Difference between revisions of "Forum:Archaeological separation"

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
(Failed attempt at closure)
Line 109: Line 109:
'''support''' - the mock up is acceptable and would address the concerns I had regarding splitting. {{Signatures/Liquidhelium}} 04:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
'''support''' - the mock up is acceptable and would address the concerns I had regarding splitting. {{Signatures/Liquidhelium}} 04:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
'''Neutral at this time''' - The mockup is an acceptable improvement, I think it just needs to be finetuned slightly. I once again want to voice my concern about ease of navigation for new users. Statistically speaking, the more convoluted something is, the more likely a person is to get frustrated and give up on something. If there's a way to direct everyone to a single page that has all the information on it, without having the "damaged" version of it pop-up in search results, I think that'd be ok. [[User:Yurple|Yurple]] ([[User talk:Yurple|talk]]) 07:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:12, 14 September 2021

Forums: Yew Grove > Archaeological separation

A little over three months ago it was decided as part of the Forum:Archaeology reorganization that damaged artefacts would be merged into repaired artefact pages. This outcome has not been completed and the user who proposed it has not been actively editing since the end of May. This has left a mix of styles for the pages with a handful being merged and the majority remaining separate. This split lead to smw difficulties and the merged artefact pages appear to have lost the products section for the damaged artefact. This split also goes against our RuneScape:Granularity policy.

Example of a merged page is Ceremonial mace.

Examples of seperate pages are Golem instruction (damaged) and Golem instruction.

I propose that we revert these changes and keep the damaged and repaired artefacts on seperate pages. Lava hawk.png BlackHawk (Talk)    19:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion[edit source]

Support - As an PT-BR Wiki Admin I don't know if I have a vote in this discussion, but I do agree to keep the artifacts pages separated. In the PT-BR we didn't put them together. Even more than in the past, before creating the artifacts pages on PT-BR, we questioned in Discord if it would be valid to merge the pages and the vast majority at the time (around May of last year) argued that the items are different enough to have their own pages. So therefore, I think that argument it's still valid for nowadays, even more if there are SMW issues that will result in problems to templates and calculators that use those SMW data. Expecially in our case, that we are porting most of the modules from this wiki to the PT-BR and if there is a different system between wikis we could have issues with outdated modules/templates/calculators, and since we are a small amount of editors and we already have the separated pages, putting them together it's an extra and unecessary work that we already have defined not to do. In short, separate pages is more suitable. TOKTOM msg 20:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Support - as half of the voters on the original thread, hindsight 20/20, terrible idea, get it outta here User talk:ThePsionic.png: RS3 Inventory image of User talk:ThePsionic ThePsionic Special:Contributions/ThePsionic.png: RS3 Inventory image of Special:Contributions/ThePsionic 20:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Support - I felt that having them split off was better suited than together in this case. Jakesterwars (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Support - Seems like I forgot to oppose last time. So here I am now. :P Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 20:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

