Forum:Granularity policy?

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Granularity policy?
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 4 March 2007 by Whiplash.

Vote Count[edit source]

I've counted the votes (I think it's about time we got this settled), and here are the results!

Version A2... ####### - 7 votes!
Version A.... ###     - 3 votes!
Version D.... ###     - 3 votes!
Version C.... ##      - 2 vote!

Version A2 earned 50% of the votes. I read somewhere that 50% means that the community can't reach a consensus... K, all I need is one person who didn't vote for A2 (they either voted on something else or not at all) to let me know that they're fine with A2 for this to be over. Oddlyoko 22:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Update! User:Kiyomizu has voted for A2, so the voting is (or please, please, please should be) now closed! Oddlyoko 07:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I might write up RuneScape:Granularity some time. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 15:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Voting[edit source]

Alrighty, since no seems to be commenting on the various versions, we can assume that they are as good as they will get. The different versions are still available below. Please vote here, starting your post off with the bolded name of the version that you are choosing. Any comments should be indented after the post that is being commented on. Remember to sign your comments. --
[[User: Wolven Mind| I'm a newcomer but I find that all but the most hard-to-fill articles are written.
Couchpotato99 (talk) (contribs) 21:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Version A: Because, well, I came up with it! -- Couchpotato99 (talk) (contribs) 21:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Version A: I like it, I did Desert Lizard like it. --Eucarya 20:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Version A: Rethought my previous statement and took a closer look at the ideas.--Whiplash 21:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
We wouldn't be making a series of stub articles, they would all be on the same page. It's just a matter of set-up. If you haven't, I encourage you to take a look at the other samples. -- Couchpotato99 (talk) (contribs) 22:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Version A2 I like it but can the template be modified so that on the different versions we can remove the high and low alch prices because they are the same? Rune scimitar old.pngMegalodon99 (Talk) 01:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Version A2 I like it a lot better, especially because it keeps wasted space down to a minimum. With Version A, there's a lot of extra space after each item description. Oddlyoko 23:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Version A2. What? Just because I made Version B doesn't mean I particularly like it... JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 06:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Version A2 It seems to be the best option, this should also include burnt, raw, unlocked, enchanted etc. items. --Whacka 04:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Version A2 Seems to me that it's the best out of the lot. Chaoticar 03:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Version A2 A2 is definitely the best one. User:King Dharok9 11:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Version A2 It seems much more organized to me. That's just my 2 cents. User:Nyrk 7:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Version A2 I am new here, but I would like to add my vote to this one. Nice and compact yet fully informative. --Kiyomizu 04:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Version C I know I'm choosing something different, but they all are the same thing. However, you should name what type of rune/addy/black/etc. armor it is. -- Electric Blue Tanuki
Version D Cause I wrote it and its probably what is gonna happen anyway. -- MrRedwood 01:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Version D Because all other versions are each lacking something that the others have. Version D combines these, and is therefore the optimal format. -- Omega Archdoom
Version D Even though I am a newcomer to the RuneScape Wiki, this seems to me to be the best format because as Omega Archdoom said earlier, the other formats are all missing a key feature that another format has, and Version D would have them all rolled into one package. -- BicycleCat 20:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Version C If they are all one item, they should all be on one template and so thats why I like version C.I may be a little late!Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs21:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion[edit source]

