Forum:Baby animals V2

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Baby animals V2

As a follow-up discussion from Forum:Baby animals, it was concluded that people would like to see a change, though it was found out by some that simply redirecting the pages would not suffice. User:Starieeena came up with an idea for a page that would accommodate every breed, including the baby, solving the issue. This page can be seen here. This thread aims to find consensus on this page's final design, provided no further issues are found. If other problems come up please e x  p   a    n     d below

Elessar and Star figured that there may be a solution that revolves around adding an infobox to pages like Zygomite (Player-owned farm) and having it accommodate the eggs/children/grown in an infobox with all the breeds and pictures. An example of the page with the alterations made can be seen here.

Since the old thread was pretty much dead and with no real solution found, this thread is revitalizing it and hopefully narrowing the options down a bit?

Discussion[edit source]

Question - If these pages are to be kept consistent, how would we deal with animals that have more growth stages, specifically regarding their pictures? Meeeeerds msg 01:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment - another suggestion was to have the growth stages added to a switchfobox on each animals pages, where the gallery section currently is Star Talk ayy lmao ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 04:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Support oink - switchfobox on individual animal pages ugly Star Talk ayy lmao ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 04:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Support - Seers headband 2 chathead.png Elessar2 (talk) 07:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Question/Comment - Do growth stages have different examines? I guess even then we could put all the examines in one infobox version. I think it's fine to have a variant per breed, plus baby if it's shared, as in the example, but also having all the growth stages as their own version would be a bit much. I also think we just need to standardize the galleries, or have a growth stages section with a gallery, so that that growth stages/breed images make sense (eg all organised by growth stage then breed). Or maybe move them into the table as Salix suggested below. Could also have the growth stages as a gallery that switches with the infobox. Seers headband 2 chathead.png Elessar2 (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - Previously on Forum:Baby animals...

I agree with the analogy that Coel makes, babies are similar-ish to potion doses and as such babies should be merged onto their grown counterparts. This should obviously have a switchinfobox then, one infobox for the (checked) item and one or more infoboxes for the NPCs. This also means that the baby's page should redirect to its grown counterpart. In case a baby is shared by different breeds within the species, then it should redirect to the species' page, but also be part of the breed's individual pages, e.g. have the Bunny (Player-owned farm) redirect to Rabbit (Player-owned farm), and add the bunny NPC as an additional infobox to common brown rabbit, Rellekkan cream rabbit, and Piscatorian cottontail rabbit. It wouldn't need to be added to the Jackalope as that's a separate shiny page specifically for the shiny variant NPC. To reiterate what was said on the previous thread [before Baby animals], unchecked items as well as shinies should be/remain separate pages. I don't know though if having an NPC infobox on the species' page for every breed (including shiny) as well as the baby variant(s) as shown on User:Starieeena/oink is what I want. Yes, we should have a 'hub' species page, but I feel adding infoboxes of the NPCs in a species takes away too much from the individual breed's page. Imo the gallery suffices for showing off the breeds within a species. Perhaps the gallery can be merged with the breeds table. We can have a species infobox though if we really want an infobox on those pages. This infobox would only contain the species name, release date and update though so it doesn't duplicate stuff from the animal infobox. Maybe other stuff too, but that's all I could think of.

Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 08:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Apparently the above comment is not clear, so here it is reworded split up in bullet points:
  • In case the terminology is somehow confusing: species is a collection of breeds, so rabbit is a species, Piscatorian cottontail rabbit is a breed.
  • On a breed page, e.g. Piscatorian cottontail rabbit, the infobox should exist for both the checked item as well as the egg variant NPC (rabbits don't actually have egg variants but this is just a general example), baby variant NPC, and adolescent/adult/elder variant NPC.
  • The unchecked item should remain (or be split off to) its own page, e.g. Piscatorian cottontail rabbit (unchecked).
  • The species' page, e.g. Rabbit (Player-owned farm), should not get an infobox with all its variant NPCs.
  • The shiny NPC variant, e.g. jackalope, should remain as a separate page with just an NPC infobox.
  • In case the baby NPC variant, e.g. Bunny (Player-owned farm), is merged onto the NPC&checked item page then if the baby NPC is shared by multiple breeds, then the baby NPC page should redirect to the species' page, and otherwise if unique redirect to the corresponding NPC/checked item page of that breed.
  • What we can do with the species' page is merge the gallery into the breeds' table instead of putting the infobox of NPC variants onto the species' page.
  • Alternatively we could make a species infobox but that would only contain the species name, release date and release update. Nothing else comes to mind that isn't already covered by infobox animal.
Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 09:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
A little confused why you oppose this but propose something that creates more pages, and seems more convoluted? We wouldn't have a "breed" page anymore really, just item pages (switched checked/unchecked) and then species pages, breeds would redirect to the species page (with infobox etc switched). Part of my whole thought process is that there isn't enough differences between different breeds of a species to warrant separate pages. I'm also very opposed to combining the checked items and npc pages, I think it works a lot better to have the checked/unchecked versions on a page with switched infobox, we do the same for charged/uncharged, new/used/broken etc. Seers headband 2 chathead.png Elessar2 (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
This is exactly why I'm opposing. I don't want to change the pages to checked/unchecked items and have ALL breeds on the species' page with its own NPC infobox as *that* is convoluted and incomprehensible to me. Animals are effectively the same as pets, one is the thing in your inventory/pet interface and the other is the NPC running around in a pen/following you. The (checked) item and the NPC are the same subject, while the unchecked animal can be seen as the unlock item for pets. The analogy isn't completely 100%, but you hopefully get what I mean. Breeds are different enough, they can have different produce, e.g. strawberry cow gives strawberry milk and vanilla cow gives vanilla milk. The items/NPC combination also have different names for each breed. The unchecked item effectively does nothing, it's just an unlock item effectively. The checked item and the NPC have the same properties, they have the same name of the NPC, e.g. Peter, same breed, same growth stage, same traits, same everything. I don't understand why you want to overhaul the entire system that has already been in place since the release back in 2018. Your views completely contradict the existing system. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 09:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Addendum: I completely disagree that checked/unchecked animals is the same as new/used/broken or charged/uncharged. Unchecked animals have no properties, checked animal items and their NPC counterparts have the same properties. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 09:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
How is some babies on breed page, some on species page not convoluted? Having all the pertinent info on one page seems like a good solution. Also What info is different between breeds that warrant separate pages vs switch infobox and a gallery? Produce we could account for in the farming infobox, or switch that infobox. Also completely disagree on the items still. The checked item, still has no growth stage (other than the egg) or traits etc as an item, as there's only 1 item per breed. The traits and growth are more akin to the level or perks of augmented items, also the item itself gives no xp, or produce etc, that all comes from the npc. In general I'm just very opposed to having items share pages with non-items. And not clear what the point of separating out the unchecked version is in that case? Seers headband 2 chathead.png Elessar2 (talk) 10:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
No baby should be on the species page other than having its picture in the gallery/table with the rest of the NPCs for that species. The names for each breed are different and should thus be split as per RS:G and the names of the item and NPC are the same as should thus be on the same page. The unchecked items even contain the word (unchecked) in them making them different from the checked item/NPC combo and hence should get their own page. To use the pet analogy again, the pet item can't be used to execute its emote, but the NPC can. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 11:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Also the unchecked item doesn't have any property, it's literally an unlock item and should thus not be associated with an infobox animal as it's not relevant for the unchecked item. However infobox animal has the info that's relevant to both the NPC and the checked item, hence being on one page. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 11:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Uh you litteraly said this above: if the baby NPC is shared by multiple breeds, then the baby NPC page should redirect to the species' page, and otherwise if unique redirect to the corresponding NPC/checked item page of that breed. How is that not babies on species page? I guess I'm ok with splitting the checked/unchecked item pages based on them being different names, but honestly I think it'd be better to add that as an exception on RS:G. Keep in mind that broken versions for example are listed on the same page as new/used and yet they have different names (usualy "Broken Item name").
Is your entire argument that you think the npcs should share a page with the items? You haven't given what different info there is to put on a "breed" page vs a "species" page other than being able to add the items to the page. Also I always assumed that based on RS:G items, npcs etc should be different pages: All items, non-player characters (NPCs), quests, whatever, are worthy of their own article, except in special cases where it is decided to combine or delete an article by consensus. Seers headband 2 chathead.png Elessar2 (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
The current baby page would be redirected to the species page in case multiple breeds use the same baby NPC. Nothing I said remotely resembled saying that babies should be added as infobox NPC to a species page. I literally only said that the baby pages should be redirected to the species page in case multiple breeds use that same baby NPC (repeated so it's hopefully more clear). I agree that although having a slightly different name like uncharged/charged or broken/new/used, they could technically be merged, however I completely disagree with combining these two widely different items on one page. Main differences being that what I already mentioned earlier and additionally the unchecked item is tradeable on the GE while the checked is not. As for the checked item and the NPCs being on the same page would just follow the existing pet convention as it doesn't make sense to split them. The item and the NPCs are one entity. Merging all breeds onto the species page as one NPC is just wrong as these are all separate entities split per breed. A species is afterall a collection of breeds. Each breed has a different name, can have different produce (mainly the MF ones, ADF has less complex animals probably why you don't really see a difference), and also have different appearences (mostly the adolescent-elder ones as babies can be shared). I can repeat myself ad infinitum, but I guess neither of us will budge. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 12:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Ok I assumed you understood that babies need an infobox somewhere so that the npc info (eg the id) is mapped somewhere, also the model when that comes etc. So it has to be somewhere. Also I purposely avoided using pets because those pages go against policy, a deliberate exception for them was specifically made in Forum:Reevaluating item granularity#Pets. The item and the NPCs are one entity uh no, they have separate models, in game ids etc, they are only the same in representing a conceptual entity that encapsulates both, in terms of the actual game mechanics and interaction they are wildly different. Obviously names are different but and produce I already addressed, and appearance I also addressed. Note that you also previously mentioned having the appearances on the species page. I guess according to RS:G you could argue for a page per species, but then baby should also be it's own (as per your arguments and RS:G), and then we're back where we started.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elessar2 (talk) on 13:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC).
That's why I wanted to put the baby NPC itself with an infobox on the breeds that use that baby variant NPC. But in hindsight, I guess it makes more sense to keep babies as separate NPC pages à la shinies. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 13:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)