To eleborate on this: merging the pages/keeping them merged is like having mithril ore and mithril bar on the same page. It just doesn't make sense to me. We wouldn't have this discussion if the damaged variant had a name that's different from the restored one. I don't think anyone would suggest to merge them in that case? So why is this different besides them having identical names? Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 19:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
100% this. The fault is at Jagex's naming, not our search functionality. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 03:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Support - Realise I just commented last time and didn't support or oppose. But the info previously mentioned should be on both pages imho specifically: the collection & uses info should be on the damaged page and the sources info should be on the artefact page which is easy enough. Seers headband 2 chathead.png Elessar2 (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Support - Never really agreed with the merge in the first place. Mercifull (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Support - I find it'd be confusing to see what could be used where, for sake of say mysteries or easter eggs (damaged prototype godsword + armadyl hilt springs to mind), but this could be me blowing it out of proportion. Achievements Coelacanth0794 Talk Contribs 17:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Support - Per all. Smithing.pngAescopalus talkCrafting.png 22:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Support - Despite not having commented on the last forum, the merging of artifacts seemed to me quite wrong. Things like redirects and disassembly information got messed up on the page, not counting the smw issues that came up. In addition, as we at PT-BR rely heavily on RSW due to the low number of active editors, some things could make it difficult to maintain. Divination.pngKaradhras msg 23:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Support - I've always been against the merging; it complicates too many things. Thingummywut (talk) 02:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm frequently having to navigate two steps just to find information I need because the artefact I dig up is technically the damaged version but the one I hand it is repaired. The benefits of having them merged still exist and the editing being too lazy to implement it isn't a good enough reason to not bother. Henneyj 19:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - I agree with Henneyj. They should be on one page. Technical stuff above aside, it's a pain to have to visit two pages just to see which excavation hotspot the artefact comes from, or to find out the collections it's in, or the description of the artefact, etc. The list goes on. When you are looking at an artefact, you want to know the information about the damaged and repaired version. It's easier for wiki users to have them together, since to the average person, they are the same item. If the pages had the same information on them, I'd be fine with it, but as it currently is, I prefer them combined. Cache117 (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - I actually think keeping it to one page makes the most sense to me. I like the idea of someone searching for the artefact and seeing immediately the damage variant and stuff to restore. Talk to me ShaunyMy contributions 20:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Support - Support separate articles which may avoid SMW issues but with Elessar's suggestion of having collections and uses on both. Robert571 (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with doing this. Lava hawk.png BlackHawk (Talk)    20:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - This process could be completed by a handful of dedicated volunteers in less than a weekend. We should be making the Wiki easier to navigate by reducing the number of clicks / suggestions on pages. E.g. searching "Ourg Megahitter" shouldn't show 2 different search results, it should show all the information about it in one single page. Yurple (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


Support - I like granularity, it removes ambiguity like which sections apply to which item on these merged pages. Them being merged seems a bit like if the strung and unstrung amulet pages were merged lol. zTUG5mD.png Crow 653  13:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - As a user, I often find myself having to flick back and forth between the, and often end up at the wrong one to begin with. I believe the pages being merged makes it easier to use, though I can understand the argument of when does it stop (E.G: Strung/Unstrung amulets). Mod Sukotto (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - I'm not sure I agree that merging things complicates things. It might make things slightly more complicated for the way the wiki works/the technical aspect, sure, but to our average user, having these pages separately is a massive pain in the backside. Yes, it isn't particularly consistent with the rest of our granularity policy to keep the pages merged, but surely we should be about making the wiki easier to use for users and not just for the editors? We're just adding extra unnecessary clicks for people to get the information they need. jayden 17:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - I agree with Jayden. Personally I think we've swung the granularity pendulum too far in the other direction at this point and have been separating too many pages. I think we all need to ask what the average user would want to see. I think anyone looking at the restored artifact page would want to know information such as where you can excavate it from, and anyone looking at the damaged artifact page would want to know what collections it's a part of. Just because we can separate pages doesn't mean we should. --LiquidTalk 23:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Big support - I see no difference between this and literally any other processed item. If users are confused about what information they expect on one page, then let's change the content of the pages to match their use cases. Let's not do this "because it's one less click for users"... there's a reason we're so granular. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 03:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - Let's not apply granularity for the sake of the reader for once. Shayani (talk) 05:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Support - What Haidro said. Talk to Kelsey 11:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment - I'm very interested if anyone has a reason other than easy access to the information? It seems like that's the reason everyone is giving but that could also be achieved by duplicating the info over using appropriate templates. As stated by others having these pages combined is against RS:G (as it currently stands) and there's not really a difference between these and something like amulets. Seers headband 2 chathead.png Elessar2 (talk) 12:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