We need a policy on how to arrange items on a page that are nearly identical, for example, trimmed rune armour and rune armour. One has a slight graphical adjustment, but does it warrant its own article or section in an article? Or should we include it in the header? We should be as granular as possible, but should we get ridiculously stubby pages for the sake of detail? Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 18:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, for trimmed armour, we could have an article for "Trimmed rune armour", "Trimmed adamant armour", etc, which describes the trim of each item and tells the reader it has the same stats as it's untrimmed counterpart. Then have a list of all the items in that set you can get trimmed, linking to the untrimmed article if they want to look up the stats. A picture of a person wearing the full trimmed set would finish it off. Yes/no? Vimescarrot 14:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
So one for Rune (t), one for Rune (g), one for Zammy, etc.? That may work, but what about the individual pieces, such as all forms of rune full helmets? Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 14:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Have "trimmed rune helmet" redirect to "trimmed rune armour". Mention in the Rune Helmet article that you can get it [[Trimmed rune armour|Trimmed]], [[Gold trimmed rune armour|Gold trimmed]] and trimmed in the colours of the Gods, [[Zamorak rune armour|Zamorak]], [[Saradomin rune armour|Saradomin]] and [[Guthix rune armour|Guthix]]. Erm...is that what you wanted? Vimescarrot 14:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that individual items of ornamental armour should have their own pages, but they need their own item infoboxes. Instead of putting the ornamental armour by category (adamant trimmed, rune trimmed, etc.) I think it should be by the item with which they have identical stats (rune full helmet, adamant kiteshield, etc.). -- Couchpotato99 (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, if an item has variants, such as rune full helm, it should be one article. Why? It has the same alch price and the same melee stats. Similarly with the ectophial - both full and empty should be covered by the same article. Additionally, with potions, a 1-dose should be covered in the same article as a 3-dose. Now then, there will be items which are pretty similar, but where they possibly need to be different articles - I'm thinking as an example each magic battlestaff (air,earth,fire,water,lava) should have separate articles - they all alch for the same, they all have the same combat stats, yet they have different properties and require different craft xp to create each one. Whilst granularity is a Good Thing, I think that creating articles with virtually no content at all (I'm thinking maybe quest npcs here) should be combined into a slightly larger group of NPCs and redirects made as necessary. Just my 2c--Eucarya 21:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I vote for A! (I've done Desert lizard a bit like that too --Eucarya 20:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Yep, everyone agrees. We're trying to figure out how we will organize the pages though. Compare each version (A, B, and C) and comment on which you like best, what you don't like, etc. -- Couchpotato99 (talk) (contribs) 21:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
For starters, rather than repeat combat stats for all trimmed armor, could just "see also" for those, which would tend to favour "group by item" with the untrimmed version not included in the group. I wonder, can we make it an infobar (horizontal) instead of a box, to avoid that long emptiness? Ace of Risk 22:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Propositions[edit source]

We really need to figure out what we are going to do about this. So far, it seems that having individual item pages is not favored, but two ways to group the items have been suggested. Using the rune full helmet as the subject, I think that the suggestors of both versions should create a sample page that other contributors can comment on at this forum. -- Couchpotato99 (talk) (contribs) 00:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Version A: Group by item[edit source]

I suggested this version. I have created a sample page here. Please look at it and post any comments or suggestions here. -- Couchpotato99 (talk) (contribs) 00:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a few serious issues with this layout. The reason we are doing this is to avoid a million (almost literally) articles with one line of text, but what you've done is just thrown all the articles together under one name. There was an article on Wikipedia [1] that did this and it was wrong. A horizontal line or new header is not a different page, and it should not be treated as such.
My second problem deals with Occam's razor. On that page, the phrase A XXX trimmed rune full helmet is a reward from Level 3 Treasure Trails. It has a XXX plume, as opposed to the normal purple plume. is repeated over and over and over. This should be trimmed (pun intended) to just one line or more likely a table.
Also, just because we have a template doesn't mean we have to use it, and just because a template doesn't exist doesn't mean we can't make one! Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 23:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
On your first problem, you said that putting articles together was wrong, as shown by the example from wikipedia. And wikipedia's solution? They split the articles into two pages. We have decided here that that is obviously not the best solution, so your argument is out of context.
As for your second problem, for some items there may be legitimate content there. As for the different helms, there isn't much to say. -- Couchpotato99 (talk) (contribs) 00:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
No, no; my point is still valid. I was trying to drive home that a horizontal line is not a new page, and shouldn't be treated as one, regardless of solution. And what other information could possibly go there? Only a damn fine example will appease my wrath!!1 Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 00:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
See Mystic robe top. There are things besides comments on colour there. While it may not be much, it is still additional info! -- Couchpotato99 (talk) (contribs) 00:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Version A2: using infobar[edit source]

User:Ace of Risk/sandbox Maybe the title needs to go somewhere else, or maybe omitted in this case, but it resolve the massive whitespace, and doesn't need forced breaks. The bar is almost a direct transpose of the box.

I like it, but do the infobars need hi and lo alchs since they are all going to be the same? Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 22:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't like it. Although the set-up is the same as mine, I personally think that "infobars" aren't very pretty. -- Couchpotato99 (talk) (contribs) 05:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Version B: Group by set[edit source]

Vimescarrot suggested this version. He will hopefully comment on it here.

