Forum:Mine pages layout

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Mine pages layout
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 17 February 2019 by Merds.


During the second Mining and Smithing beta, a few members active on the Discord channel #mining-and-smithing (now locked and hidden) and myself came up with a uniform look to the mine pages that we felt reflected a better looking and more concise page.

Due to this being hastily done during the M&S beta/rework time frame we never thought to bring this to the Yew Grove to have an official consensus on how the look of these pages should be.


Currently we don't have a policy/consensus regarding the information/layout of mine pages. So moving forward we are looking to standardize, one way or the other, in how we are presenting these pages.

Option 1

This is our current layout: Al Kharid mine

  • Notable features:
    • Prose/Paragraph based
    • Does NOT include rocks in the prose, favouring using ONLY the infobox.

Option 2

Layout used during M&S beta/rework:

  • Notable feature:
    • Prose/Paragraph broken up into headers and sub-headers with list-like information
    • Includes rocks available in a list-like format

Closing statement

This is again, just to find a common consensus about which style we should be following. Neither is wrong according to our policies currently in place, as far as I'm aware.

Thanks for taking the time to respond! RuneMetrics icon.png Tyler JarretTalkLight animica.png 23:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


Support Option 2 - As creator of said option. RuneMetrics icon.png Tyler JarretTalkLight animica.png 23:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Support Option 2 - The infobox is easy to overlook for a lot of people, so having it in the prose is a good thing. AnselaJonla (talk) 08:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Option 2 with a little 1 - I like the idea look and feel of the second option however I really like the map being included in the mine's page jericowrahl (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment - I really like the actual information that editors have put into these pages about the travel options, closest banks/furnaces etc but I really dislike the formatting of it with so many headers. I had been rewriting the mine pages to a more conventional article style simply because I didn't realise that this formatting was intentional.

Most of the mine pages are so short that the headers feel really unnecessary. Readers should easily be able to find the information that they need by scanning through a few short paragraphs. Each section contains only a couple of bullet points or sentences at most.

While we don't exactly have any policy that would prevent articles being formatted in this way, I feel like this is similar to the style guide point about not overusing bold and italics. Similarly, the style guide entry on sections and heading describes lead/introduction to summarise the main points of an article, before going into more depth in sections later on. For most mine pages, all that there is to say can usually be said in a couple of paragraphs. It is most definitely not in accordance with the current status quo of using headers to divide up information on longer articles.

I feel like whether or not information about what rocks there are in each mine should be duplicated outside the infobox is a separate issue. I don't see any reason for it - surely it's easier for readers to see this information in a table in a location that's standardised across all pages? It's just unnecessary extra work to maintain in my opinion but it could be done if people feel it would be beneficial. Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 21:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Support option 2 - I really like this format for presenting all the information. It makes it very easy to find the information quickly, especially for people who don't want to read prose. --LiquidTalk 19:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment - I agree with IsobelJ as above. Too many sections with not enough content to warrant them. The Uses section in the linked archive is unnecessary and could be just integrated into the paragraphs at the top of the page. Even that linked page has a mismatch between the Infobox and the content proving IsobelJ's point. The resource dungeon should instead be moved to the Infobox with the appropriate dungeoneering level e.g. "Resource dungeon: Al Kharid resource dungeon (75 Dungeoneering)". The only section I agree with is "Banking", which should be a three-column table with columns "Name", "Type", and "Paces"; sorted by paces - this would make a great Infobox that could then be integrated with the mining ore pages. Guthix symbol.png 4madnessTalk 10:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment - Following on the comments of Isobel and 4madness, I would drop the headers and instead use the semicolon format as a kind of header, e.g. ;Hello there

Hello there

Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 19:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Closed - Option 2 seems to be the most liked, although the ==Ores== header was deemed to be repetitive and unecessary due to the ores being listed on the infobox. Meeeeerds msg 21:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)