Forum:Combat update - preserving history

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Combat update - preserving history
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 10 July 2012 by Urbancowgurl777.

I'll keep it short. This topic was brought up in Forum:Handling the combat beta, but we didn't pay much attention because we... well, I could say underestimated the update. Of course, it's just a beta, but some large changes will be made. We thought: items are to get different combat bonuses. However, the entire concept of attack, defence, strength, etc. bonuses has pretty much been scrapped. It's basically a health bonus and armour or attack bonus now. The old stats, special attacks, looks, etc. can't just be stuffed into trivia when the upsate will be released. Hence I propose that, after the release, we create (that is copypaste old revision and stuff it in a new article called Item X (historical)) historical articles for basically everything that has been affected moderately or more. So, obvious ones, like Special attacks, Energy transfer or Shadow spells, but also Excalibur (historical), Dragon dagger (h), virtus robe bottom (h), mystic air staff (h), water bolt (h) and adamant arrows (h), just to name a few. (see below) It snouldn't take too much time, after we've sorted the new updates out.

In a nutshell, historical articles on almost anything affected by the future combat updates. For history's sake, like we do now, as well as to have a point of reference when comparing old to new in the post-EoC article. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 19:37, June 26, 2012 (UTC)

Addition

Based on feedback, I've scrapped the 'everything-needs-a-historical-article-part' of the proposal. Frankly, it doesn't really make me very happy either thinking of it. Umbrella articles, as Fergs calls them, will do fine, but we need to establish what they will cover. Ancient Magicks (historical) or Smoke, shadow, blood and ice spells (historical). First of all, I'd like to suggest either merging pieces of armour into for example Bandos armour (historical) (as opposed to a historical article on the three set pieces) or simply Melee armour (historical). This way, we can create a couple of these pages, listing the separate items and their old bonuses, special attacks, uses, etc. under headings, e.g. different headings for elemental staves, battlestaves, mystic staves, the staff of light, etc. on Staves (historical), to name something. Changed combat levels, weaknesses and max hits of monsters should simply be put into the trivia, that is way too minor for an article. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 14:11, June 27, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Strong oppose - I support making a historical combat article. A historical spell article, a historical special attack article. Those umbrella articles will suffice. We don't need a historical article for every single piece of equipment. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 20:11, June 26, 2012 (UTC)

Something like Magic armour (historical), conraining the old information on all magic armour instead of an article for every single item? That could work. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 05:52, June 27, 2012 (UTC)
Regarding your proposal, I think something like Staves (historical) would be too much of a stretch. Maybe have like Ranged (historical), Magic (historical) etc, and put all relevant information from weapons, armor & attacks into those. So three for the combat classes, one for combat in general, one for special attacks.. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 18:57, June 27, 2012 (UTC)
Stuffing every item in there would create laggier pages than all of GU together... User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 19:05, June 27, 2012 (UTC)
We don't need to list every single item, have its stats and a picture lol. Of course that would make it laggy. They'd just be general pages. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 23:03, June 27, 2012 (UTC)
What if someone would want to know, say, the old stats of the dragon 2h sword and the old rune reqs for shadow barrage or something. Would browsing the article's history be the only way to find out these things? User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 05:51, June 28, 2012 (UTC)
Yes. That's how it works with graphical updates, after all. If I want to see how the dragon 2h looked before it was turned into an oversized kids' toy, I browse the image history of the dragon 2h equipped image. I don't expect the wiki to keep an old image of the dragon 2h somewhere in mainspace. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 06:01, June 28, 2012 (UTC)
^. If we did what you're suggesting (putting every single little piece of information on the pages) it would be like you didn't alter your proposal at all. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 06:02, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - I think separate articles in that manner is a pretty poor way to present information. In the few cases where 'historical' articles have been made in this way, they have tended to be filled with redundent information and fail to present the information in terms the present form of the game (eg fail to separate past features from those still existant). In this case, none of the information will be particularly understandable without prior knowledge about the previous combat system. It will have much more relevence on a page specifically about the old system, as Fergurl suggested above, or on the items actual page, where the information can be given some meaning. --Henneyj 20:39, June 26, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - If you want to, preserve it on a separate wiki. But this would be too much. ʞooɔ 20:41, June 26, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - I know that I supported this in the last beta thread, but eating my words has never given me indigestion and I agree with the editors I spoke to at the time; this wouldn't work out. Ronan Talk 20:54, June 26, 2012 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - I agree with Cowgurl. We have a few umbrella articles on RuneScape Classic, not an article for every single item in it. If anyone would like to make a seperate wiki for everything, by all means, go for it. No one is stopping you. Let's just not have it on this wiki. — Enigma 20:57, June 26, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose/Question - I doubt I'll access Beta before it's proper release but I've heard of certain articles that will become historical. For instance, Claws of Guthix, Flames of Zamorak and Saradomin's Lightning are all being removed in favour of a new spell, Divine Storm. Whilst I oppose keeping historical articles that will be updated with the beta release, what becomes of those that have been removed? Keeping the entire page seems unnecessary considering Henney's comment regarding confusing content without prior knowledge, so maybe add them to these proposed umbrella pages and make the pages into redirects? cqm 21:22,26/6/2012 (UTC) (UTC) 21:22, June 26, 2012 (UTC)