From my perspective, easy access to information is a huge reason. What are readers most likely going to want to know about an artifact? Probably the top I can think of are where to excavate it, what materials are needed to restore it, what collections it's a part of, and what it disassembles into. Currently you have to jump between pages to find that information. I would argue that RS:G is too granular for ease of reading, as other things arguably should be easier to find too. For example, if you look up drakolith ores you can't actually see where to mine them; instead you have to find a link to drakolith rocks to get this information.
I agree that in some cases this granularity is fine (like amulets, I don't think people who specifically are looking for the unstrung version care about exactly what the enchanted version does), but others where it can be quite irritating to have to jump across multiple pages to find the information you're looking for.
Regarding the possibility of duplicating information, that's also a way to solve the problem which I'd personally be fine with since it addresses the underlying issue of not making readers jump through hoops to find the information they're looking for. But it comes with its own set of issues, such as accessibility of editing, and doesn't obviate the problem to clearly demarcate what information is for what section. Cam mentioned below that he thinks the signposting needed would indicate the necessity of a split. This probably ultimately comes down to a matter of opinion over whether reader accessibility or a more formulaic/thorough encyclopedia is better. --LiquidTalk 11:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Actually... The only thing that readers would need at the restored artefact is the location where the damaged variant can be found. Recipe for the damaged one isn't needed as the restored one can use {{Uses material list}} to show how it is made. So no need to click to another page. Collections belong to the restored one so that is not a reason to keep them together. Unless I'm missing something. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 12:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I disagree about the collections, since I think that's one of the most important aspects to an artifact. I will concede that in the specific case of artifacts this is less of an issue since the base page that people search for is the restored one, while the damaged artifacts have the (damaged) appended at the end. But in a world where the names are, for example, Ceremonial mace and Ceremonial mace (restored), I'd wager a decent number of users would be annoyed by not being able to see collections on both pages.
The other points are mostly a matter of preference, I think the uses material list is close enough to the recipe that it doesn't matter one way or the other. What you suggested is a decent solution I think (other than the collections issue I mentioned above), I just personally think it's a bit too much duplicated info and not enough unique info on the pages to warrant keeping two separate pages. --LiquidTalk 23:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Support - From the given example, Ceremonial mace gives demonstrably false information, as even when selecting Damaged version the disassembly data does not change, or in any way reflect that damaged artefacts cant be disassembled. Any information unique to the other, will lead to further complicating the unified page. If access to information is critical, we can assist in finding the proper page by other means, like always providing easy linkage to the other version at the beginning. Either "See: This but the other" or just beginning chapter being uniformly written. It seems restored versions do this for the damaged version, but not the other way around. Juha686 (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Support - After reviewing the pages, I find myself reaching the same conclusion as Juha above. One can be disassembled, the other cannot. One comes from excavation hotspots, the other cannot. One can be exchanged for chronotes, the other cannot. Each section on the page refers to one of the items, but isn't clear about which. Even if the sections did point out which item they referred to, I don't think the confusion is removed, and the extra signposting required makes it clear to me they should be split anyway. cqm talk 12:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Support - As per Haidro and GRANNY Elaine (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - In my mind, those the damaged and non-damaged versions are basically the same thing. If a policy causes a confusing outcome, change the policy, not the outcome. In my opinion, separating damaged and restored artefacts confuses editors, but actually makes more sense to users to since they're basically the same thing. Damaged artefacts only have one purpose: to be restored, unlike ores which have uses other than "get smelted into bar". The restoration process is uniform across all artefacts, and when people search for an artefact they're really looking for is: where it comes from, what it's used for, what it d/a's into, and how is it restored. A guy coming from Google isn't gonna know which of these pieces of information lies on which page (since unlike us they have better things to do with their time than argue over page merges XD), and know which one they need to click on. If confusing editors makes the pages less confusing and clearer to readers then we should do it. Elkswampdog (talk) 10:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Support - While my gut instinct is to oppose (merge), the argument being for ease of access to information, I also understand the argmuents to split them for technical reasons and consistency. Merging them opens up a can of worms (again) regarding granularity vs usablility and where to draw the line at splits and merges with similar items. Keeping damaged/restored artefacts seperate but duplicating pertintent information I think is the best solution. Excavation locations being listed on restored articles being the main example I can think of. Superiosity the WikianQuick chat button.png : Sup 22:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - Readers above technicians and/or writers GlicEsther (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Failed attempt at closure[edit source]

