

Delete - This can be included in raw chicken. Puremexican (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep - Per RS:DDD zTUG5mD.png Crow 653  19:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Closure - Yes -- Recent uploads SpineTalkContribs 22:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete.

[[:Calculator:Magic Dart]]

This calculator is superceeded by Calculator:Magic/Magic Dart. The replacement is simpler in that it just uses macros to perform the calculations. To me it seems using a full Lua module for this is overkill. Also the newer calculator calculates the max hit with enhanced slayer staff too. If possible, the deletion can be performed by replacing the page with a redirect.

Delete - As nominator and cave-goblin. The scribe (T | C) 19:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Deleted - As mentioned, it's superseded by Calculator:Magic/Magic Dart. It's not linked anywhere else, so a redir wont be necessary. -Towelcat (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Redirect.

Calculator:Magic/High alchemy

As I commented at Calculator talk:Magic/High alchemy, this calculator is not necessary, as there's already a much more informative, dynamic, and fully functional calculator for alchemy at Grand Exchange Market Watch/Alchemy. That calculator covers all of the possible items that are profitable with alchemy already in one big sortable table (even covering low alchemy as well, which this calculator does not). However, the market watch alchemy calculator is buried and hard to find (I was reading about GEMW when I stumbled upon it), while this calculator is prominently displayed with the other calculators on the Calculators page. I think that the market watch calculator should be made more prominent in this calculator's place; if more people knew it existed, I believe there may not have been a perceived need to make this calculator in the first place.

Delete - As nominator. Xerxespersrex (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Support - Probably redirect to the other one. It's hard to find any value in something that only shows metal equipment and a couple other things. ʞooɔ 00:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Support - I also agree that the GEMW/Alchemy calculator should feature more prominently. --The scribe (T | C) 01:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Support keeping both. The calculator you reference has out of date prices. I refreshed it, and the prices are 26 hrs old. What's the harm in keeping both? I use this one daily, and it should take minimal support.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.255.137.55 (talk) on 2020-09-22 02:50 (UTC).

Support redirect - For clarity, the calculator page existed for nearly and a year and a half before the GEMW page (created July 2017 vs January 2019). I do support removing the current calculator and having it redirect to the GEMW page, as it's more up to date. Badassiel 05:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Redirect sounds like the best option here. The old calculator should be deprecated, but no need to delete the page when there could be off-wiki links to it. Adragon111 (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Supoprt redirect per Badassiel.Choppe|T 21:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Support redirect - per Cook and others. Andmcadams (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Closed - The calculator will be redirected to the GEMW alchemy page. ʞooɔ 20:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Keep.

Test page

Instead of being a redirect, the page history shows this redirect to be in real use for edits as a RS:SANDBOX page (instead of the sandbox). It is print unworthy and also doesn't need to be in main space at Special:AllPages, or indexed as such. Nothing links there.

Delete - As nominator. 84.250.17.211 14:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC); edited 14:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - Nothing wrong with redirects taking the user to the correct RS:SANDBOX page.    BlackHawk (Talk)    14:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  • That is not the point of my nomination, but the correct organization and separation of articles (about Old School RuneScape) from administration pages. Namespace pollution, in other words. To be blunt, I see no issue with RS:S, RS:SAND nor RS:SBX. For example, it would be inappropriate to have RuneScape:Policies canonically located at Policies in main namespace. 84.250.17.211 15:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC); edited 15:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - While this redirect sort of falls under a grey area, I don't have any issues with the page existing. It's an extremely minor thing that most people will never notice or get bothered with. I don't see any benefit in deleting this redirect unless there is evidence that this redirect causes issues to readers. Shoyrukon (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - Per above, I feel that someone searching for "Test" or "Test Page" and getting a page they can test their edits on is exactly the purpose of the redirect. If confusion is a big concern then I feel the remedy would be to protect the page, not delete it outright. I can't really see much evidence of that being the case in the history. RansomTime 16:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - Historically this page has been used for Semantic MediaWiki testing, which can't be done on the project-space sandbox since we don't have properties enabled in that NS. ʞooɔ 18:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - as Cook had said, there's some tests that need to be done in the wiki mainspace (mainly Semantic MediaWiki stuff). The Sandbox for example has Semantic MediaWiki disabled. In addition, when the Test page is used, historically it has only been used for up to a few hours at most before becoming a redirect back to the sandbox --Gau Cho (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Cook, Gau, RansomTime. -Legaia2Pla · ʟ · 23:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment - I wish I had known about these pages earlier so I could have avoided doing temporary testing on actual articles. Like you've pointed out, RS:Sandbox can't really be used for SMW stuff which is unfortunate. Perhaps it would be better to have these named Sandbox1 and Sandbox2 and be permanent sandboxes in main? This will pretty much make the sandbox in the project namespace pointless too and it can be deleted. --The scribe (T | C) 13:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