If removed and not revamped, those articles just stay, without the (historical) suffix, with the gone template. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 05:52, June 27, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose/Comment - I oppose making a historical articles for everything. We don't need historical articles on every single thing affected by the change. Main pages, like Special attacks, and things that were removed should stay, yes. But everything else, no. The old stats aren't relevant to the game after the beta is over and the EoC is officially in the main game.

That being said a point was made in a previous thread that "we are an encyclopedia. One of the basic premises of an encyclopedia is that we are here to provide information." The very premise of an encyclopedia is to have as much information on a topic as possible. Now, I still don't support historical articles for everything and I'm simply playing devil's advocate, but shouldn't this be taken into consideration? Blaze_fire.png12.png 06:44, June 27, 2012 (UTC)

There needs to be a line drawn between being an encyclopedia and providing information that no one will view. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 07:01, June 27, 2012 (UTC)
And you're saying that no one will view them based on what? bad_fetustalk 13:06, June 27, 2012 (UTC)
Common sense. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 18:57, June 27, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - why not just merge the pages, so that the old information is contained within the page history? Small recharge gem.png AnselaJonla Slayer-icon.png 13:20, June 27, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - My opinion here pretty much sums up the people who posted above. There should be a historical combat page and historical pages for things that no longer exist, not things that are being changed. I know you voiced you opinion with good intentions, and not to look stupid, and I appreciate that, but historical pages for the thousands of things that will be affected by this update will be unnecessary and simply too much.Defence-icon.png99 i fail Attack-icon.png 23:25, June 27, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. Hence my addition under the original proposal. It suggests to have sort of mother/umbrella pages that list related groups of items, not historical pages for every item/spell/monstah/etc. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 05:51, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't think it is necessary to preserve every single bit of info about combat there is. We don't do that with any update, so why would we have to do that with this one? I do support making general historical pages per combat skill, and maybe also for very broad subjects such as seperate spellbooks, prayer books and the combat formula. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 09:10, June 28, 2012 (UTC)

Also... - Talking about preserving history, how are we going to do the merges after the combat update is there? Are we going to copy/paste the contents of the Beta: articles to the mainspace articles? Or are we going to use the delete/move/undelete thing for every page? I am not sure if Special:Merge would work, but seeing previous attempts not working well with that, I'd rather not use it for this. So, how is this supposed to go? The sooner we figure out what would be best, the sooner I could write a script that could do it. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 18:42, June 29, 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression that we had imported all the history of the pages, or at least the last editor of the page. Whilst it is somewhat flawed to attribute the prior article to that last editor, it shouldn't violate CC-BY-SA hugely, so the best approach, in my mind, is to delete and move each page. Any of these umbrella articles can then be constructed from the first edit of the page(s). Not the most efficient of processes, but I'd hope we could get a bot to do most of it. Only 5k pages to check.... cqm 01:35,30/6/2012 (UTC) (UTC)

Closed - The consensus here favors very broad umbrella pages. The examples given were historical articles for special attacks, combat/combat formula/combat skills, spellbooks, prayers/curses, things like that. Given the general feel of this thread, it would probably be best to merge things like armor and weapons into the combat historical article, individual spell information into the spellbook historical article, etc. If in doubt, merge it into one of the articles suggested above. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 20:04, July 10, 2012 (UTC)