Forum:Skills hiscores references on skill articles

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Skills hiscores references on skill articles
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 2 August 2011 by Thebrains222.

I have noticed a peculiar redundancy on all skill articles. As part of the article introduction the wiki states on a transcluded text the minimun requirement to appear on the hiscores, as well as the number of 99's there are. But this information (and more) also appear on a box just to the right of this introductory text. Therfore, my suggestion is to eliminate the transcluded text area from the intro text as it is completely redundant. Sam 3010 (talk, contribs) 14:47, June 12, 2011 (UTC)


Comment -Just do it. I went through and removed most mentions of them from trivia a while back. There's no need to have it in the opening paragraph and infobox. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 15:13, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

RS:BB - JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 16:56, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you all, I will proceed then. The thing is that, on the opinion of some users, I was too bold in previous instances. So I wanted to check this out with community first. Sam 3010 (talk, contribs) 17:10, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

No harm done in asking, better be safe than sorry. :) xScoobsx Talk Contribs 18:23, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

The changes have been done. You can close this discussion any time you want. Sam 3010 (talk, contribs) 19:48, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - Author request, completed. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 22:10, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

Post-closure comment: Had this thread not been successfully closed sixeight hours after it was posted, by request of the original poster, I would have opposed. You know, if I had actually had a chance to see it. Relevancy of RS:BB aside, I still feel like this was closed way too quickly. But whatever, it doesn't matter now. Just sayin'. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 01:32, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

What would you have opposed? The removal of a completely redundant text (it had the same info as a box that was on the same area)? Sam 3010 (talk, contribs) 04:03, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

Re-opened - Clearly some discussion material still left. Suppa chuppa Talk 04:09, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral - I'm fairly sure some people prefer prose to some numbers and rows in a table, but that's a pretty poor reason, so I'll end my ramble here with a neutral. kthxbai, 222 talk 04:11, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

Also, should the changes be removed until consensus is found on this thread? 222 talk 04:11, June 13, 2011 (UTC)
In theory. Matt (t) 04:13, June 13, 2011 (UTC)
Instead of undoing every single skill article edit, only to be undone again if this passes, why not just keep it and change what needs to be changed afterwards... sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 04:21, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

Sigh - Way to slap someone in the face after telling them to be bold... Anyway, I think it's really stupid to say "x number of players have 99" and have the infobox 2 spaces away say "x players have 99 in this skill". I think we should either remove the template or remove the info from the infobox. Keeping it in the infobox seems ideal but it's a helpful sentence in the lead too. Something needs to be done, the redundancy looks very unprofessional and stupid. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 04:19, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

I think it's redundant too - But I think we should still let opposers speak. Matt (t) 04:22, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

Weak oppose/comment - The reason why I decided not to reopen this thread myself was because I do not believe I have strong reasons to oppose this that aren't purely personal in nature. In my years of viewing and editing this wiki, I've grown accustomed to seeing the skill hiscores references in the introduction to each skill article. It's become a standard for skill articles, much like seeing the skill's icon in the top-left.

As already stated, this is a personal reason, and is unlikely to sway consensus on this matter. I acknowledge that the text is redundant, and that redundancy is a valid reason for removing it. My other personal reason would be that I dislike the way that our skill articles are being transformed, one by one, into something that ultimately has lower quality than its previous version (see Talk:Defence#Rewrite issues for detailed explanations on this matter from me). Sam 3010's implementation of this new standard for skill articles represents just one more step (even if a small one) down that road.