Requested closure A user has requested closure for Requests for deletion/Archive 1.

Closure - Page will not be deleted. -- Recent uploads SpineTalkContribs 15:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Keep.

Blastfruance

Failed speedy deletion nomination. Reason was: Useless redirect: fruance isn't even a word. A page was created here for vandalism and did not have any legitimacy to begin with; deny recognition.

Speedy deletion declined by User:Crow653: Furnace to Fruance is fine as a redirect since it's fairly easy to accidentally swap letters when typing, it's already been created so there's no benefit to removing it and a potential benefit to keeping it

Delete - As nominator. The occurrenece of such typo is so unlikely anyway. 84.250.17.211 23:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose – While not a misspelling common enough to go out of your way to make a redirect for, there's no reason to retroactively delete it. --laagone talk 23:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose on the principle that deleting typo redirects is almost always a complete waste of time. They don't hurt anyone, and either deleting them, or requesting speedy deletion, or making RfDs for them, only uses up more space, for no possible benefit other than the exceedingly rare case where we'd need to change the redirect due to a page move (which seems basically impossible in this particular case).

Despite this particular redirect being clearly on the lower end of plausible usage, it's already made. Search-based redirects are almost never actively harmful (and WP:DENY is not relevant for a host of reasons). This RfD is just not a good use of anyone's time - just leave them alone. ʞooɔ 23:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

It does clutter Special:AllPages. This RfD is just not a good use of anyone's time While I may agree, I believe Rfd is the best venue this wiki has for these due to lack of redirect categorization and an off-wiki practice to nominate all failed speedy deletions to discussions. 84.250.17.211 23:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
rnq8eF1.png -Towelcat (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

balskth funarce - Keep -Towelcat (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - Unless there is going to be a massive undertaking of finding and flagging every redirect that should be deleted where "it isn't a valid word" and an "unlikely" misspelling, which would not get support anyway, deleting this is not inline with current standards regarding redirects. Beyond that redirects are cheap. I just don't see the point in doing it for any of them unless it is something that passes consensus passed on it overall. Choppe|T 00:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

You've deleted AFRO today... and there's Afro. 84.250.17.211 01:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, prior to the fork redirects were made in all-capital letters for each page. After the fork, these are no longer useful and serve absolutely no purpose (the redirect doesn't need to exist for it a link to AFRO through search to resolve. There was consensus that they should be deleted, but no one should really go out of their way to deal with the problem because it is extremely minor. I occassionally view page properties for other reasons and see that one of these redirects exists and delete it. Choppe|T 01:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
There was consensus that they should be deleted There is no such page in the Rfd archives to show consensus, from the outside it seems like a speedy deletion as an useless redirect (which this nomination was also about). Sarcastically at this rate Rfd is underutilized or an Rfd be created to... delete RS:RFD. 84.250.17.211 01:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Firstly, this deletion I did is unnecessary. It is never going to be used because the wiki automatically finds the Afro page. In the wiki search, type ADAMANT 2H SWORD, it shows that it redirect links to Adamant 2h sword. Now do the same for AFRO. Even though AFRO redirect is deleted, it still links to the page, therefore the redirect is useless. The consensus was not reached in an Rfd or forum, it was reached in Discord. Redirects that do not automatically solve this are not necessarily 'unnecessary' which is why Rfd are required for things that are not all capital redirects.Choppe|T 02:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep - In the unlikely event someone does end up on this page, it would be less disruptive to leave it as a redirect than to get a message that says "this page was deleted". Riblet15 (talk) 01:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Closure - Page will not be deleted. -- Recent uploads SpineTalkContribs 15:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.