So this is pretty hopelessly divided: as I write this, there are 18 people supporting and 10 opposing, and since the first dissent from Henneyj it's actually been majority opposition. There are fairly compelling arguments on both sides, and it's clear that a decision needs to be made one way or the other, since currently the pages are presented inconsistently. It's basically the RuneScape Wiki version of a circuit split, where "no consensus" isn't really an option.

In some cases, the discussion on this thread (and the 64% support) might be sufficient for a "rough consensus" closure in favor of a split. However, there's also reason to believe that if we were to leave it open for longer, or solicit opinions from non-power-users, the general support for the proposal would continue to drop. I'm not comfortable closing this in either direction right now, but we need to have some sort of consistent outcome eventually.

With that in mind, I'm hoping we can look at solutions that cut between the two extremes. To me, the two most compelling arguments on the thread are from Cache and Juha. Can we try to find either:

  • A solution with the pages split that ameliorates the problems with needing to visit multiple pages that Cache points out, OR
  • A solution with the pages merged that ameliorates the problems with core item properties that Juha/Cqm point out?

To that end, I'd suggest:

  • BlackHawk and Jayden, can you (maybe with Gaz's help) come to a conclusion about how deep-seated the SMW issues are with having the pages merged? It's not really specified on the thread exactly what the problems are.
  • Haidro or Juha (or someone else supporting splitting), can you mock up what it might look like if we wanted to split the pages but duplicate excavation/collection/etc information between them, so as to limit the number of readers who feel like they need to click across pages to find what they're looking for?

Thank you. ʞooɔ 06:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment - It isn't just SMW issues and common sense to split to wildly different items that happen to have similar names due to one being an ingredient for the other, but I digress. It is also about having sections that are only relevant for one variant making a mess of the page, e.g. you cannot disassemble the damaged variants. As to answer your request, here you have a split page for the repaired artefact featuring the sources of where the damaged variant can be found as well as a page for the damaged variant featuring the collections it can be used for (as this was a concern Liquid voiced in response to one of my comments in this discussion). Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 12:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment - Adding the excavation hotspot to Artefact info and having the Artefact info on the damaged page should provide the most requested information on both pages. This fixes the following:

  • Restored page gets the info on where to acquire it
  • Damaged page gets the chronote value, and collections it is used in

These were the original issues in Forum:Archaeology reorganization

I would also like to see Otheruses on the damaged version link to the restored version, for easier navigation between both. I feel these changes would improve actual usability, without having to deal with issues generated by merging the pages, such as having sections that are irrelevant to one of the versions of the item. Juha686 (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment - I believe the points made by Juha make for a good solution to make the information accessible whilst still splitting the pages. Lava hawk.png BlackHawk (Talk)    20:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Support - Juha's comment/Salix mock up of having the artefact info on the damaged pages and the sources table on the restored pages while maintaining split pages. Seems like the best compromise to make sure users can find the most relevant information that they are looking for with extra navigation. It should be possible to add an explanation that the section relates to the restored/damaged version to prevent confusion. Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 12:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Support Salix's mock up. The additional page sections do a good job of addressing annoyances in navigating information split across two pages. -- F-Lambda (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

support - the mock up is acceptable and would address the concerns I had regarding splitting. --LiquidTalk 04:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Neutral at this time - The mockup is an acceptable improvement, I think it just needs to be finetuned slightly. I once again want to voice my concern about ease of navigation for new users. Statistically speaking, the more convoluted something is, the more likely a person is to get frustrated and give up on something. If there's a way to direct everyone to a single page that has all the information on it, without having the "damaged" version of it pop-up in search results, I think that'd be ok. Yurple (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)