Forum:Historical item article duplication

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Historical item article duplication
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 30 January 2016 by Liquidhelium.

Hi everyone! I wanted some opinions on the following issue. There are certain items that got renamed and had their appearance changed, and we have item articles for both the old version and the new version, treating them as separate entities with the newer one getting a newer release date. I'm making this thread to try to come to an agreement about how to deal with them. Examples, because there are a lot of weird cases:

When I say "became", I mean that the old version and the new version have the same id, so any of the old version that someone had automatically converted the new version...but that's sort of an understatement -- it's more like it's the same item and they just changed some parameters about it.

This is a confusing subject, and it presents an obvious obstacle to our project of mapping item articles to unique item ids, because we now have historical and current articles about the same item id.

What's the solution? We could take either of two extremes:

  • Historical items with the same id as a new article should get redirected to the new version, with a trivia point (or something) about the old version, maybe with some pictures. It can also go on GU. This would be very neat for the purpose of matching item ids, but we'd lose some possibly interesting content especially in the one case (eggs/sweets) where Jagex actually overwrote stuff significantly.
  • We have separate pages for historical items judged to be sufficiently distinct from their current versions, and we mark them somehow as having historical IDs that shouldn't be changed further (think like odd batta). This seems like a nice idea, but it's not clear where to draw the line -- for example, items that get just barely renamed shouldn't have separate articles. Can anyone come up with a guideline that can be justified?

Also pls help with splitting and matching item IDs. We have 288 left as of this writing. Would be nice to get it done by Invention. ʞooɔ 22:22, January 17, 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Delete - Delete items that actually changed in game (e.g. sling-->chargebow). Keep items that changed but are no longer around (e.g. double spin). If we want to keep certain items around for historical purposes (e.g. frog token), they shouldn't get an infobox item. That or they should get a different version of it that won't interfere with data collected by looking at parameters through the infobox. MolMan 22:31, January 17, 2016 (UTC)

Make some kind of guideline - Make some kind of guideline or something for when removed/reworked items deserve articles and when they don't. Something where items that had a completely different function pre-removal (chocolate egg, frog token) deserve articles, but stuff that was basically just tweaked into a new item (sling, decorative armour) can probably just be summed up in a single trivia point. Dunno where stuff like the bounty/pvp/wilderness manual would fit, since wilderness manual is pretty much exactly the same as bounty/pvp, but has completely different contents. Too tired to go into more detail. Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 01:06, January 18, 2016 (UTC)

Depends - For items that were reworked into something similar (eg kayle's sling/cw gear), merge onto the main article and make a subheading for historical purposes. For items that just completely change (eg chocolates), leave it. Do we necessarily need an ID parameter? If Jagex have decided to abandon it, so should we. HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 02:46, January 18, 2016 (UTC)

This is where a separate infobox comes in handy. MolMan 02:48, January 18, 2016 (UTC)

Depends - In the case of the CW items, the items are the same with the same purpose, just a different name (and a graphical update), so something like "Item X, formerly known as Y, is ..." would be fine for them. The change in the Hallowe'en candy or sling for instance was much more significant, so one could argue that historical articles would be more in place there. Either way we just need some guidelines and common sense for this. The frog token is probably an exception, as random event gifts and tokens have a completely different purpose in addition to looking different. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 08:38, January 18, 2016 (UTC)

Place as subheader/trivia - Simply saying "depends" and make it base upon common sense is too vague due to what someone considers as "common sense" doesn't match/changes with time. Might as well have something unsatisfying, but can be done consistently rather than edit wars for what constitutes as "depends" --Jlun2 (talk) 02:21, January 23, 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Assuming we only have a handful, or just a single instance, of items that Jagex overwrote like the holiday treats then I would say that the article should be shown as a possible infobox on the new(est) item variation. In other instances, a footnote or trivia about what it used to be would be sufficient with retaining the item sprite and more if we captured more than the sprite. Potentially a header template for the article showing what the item used to be or maybe leave that in the trivia section too. Ryan PM 19:12, January 23, 2016 (UTC)

Closed - This will be a hand-wavy and waffling closure, as there is not much consensus on a complex, extremely subjective, and highly technical subject. It seems that the consensus is to make a judgment call based on the item's function and item number. This should not be a hard-and-fast rule. Use common sense. --LiquidTalk 02:29, January 30, 2016 (UTC)

Disappointing. ʞooɔ 21:43, January 30, 2016 (UTC)
Original video