Forum:Combine aura tiers

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Combine aura tiers
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 14 December 2011 by Suppa chuppa.


With new tier 3 versions (Master [aura name]) of tier 1 auras now released, I am proposing that auras with multiple tiers, such as Call of the sea, be combined into one article with the names of the higher level versions (Greater, Master, whatever the tier 4s will be called) redirecting to the main page name. Small recharge gem.png AnselaJonla Slayer-icon.png 18:05, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

Addition: I also suggest that the same be done with the different tiers of Dungeoneering potions, for example combining Weak Artisan's and Strong Artisan's with the Artisan's potion article. Small recharge gem.png AnselaJonla Slayer-icon.png 21:39, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion[edit source]

Support - as nominator Small recharge gem.png AnselaJonla Slayer-icon.png 18:07, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

Support initial and secondary proposal - Consistency and collectiveness pls. Ronan Talk 19:24, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't aware that Dungeoneering potions were that distinct from each other due to my noobiness. Ronan Talk 19:49, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

Support - No need to say the same thing three times. We're not making different articles for different clan ring tiers either. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 20:22, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

Support - 1. They have the same purpose, 2. You can subsitute them for each other near enough, they just have differing boost rates What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 21:25, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose merging dung potions - 1. They don't have the same purpose, as they all offer differing levels of boost, 2. They cannot be subsituted for each other as they all have different ingredient requirements What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 17:13, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

Sure. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 21:26, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

But no, not for Dungeoneering potions. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 09:40, December 8, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Per above. --Touhou FTW Zaros symbol.png 21:32, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

Support - It's the same thing, just longer boosts.. No need for space-takers. 2-3 cake.png Feeshee yay!Corrupted Ascension signet III.png 23:46, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

Support - As per above CENSORED

Support only the first part - I don't think we should merge the dungeoneering pots. That's like saying put Attack, Super attack and Extreme attack on the same page. But the auras, definitely. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 21:49, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose 2 - Goes way too far in trying to impose a stricter granularity policy. There are far too many differences within the items and their pages for that to be a viable option. ʞooɔ 22:17, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

Conditionnal Support - Only if each item is clearly defined by a new section and each aura has their own infobox (since there are differences in release dates, examines, images?, etc.) Quest point cape.pngTalk Newbie856 edit count Nomad guideMusic icon.png 22:35, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

Support Initial Proposal - I do however agree with Newbie856 in that when auras of multiple tiers are presented are on the same page, it must be made clear that there are infact multiple auras across the tiers by having an infobox for each aura. Raglough 09:39, December 8, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - We must not looks whether it's handy, more convenient or better. "Do the items have exactly the same name?" -"Yes"; split. I also think it'd be better to merge them, but UCS overrides UCS. (yes, I barely get that myself) User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 15:35, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

what Ronan Talk 16:05, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Flay, that made no sense. Please clarify o.o sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 17:11, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
In a nutshell: whether it's less handy or not, items should be split if they are not 100% the same. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 17:39, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
Slice of cake and cake are not 100% the same. Are you saying those should be split too? And all of the Daemonheim keys? etc etc... There are a lot of examples that could better be merged while not being 100% the same. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 17:46, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
Well, yes, frankly, they should be split, but I agree that food portions may be split as an exception. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 18:06, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
If can form some sort on consensus on whether it is better one way or the other, which is essentially the purpose of this discussion, why would we completely ignore that? Ultimately our aim is to present information in the best way possible - to make reading the information handier, more convenient or better than it may otherwise be. --Henneyj 23:20, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose 2 - Neutral on first suggestion. Dungeoneering potions should be left to the side since they are different items and require different ingredients. Going by the proposers suggestion, even non-dungeoneering potions would also be grouped since they only change statistics. As for the aura's, having more than item infobox on a page doesn't translate well since there will be a lot of whitespace and can appear odd in the mobile skin. Ryan PM 19:04, December 9, 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't translate well in the regular skin either. ʞooɔ 22:34, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we'd need multiple infoboxes to be fair. --Henneyj 23:20, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Fswe1 and Ryan. Prayer-icon.pngTyiloTalkQuest.png 01:00, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

Partial Support - I believe that the aura articles should be merged but not the potion articles. There are too many differences with the potions. Milestone cape (50).pngAmeobea10Talk Contribs #Virtus mask.png 00:57, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - Articles about different tiers of an aura may be merged into a single article. Suppa chuppa Talk 20:59, December 14, 2011 (UTC)