Since the release of Dungeoneering I have questioned the use of having separate items (like tinderboxes and hammers) just for Dungeoneering. They only differ graphically. Thus I am suggesting a cleanup for these articles. As you can see, some articles have separate pages for their Dungeoneering counterparts and others do not. I believe that we should either merge all articles and add headings for Dungeoneering variations of items where appropriate, or create a group of separate articles for each item.
Support - I vie in favor of the first suggestion as the latter seems not only tedious, but unnecessarily confusing to most wikians. Under the Anti-dragon shield page there is a section that leads to the Anti-dragon shield (Dungeoneering) page, but I believe articles like these should be merged. 20:39, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
Huh? - I am not totally sure what the proposal is here. There are two options, and I like the idea of having a single article for both more, but that's not completely spelled out as the purpose of the proposal.20:42, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
- What i'm saying is that we (1) Merge all articles that are separated or (2) seaparate all that are merged becuase they do not conform with one another. Some are together and others are split. 20:46, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
Support merge - They can be in a section on the page.21:00, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
Keep split, split the rest - Even though WP has some information on "No Harm", I still think more articles do not do any harm. As long as we clearly show that there is an article on both items, it's only for the best of the wiki. Mark (talk) 21:19, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
Split - I found it incredibly irritating trying to find out information on how to full a vial with water in dungeoneering. There was no page for the daemonheim vial of water, so I had no way of knowing how to fill it. Since the items might be used in different ways, and there may be additional notes depending on which item it is, I say we should split them. We should link them to each other, per Mark. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.
- Comment - Though I find this post quite enlightening, I do not believe creating separate pages would be in the best interest of the wikia. You voiced concerns about not being able to find ample information that discriminated between regular and dungeoneering items. I believe that we can have the articles successfully merged as long as we have a a substantial amount on information on each item and how the dungeoneering form differs from the regular form. 22:43, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I'm unsure about this. Reading RS:G, there are two criteria; in order to justify a merge, the items must fulfill the same purpose, and they must be substitutable. As an example, an anti-dragon shield does fulfill the purpose of being a shield, though and I would assume that it actually blocks fire from dragons, though I can't test it because I can't remove it from Daemonheim. Since Jagex manually made the dungeoneering items non-substitutable by making it impossible to use normal items in Daemonheim, it's obvious that this doesn't fit the second criteria. Really, I wonder if the criteria of RS:G should be ignored, since the circumstances have been manually changed by Jagex. If I could use a normal anti-dragon shield in Daemonheim, then both criteria would be fulfilled. Should we ignore the criteria since Jagex changed the rules, or should we follow the criteria anyway? ... I don't know the answer; I'm just posing a question. Leftiness 03:46, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
Split - We definitely need to make the dungeoneering varient of the monsters for consistency.05:32, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
Split all - Dungeoneering is basiclaly its own world so all items used in it trigger all of the clauses of RS:G.05:38, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
Split - while the dungeoneering articles might have very little content to differ from the articles for the regular items, it's the option that makes the most sense (imo). Merging them would make the dungeoneering section seem a bit out of place; it's easier to keep all the dungeoneering articles separate from those about... everything else. insaneular The original Hazelnut spread 22:51, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - Split articles are there because there dungeoneering counterpart is drastically different to there non dungeoneering counterpart (For example, your own example of the Anti-dragon shield (Dungeoneering) and merged articles are there becuase there dungeoneering counterpart has little or no difference to there non dungeoneering counterpart. (For example, your own example of the Tinderbox) Matt (t) 07:55, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
Merge most, split some - For example, the staffs should have their own articles, but the hammer should be merged. I would take this on a case-by-case basis.11:54, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
Comment/Proposal - So we should take everything by a case-by-case approach and separate if the item/monster is drastically different, i.e. Green dragon and Green dragon (Daemonheim) and merge if the item/monster is basically the same, i.e. Hammer and Hammer (Dungeoneering). I agree with this. 04:12, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
Neutral - If we don't split pages, though, we'll need to find some other way to cope with differences. For example, summoning charms have hugely different alch values in and outside dungeoneering - do we need a new item template for items that are subtly different in the dungeons? Hv 10:31, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
- Comment/Propose - Per Hv ~ I noticed that the normal item template is being used for items in Daemonheim and I don't think it's applicable. For instance, there is a "Grand Exchange price" option in that template. Thus I propose we make a new template for Daemonheim items which includes "name, low-alch price, high-alch price, smuggler price" among other categories. Thoughts everyone? 23:37, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
Support - I am a wiki newbie, so my opinion is invalid and I'm not actually sure if I'm allowed to post here, but surely it'd be far easier to merge the pages, as long as the dungeoneering variant were clearly described and its differences to its RuneScape counterpart clearly identified?
10:42, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
- No problems, no ones opinion is "invalid" (except for vandals). We all welcome new users to contribute to community discussions. Except the ones needing 50+ mainspace edits. 222 talk 00:31, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
Split/case by case - Two seperate items, there is a difference. But some are just different. So Case by case but I prefer split for grey areas. The Mental Duck 12:21, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
Split - Per all. We should also clearly link the normal items to their Dungeoneering counterparts and vice versa.23:53, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
Split all - All items in Daemonheim are different to their Gielinor counterparts. They have (often drastically) different shop prices, different alchemy values, and sometimes different images. Per RS:G#To merge, or not to merge?, while items may have the same purposes (tinderboxes light fires, hammers make metal armour, etc), they are definitely not substitutable for each other, as you cannot remove a Daemonheim hammer from Daemonheim, and cannot bring a Gielinor hammer into Daemonheim. So they should all be split. Splitting would also better facilitate a infobox dungeoneering item template, an adapted verson of replacing exchange and shop prices for smuggler buy and sell, possibly with other changes. (I apologise if some of the points have already been brought up as I only skim read.) 15:24, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
- The Mental Duck 20:29, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
Closure - I believe consensus to have been reached. There has also been a huge lack of discussion on the topic which i take to mean that not many people have a problem with this. (Btw, yes i know that silence is the weakest form of consensus but its been a whole month...) These articles will be split on a case-by-case basis and the user that splits or merges them should use common sense to decide if a split or merge is really necessary, keeping in mind that there is no harm in creating extra pages if necessary. It should be noted on the top of pages that a Dungeoneering version exists and vice-versa.
Note: feel free to reverse this if you think that consensus has not been reached. Im not even sure if im allowed to close discussions 0_0 - [Pharos] 07:57, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
- Only Administrators may close discussions, as per RS:CONSENSUS. 12:13, September 5, 2010 (UTC)