Forum:Infobox Aura revisited

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Infobox Aura revisited
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 5 February 2014 by Suppa chuppa.

More than two years ago we passed a thread mandating that auras of different tiers be merged into a single page. Two years later, that still hasn't happened -- of the 62 auras in Category:Auras, 19 of them use the new template.

I am proposing that we reverse the decision from that thread, and re-split the auras. Back then it seemed like a knee-jerk reaction to having new recent auras, and it still does now. If you look at one of the pages (say, Tracker) that uses the infobox, you notice a few problems immediately -- the release date is static and only shows one date for four different items, the infobox does not make it clear what the names of the items are, the way the cooldown/recharge/examines are handled are clunky, and it lacks many of the necessary things that come with other items' infoboxes.

In a way, there are two separate issues: one is the merging of 4-5 distinct objects into a single page, and the other is the way we've stopped treating them like items. Just look at an item page, and see all the parameters that are listed there that aren't on the aura page. By having a separate infobox for auras, we confuse people, and we assume that they know more about them as items than they do. It's reductive. It also makes it significantly more complicated when new auras are released (like today, when there was confusion over the status of Legendary Greenfingers).

Overall, the aura infobox was an unnecessary overextension of RS:G which never made sense in the first place and was never implemented by anyone. It would frankly be much easier to move them back to them item-state than it would be to finish the merge. And I think that would be the right decision even if they were already merged. ʞooɔ 19:04, January 27, 2014 (UTC)


Support split - ʞooɔ 19:04, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

Support - I strongly dislike when we feel the need to mush all the information into a single page just because they're related. These are all unique items from one another; it doesn't make much sense to force all this information into the same space. MolMan 19:14, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion/Split split- I support the idea of making a separate item class for auras such as how there is one for weapons and making a disambiguation page for them,then post them as if they're items in that class,but for now the split seems the best idea for sake of getting it done. Shredern (talk) 19:27, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

Support split, keep infobox I think the infobox for the auras is a good idea and if the different tiers for the auras are on separate pages, then surely the clunkiness issue would no longer be one? Small recharge gem.png AnselaJonla Slayer-icon.png 19:38, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

The infobox aura lacks much of the information associated with item pages -- what's wrong with having the cooldown and cost in the text, rather than a separate infobox? Even if it's important to have those things put in semantically rather than just with words, why does that necessitate replacing the entire infobox? Not to mention that since we had that thread, there have been auras that don't fit the scheme we have set up for the aura infobox. ʞooɔ 23:07, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose split, change infobox instead - If I want information on a fishing aura, I'll go to Call of the Sea, and I find it much more convenient to have all the information about the different tiers of the aura (which is basically the same item with slightly different details) on the same page. I'd rather see the infobox changed to prevent the current clunkiness. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 20:30, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

We can still have some of that information there (in fact, we already did before some of them were half-merged). But there's nothing we can do about changing a single instance of the infobox that will fix all the problems that the merge has caused. Release dates, examines, just basic item's not like we can fit five of those in a single infobox unless we use the switch infobox, which would be totally pointless and wouldn't solve the original confusion that we saw today. ʞooɔ 23:02, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

Neutral - The original thread's closing statement says that auras may be merged into a single article. It didn't mandate it, which is at least partially the reason why it hasn't been done yet (I hope). Anyway, as to whether or not it's a good idea, there are definitely great reasons to split them, but at the same time there are great reasons to merge them. I'll stay neutral on this one. --LiquidTalk 23:10, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

Neutral/weak oppose - Per oli. Modify the aura infobox to resemble the item infobox, and add additional info for the auras like lasting/cooldown time/price (something like Template:Infobox Seed). Then use switch infobox for diff tiers.   az talk   01:08, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

What's the point of using the switch infobox when they're different items? So far as RS:G goes, they should be split. There doesn't seem to be real benefit to a merge beyond displaying some information (cooldowns/effects for all tiers) all together, which we already had before the merge. ʞooɔ 02:39, January 28, 2014 (UTC)
Quoting RS:G:
"Follow these guidelines when deciding on keeping two articles separated or merged:
Does item A have the same purpose/use as item B?
Can item A be substituted with item B?"
Yes, all tier auras have the same purpose/use. Yes, you can substitute one with any of the others with only a very slight difference in effect. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 11:15, January 28, 2014 (UTC)
Very slight difference in effect? Other than, you know...different release date, different examine, different picture, different cost, different cooldown in some cases, different percentage increase, and in some cases a significant change in how it works/the strategy for using it (think jack of trades)? You're vastly oversimplifying it. ʞooɔ 20:25, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

Change infobox instead - Per Oli. Temujin 01:12, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

Change it how? Nobody's outlined what would actually be needed to keep it merged without using switch infoboxes, which as far as I'm concerned are not an option considering how bad/unreliable they are. ʞooɔ 02:39, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

Strong Support - I mean, they're different items and have different release dates and stuff. Sesna2 (talk) 06:16, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - You know we have SwitchInfo Boxes right? How about modifying the current aura template to be something like that? Besides, the tiers all have the same function, except to a greater extent than the previous ones. --Jlun2 (talk) 11:30, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

Switch infoboxes suck -- they're a hack job. Besides the fact that they load unreliably and make the page/source code unnecessarily complicated, and we can't even link to a specific infobox when we want to (for example in a money making guide, where we recommend supreme greenfingers), presumably the default infobox would be the tier 1 greenfingers aura. That's not helpful because we can't even link to the one that we want. But this masks the bigger issue, that even if the switch infobox was awesome, these would still be too different to consider merging. ʞooɔ 20:25, January 28, 2014 (UTC)
Neutral - After some consideration, I've decided to be neutral. While I agree with you about SwitchBoxes being "hackish", I also find having more pages tend to cause some of them to be mostly ignored (either because of obscurity/inferiority or general uselessness). Also, it's much harder to maintain them all if Jagex were to make some major update regarding them (Fallen stars drove me nuts). Since both ways have it's flaws, I'm withdrawing my oppose in favour of neutral. --Jlun2 (talk) 04:16, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

