Forum:Food granularity

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Food granularity
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 26 July 2009 by Azaz129.

(Note: I'm not sure if this is "important" enough for the Yew Grove based on all of the other topics we have on here, but since it's about a policy I put it here) Some foods, such as raw and cooked chicken have separate articles for two different items: raw and cooked. Other food items, such as lobster and crayfish include both in the same article. I think that we should make sure to have two different articles about all foods as they are different items. The lobster article should include information on cooked lobsters (as in-game they are called simply lobster) and there should be another article (instead of a redirect) about raw lobsters. It would make more sense to me to have a page for raw fish that would contain info about fishing, and cooked which would contain info about cooking. I think we should at least come to a consensus about whether or not this is covered by RS:Granularity. Currently, the policy suggests that it is, but the articles suggest otherwise. 20px‎ Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 05:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think it is kind of nice that, for example, "raw" and "cooked" fish are in the same article, for easy acces. It is similar to the summoning familiar articles, where familiar, the summoning pouch and scroll effect are all featured in the same article, because they are inevitably connected to each other.
There are of course exceptions: you cannot for example fuse Bucket with Bucket of milk, because that is not what a bucket is limited to (it could also be used to get a Bucket of water). But when an item has only a one way option (such as a Raw Lobster), it should be included in the same article as the "result" (in this case, Cooked Lobster) - All for easy acces. A magic scroll.png WejerFeather.png 07:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral - Agree with both Kudo's and Wejer. It's easy access if it's in one, so perhaps instead on enforcing the rule on making it two seperate articles, we can Ignore the Granularity Rule and combine the raw and cooked into one.

Bonziiznob Talk

20:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering whether granularity should apply to food articles. Recently a bunch of us on the clan chat were deciding whether uncooked cake was a separate item from cake. We decided it was so, and we created the uncooked cake article. But I don't mind, really. I agree it would be easier for both the uncooked and cooked versions of something to be in the same article... but they are two different items. Salve amulet (unenchanted) and Salve amulet (e) are separate, why not food?  Tien  20:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not a very good comparison to articles about food, it's like comparing apples to airplanes. The two salve amulets have two separate sets of stats and even uses.
Separate cooked/uncooked food articles are pointless altogether and make maintaining them unnecessarily more difficult when the amount of information on an "uncooked" food item page is slim to none. I think quality of articles should come before quanitity. The cooked food should be the article, have the uncooked food redirect to it and have a sub-section on how it's made.
Personally, I think granularity isn't a very good policy to have anyway. It's fair to say that everything should be mentioned. That's good, but everything having its own article, no matter how insignificant it is, amounts to nothing more than a huge amount of uncategorized stubs and significantly lower quality articles than if they were included in a "parent" item's article. -Byte_Master bytesig2.png bytesig3.png 21:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The Salve amulets are very similar, actually. The only difference between them are their stats; they are used for the same thing, fighting undead monsters. But you're right... uncooked foods have little to no information. I think it'd be a better idea to have them together.  Tien  15:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I personally prefer the one-article layout, too. However, I think there should be at least something about this in the policy article once further consensus is reached. 20px‎ Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 06:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)