Oh, and although I cannot firmly oppose this proposal, I still believe that it shouldn't have been closed so quickly before any opposition had a chance to speak. My thanks go to suppa for reopening the thread and giving me (along with anyone else who might do so) the chance to speak my mind. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 04:51, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I don't have any problem with the issue being re-opened. The events were just conflicting in my mind o_O. I actually prefer the prose to the table, but if you decide to keep it, I think we should include ALL the info of the table on the text AND remove those areas of the table. That is just an alternate solution. Sam 3010 (talk, contribs) 13:57, June 13, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral - Redundancy isn't much of a reason to remove stuff. I'd like to say two things. Firstly, I feel infoboxes and paragraphed text serve 2 different purposes. The infobox is there for people who quickly want information. Whereas, the paragraphed text is there for users who want to learn more and will take time to read more. Often, we add info that is already in the infobox to article text simply just to add content, and make the article more full and complete. Let's look at an example: red bead. Probably a crap example. The infobox mentions it is a bead and related to the Imp Catcher quest, so no need to say that in the text. It is stated in the drops section that imps drop them, so there's no need to say that in the intro either. Without that info though, the article would just not be as full or nice. Leading onto my second point: nearly EVERY article on this wiki with an infobox does the exact same thing! Anyway, I'll stay neutral. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 08:43, June 14, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - After a week of inactivity (meaning supporters of this change had ample time to address the issues brought up), I will close this as no consensus. Andorin and Chicken bring up valid points that almost every other page on the wiki with an infobox is redundant somewhere in its article body. Thus, without any stated explanation as to why the Infobox Skill redundancy in particular should be removed, I cannot close this as successful. --LiquidTalk 03:45, June 21, 2011 (UTC)

Reopened Hate to be doing it this way but when I first glanced at this discussion some time back it was proceeding the right way and I dislike throwing a meaningless support to something that looks like it will pass. I stopped watching it and it didn't go the right way, my bad there. However, there is one critical point not brought up before that is entirely relevant to this whole thing.

The status quo will prevail unless there is consensus to change - In this instance the status quo was NOT to have the extra information added to the articles, as they were newly added. I have in the past removed that information from articles several times, and I was far from alone. Simply because someone made a thread requesting permission to fix these articles does NOT make the addition of that template the "new" status quo. Therefore, without consensus to keep it, it should be removed. This is similar (not identical, similar) to how we disallow cache images. They were "new", no consensus to allow them, therefore the status quo of not having them prevailed. This is a valid precedent and is applicable here. I am not here seeking to get a consensus to remove these templates, I am stating that without a consensus to keep them, they can and should be removed.--Degenret01 06:52, June 21, 2011 (UTC)

Can you present the series of edits that added this information to the skill articles? --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 19:22, June 21, 2011 (UTC)
Never mind, I did it for you. Taking Defence as an example, the skill infobox table was added on July 21, 2010. In contrast, ranking information has existed in the article's text since June of 2007. Summoning did not have the table until August 21,2010, whereas the text has been in the article since January 29, 2009. If we are to agree with you, then why should we not remove the information from the tables instead, as they are much more recent and they were also added without consensus? --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 19:42, June 21, 2011 (UTC)
Because as it is now the infobox is more complete than the text. Sam 3010 (talk, contribs) 22:17, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
In what sense? Both the infobox and the text contain the same information. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 01:15, June 23, 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, not every single edit or addition to an article on this wiki needs consensus; RS:AGF and RS:BB. Second, as I said above, the infobox and paragraphed content serve different purposes, and redundancy is not a bad thing. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 07:12, June 23, 2011 (UTC)
The infobox also has the number of people with 200M exp, which I am not saying is much more, but it is more. Also, Chicken7, what? An uniformation issue that involves 25 major articles does not require consensus? Of course it does, if we were talking about a single period, it would still be needing consensus. Sam 3010 (talk, contribs) 19:46, June 23, 2011 (UTC)
No Chicken, despite what you say, they do indeed serve the EXACT same purpose. They inform the reader of stats.--Degenret01 03:57, June 24, 2011 (UTC)

Strong support - No point of having the same thing twice. bad_fetustalk 19:26, June 21, 2011 (UTC)

This request for closure is complete A user has requested closure for Skills hiscores references on skill articles. Request complete. The reason given was: No discussion for 35 days

--クールネシトーク 14:18, July 29, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus to remove the information in both the article and infobox. Citing RS:C and RS:BB, the information should stay in both locations. 222 talk 11:31, August 2, 2011 (UTC)