Support Split - They all have different names, some have different release dates, all provide different magnitudes of effect. They're all different items. The switch infoboxes are ugly imo and they make the page difficult to edit for new editors. Separate pages with a {{Otheruses}} to the relevant disambig page, and links to all other tiers of that aura in the text. Law rune.png Samberen Nature rune.png 11:51, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Why are we overstating the significance of their relation? I don't think it's being understood by some that this split isn't going to see any removal of information from the pages. Merging this information onto a single page is more the nature of a guide than an encyclopedia. I know that's an annoying point to make, but it's pretty relevant. Our goal here is not to make a quick and easy-to-read game guide, it's to document as much information as we can in a way that makes sense. As Cook said, this infobox opposes that goal.

The infobox itself has a really faux appeal. It seems to be liked because it has information uniquely relevant to auras as its parameters. They're just items like any other item. I'm not sure why we feel the need to treat them differently from other items. Information about its cool down, etc is irrelevant to its existence as an item; there's no strong point to have infobox parameters specifically for them. After all, this information can fit fluently in the lead paragraph. Why we seem to have this phobia against body paragraph text being used to convey information just because it pertains to 70 or items is beyond me, but we should do our best to stray away from that. The body paragraphs are the meat of the article, not the infoboxes. The infoboxes are meant to store information relevant to everything. There's no need to create an infobox for every class of item. Will I have to stoop so low as to list every different species we can have an infobox for?

Switchfobox is the last thing I want to hear. It's good for some things, but we need to use it only when we have to. It can oftentimes be unreliable, and it's a really confusing template, in all honesty - both when trying to edit and when reading. I don't see how it could truly help here. Frankly, I don't think it should be used on any item page. Not everyone has JavaScript enabled (and it doesn't function at all on the WikiaMobile skin). Maybe I'm overstating its importance, but I think it's detrimental for us to make information inaccessible or confusing for those people just because we erroneously believe the information is better presented for everyone else.

I don't think some of us here are fully grasping the concept of the granularity policy. These are distinct items that, as such, deserve separate pages. You're all right that these are very similar, but that's not the point. Different uses, different prices, different examines, different looks... Different items. Again, if I really have to, I'll stoop so low as to list a few hundred sets of items that are as similar as auras of a different tier. If you want a comparison for different tiers of the same aura, I don't see why a table within the text can't be used. I'm seeing here an unnecessary abhorrence towards this split (and splits in general) that really goes against the fundamentals of our operation. MolMan 15:11, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

I'd like that list that you have to "stoop so low" for, whatever that is supposed to mean. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 16:46, January 28, 2014 (UTC)
Which one? And by "stoop low", I mean it's not a very good argument. MolMan 17:04, January 28, 2014 (UTC)
"Again, if I really have to, I'll stoop so low as to list a few hundred sets of items that are as similar as auras of a different tier." that one Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 17:20, January 28, 2014 (UTC)
here MolMan 18:08, January 28, 2014 (UTC)
I'd say quite a few of those could do with mergers too. We shouldn't keep articles split just to bloat our article count. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 18:21, January 28, 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you jumped to that conclusion from... I don't think anyone on the wiki wants pages split just to grow the wiki's edick. None of the pages should be merged, which is my point in listing them. MolMan 18:24, January 28, 2014 (UTC)
I can't think of any other good reasons to keep copy-paste pages like Small fallen star (Agility) all the way through Small fallen star (Woodcutting) seperate. But now we're splitting hairs - this is about auras, and the auras are completely similar except for 2 or 3 numbers and the name. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 18:58, January 28, 2014 (UTC)
Just 2 or 3 numbers? Then we should merge the signs of the porter. And the god pages. Imcando fragments too. Trisk fragments. Again, it's not a matter of similarity, it's matter of distinctness. These items are distinct. MolMan 19:02, January 28, 2014 (UTC)
Signs of the porter: created differently, different requirements, different alch prices, different examines, different looks. In this case a disambig page like Sign of the porter is ideal. God pages: These look the same, have the same examine, have almost the same name, etc - they are almost completely identical. I'd be in favour of merging these per-book too. Imcando fragments: Identical except for details in the names and examines. I would not mind merging these. Triskellion fragments: Again identical except for details in the names and examines - should be merged as well.
Auras: They look the same, have the same examine, have almost the same name, the differences between tiers are extremely small - just a number or two. These should also be merged into one page per aura. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 19:18, January 28, 2014 (UTC)
@Merging those items: 2 wrongs don't make a right. Every aura, even of the same type, has a different inv icon. They are all bought at different prices. The difference is minor, but it's different. It doesn't matter how small the changes. They actually have differing examines as well. That's 5 differences off the bat. Even though we shouldn't be talking similarities; what matters is distinctness. MolMan 19:22, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

Support split, use item infobox - These are items, so we need to treat them like items. Any information regarding the specifics of an Aura or its use should be put into the article, like it would be for any other item. This aura information can be in an infobox, but we must keep the item infobox because auras still have item status.

Any time there is a question of granularity, I believe it is safer to side on keeping items granular. Our policies on when to merge are vague, but since these items have differing item information, we should give ourselves the space on different articles to keep this information clear. Riblet15 05:40, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

Support split - I don't see what's wrong with a disambiguation page. cqm 01:16, 1 Feb 2014 (UTC) (UTC)

Closed - Aura articles will now be split by tier. Suppa chuppa Talk 23:24, February 5, 2014 (UTC)