Forum:Protecting drops tables

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Protecting drops tables
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 16 March 2012 by Sentra246.

Drops tables are one of the most vandalised parts of monster pages. Vandals like adding nonsense drops to monster drop tables. This was countered on the Nex article by moving the drop table to its own page (Nex/Drops), which was subsequently semi-protected.

I am proposing that this same measure be applied to all monsters that were released six months ago or longer (so before 1 September 2011), as well as those monsters that were released and removed within that time period (e.g. Hati and Skoll), and the rare drop table. Six months is more than sufficient time to log any drops gained from a monster, and any new drops added to all drop tables at a later date (like effigies were) can be added by an autoconfirmed user. It is rare that any drops added to monsters like goblins, hill giants or even General Graador are legitimate entries.

tl;dr move all drops tables from six months+ old monsters, seasonal monsters and the RDT to their own page and semi-protect the drop pages. Small recharge gem.png AnselaJonla Slayer-icon.png 17:31, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

  • This edit was made just after I made this thread. The addition of an impossible drop to a monster that has been around for years and has its drops all recorded already. Small recharge gem.png AnselaJonla Slayer-icon.png 17:39, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Support - as nominator Small recharge gem.png AnselaJonla Slayer-icon.png 17:31, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - When I moved the drops to a subpage, I was aware that doing so broke the drops script (try entering something and clicking submit. The script won't work). However, I decided that autoconfirmed users could figure out how to do it manually. I just wanted to make people aware of this particular nuance. --LiquidTalk 17:33, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Strong support - Also remove the easy-add template at the bottom so it's not broken. It isn't needed anyway. So sick of reverting drop edits; if it's been 6 months and it isn't a special case, there's nothing else to add. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 17:35, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Support - Seems reasonable HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 19:58, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Support - if there is a problem with users adding to it, perhaps make use of the editing hints proposed here? cqm talk 22:35, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose moving; Support removing drop script - Moving to a subpage may help but it can be a little annoying when editing a page to have the drops on a separate page. I also disagree that all monsters older than a certain time can all be grouped together, monsters killed less frequently can benefit from being freely open to edit. In terms of the vandalism, I get the impression that the easy add script is far too open to vandalism, and i feel that it is likely to be causing the most problems. Therefore, I think it'd be best to remove it and leave other aspects as they are. --Henneyj 22:53, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

That wouldn't help at all with the constantly-added-RDT drops. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 23:08, March 1, 2012 (UTC)
Suppose not, but that's naivity rather than the blatant vandalism I attribute to the script, and the only real harm that comes from that is a double entry in the drops. For me, rare drop table additions are just something we should put up with to allow people to freely edit. --Henneyj 00:06, March 2, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Almost all of this proposal would be rendered unnecessary by removing the drop submissions script, which has easily increased drop table vandalism tenfold. The script, while good on paper, is a countervandalism nightmare that has very little benefit and a lot of problems. We certainly would not have had to move Nex's drops to a subpage if not for its installation. Getting rid of the script is a much better solution than what you're proposing. The annoyance of RDT drops is not worth this kind of hassle, especially when we can tag them or even disallow them with a simple filter.

It is also incorrect to state that unregistered users rarely or never add positive entries to old logs: the only example I can remember in the last couple days is this. You say that autoconfirmed users can add things like effigies, but that clearly didn't happen in this case. We would be missing out on some useful information if we semi-protected everything.

Besides, there are 614 mainspace pages that use {{DropsLine}}, and most of these are older than six months. It is simply impractical to move all of these to subpages, firstly because it would be difficult to automate it, and secondly because it would misrepresent our page count. If you really must protect the drop tables, see if Wikia would spring for ProtectSection.

This is a bad idea. There are much more nuanced ways to deal with this issue. ʞooɔ 00:16, March 2, 2012 (UTC)

Conditional support - I admit, the opposers have a rather good point. However, while the drop script definitely increased vandalism greatly, we can't deny the item drops were still heavily vandalized before the implementation of the script. I do, however, think the script has merit for newer articles, as IPs seem to be utterly horrible at adding legit drops properly.

I don't really care about our page count, as quality matters more than quantity for me, and quality means no vandalized item drop boxes. I don't think protectsection would work for us unless it can be modified to autoconfirmed users, as only allowing sysops to change the drops would be way too restricted.

With all this being said, this is conditional support provided that this can be practicably done (how would we move all the drops to subpages by date and protect those?). And if this proposal fails, I support removing the drop script. Something has to be done about the excessive levels of vandalism. Hofmic Talk 06:40, March 2, 2012 (UTC)

Changed to Support removing drop script - Seems like the easiest way to go, and per other supporters. Hofmic Talk 19:24, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Remove drop script - The fundamental design flaw with a drop script is that the drop tables are a one-time deal. After the items are put in, they never need to be changed again. This is in contrast to things like the Exchange update script, where we decided that the increase in GE price vandalism was a worthwhile trade as the pages had to be constantly updated.

The drop logs don't have this issue; they essentially stay constant. In the few instances where something in a drop log changes, it is much easier to make the changes manually than deal with these elevated levels of countervandalism. --LiquidTalk 06:45, March 2, 2012 (UTC)

Remove drop script - Then the levels of vandalism will drop back to previous levels: the occassional derp who adds a single line of crap that no one notices but is easy to revert. 222 talk 01:15, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Remove drop script - I never even noticed this addition to the tables until now. As others have said, new additions to a monster's drops are rare, so the major use of the drop script is simply vandalism. I think removing the script would see a significant decrease in vandalism, as it makes it a little more complicated for those 10 year old vandals who can't comprehend such simple code. I don't think moving the drop table to a subpage is necessary. Chicken7 >talk 09:26, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose drop moving, support removing drop script I have no problem with removing the drop script; I never use it and the people who need to add drops are able. I think moving the pages to sub-pages is unnecessary and makes it hard to find drops (why should I have to load another page?). I also like Cook's ProtectSection idea. -- Cycloneblaze (user - talk - contribs) 10:33, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Remove drop script - Personally I'd rather have some sort of filter to prevent nonsense drops but I don't think that is possible beyond what Joey has done already, and even then those filters are not foolproof. Also, I'd just like to point out that although it is very unlikely that monsters will have unrecorded drops after 6 months, it could still happen, and has with the monsters from the Lumbridge catacombs What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 21:49, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

How about this? - If some drops of monsters are 100% correct, then you can protect that section. Then there's no need to add something and vandalism is impossible :) 94.214.184.216 16:38, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

There's absolutely no way for us to know if the sections are complete. ʞooɔ 21:23, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

Support removing - Looking back, the drops add script is indeed not a very useful addition. Most edits done with it are vandalism, and most people who do add don't really need to add any drops, and if they do need to add drops, it is easier for the RC stalkers to fix it than the effort it takes to undo all vandalism now. If the consensus is to remove the drops script, please notify me so I can edit the script to remove the drops add part, and to have only the charm submit script working. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:56, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

Request for closure - Looks like everything here has been said, and nobody wants to comment anymore. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 09:43, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - The drop script will be removed. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 09:56, March 16, 2012 (UTC)