Eek. I've probably done something wrong. But my version of the Rune Full Helm article can be found here, along with what the article for [[trimmed rune armour]] would be like. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 07:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. the factual inaccuracies (prices) and lack of pictures is semi-intentional. We don't really need them just for this basic outline as long as it's obvious what they signify.
Since no-one likes this version, would anyone object to me clearing out my sandbox now? JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 15:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I like your version, but I hadn't yet commented. You could either move the appropriate section to this page, make a new subpage and fix the link, or just withdraw like you suggested.Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 18:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Version C:Pretend it's all one item[edit source]

Below is my suggestion, tinted green only because that is my favorite color. In this method, all items are listed as one, and ornamental pieces get just a mention. The right-side box is accurate since all items alch for the same price, but the street price would be wrong. I don't particularly care for the street price though as prices change with the weather. Note how this method creates a simple, compact page with no need for a BR ALL tag. Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 00:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

A rune full helmet is the best metal helmet available to non-members. It can be made at Smithing level 92 using two runite bars, giving the players 150 experience. Rune full helmets are available in five other trimmed styles, which may be obtained from high level treasure trails.

Bonuses
Hover over image for type
Attack   Attack bonus   Attack

?

Stab Attack Style.png Slash Attack Style.png Crush Attack Style.png Magic-icon.png Ranged-icon.png
0 0 0 -6 -2
Defence   Defence bonus   Defence
Stab Attack Style.png Slash Attack Style.png Crush Attack Style.png Magic-icon.png Ranged-icon.png Summoning-icon.png
+30 +32 +27 -1 +30 ?
Blocked hitsplat old5.png   Damage absorption   Blocked hitsplat old5.png
Attack-icon.png Magic-icon.png Ranged-icon.png
? ? ?
Other bonuses
Strength-icon.png RangeStrength.png Prayer-icon.png Magic-icon.png
0 ? 0 ?
[view][talk]
I think that the 7 helms each need their own infobox, since they are all seperate items, or they at least can't all be in the same infobox. There might be some cases where the different versions can be alched or sold to shops for different prices. Also, they all have different street prices. -- Couchpotato99 (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, just found this. If RuneHQ is correct, the gilded full helm is members only, while the other items aren't. So, therefore, they can't be in the same infobox. -- Couchpotato99 (talk) (contribs) 00:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, street prices fluctuate all the time, and in this instance, all real rune items are alched for the same. As for gilded, it is distinct. I don't think it sells for the same price to shops either, so it could get a different page... Woodcutting-icon.pngHyenastetalk 01:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Couchpotato99 they should all have there own info box.

In the case of Gilded Armour, shouldn't that be given its own article then? Seeing as it hasn't been officially stated that it is the same as Rune... --Raven110283 06:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Version D:All of the Above (Well, actually: both extremes)[edit source]

The nice thing about computers -- unlike paper references -- is that the part you aren't referring to is effectively invisible and doesn't haev to clutter up your "organizational space." I think users want this wiki for two primary purposes.

At one extreme we want a quick and simple reference to a single piece of data: "uh, before I buy that hunk of armor, do I have the fletching level that will let me wear it?" That user doesn't want to wade through details of the dozens of related items, much less discussions on the pros and cons of the range. This argues for extremely small granularity: a infobox, a few lines of text, and you're out.

At the other extreme is the user looking for depth, for understanding. The users guides are the best examples of this, but a big table showing how all the various melee weapons fit into a single picture would also fit the "big picture" granularity.

So what's wrong with both? I admit that the text gets pretty colorful (sorry: colourful :-) when you're looking at a big table with a lot of links, some not yet created, some unvisited, others visited. But it isn't as if the world we're describing is evolving so rapidly that the chaos will never end. Since this seems to be mostly about items (is there a similar controversy about quests, or skills?), perhaps we should agree on a single broad range of items to thresh out first, and satisfactorily, and then encourage the use of it as a kind of informal style guide.MrRedwood 04:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no piece of armor which can't be worn due to your fletching level. You should provide a better example.

For those so unimaginative tht they can't fill in an error-free example, how about "uh, before I buy that hunk of armor, do I have the ranging level that will let me wear it?" Better? -- MrRedwood 03:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should put in disambigaution pages just like on wikipedia