Forum:Splitting familiar pages

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Splitting familiar pages
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 16 June 2010 by Calebchiam.

I was through the Granularity policy of the wiki, and saw that a familiar, its pouch and scroll is put on the same page. I simply do not see why we keep them all in the same page. The pouch and the scroll are completely different items, and I would consider the familiar a different NPC. Even Raw/Cooked food is seperated, why would this be any different than it? I propose that a familiar, and it's respective pouch and scroll should have their own articles. Discuss!


  • Support - As nom. bad_fetustalk 14:38, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - Templates should be done for scrolls and pouches as well 16px‎AtlandyBeer.png 14:47, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
I'm willing to create them if this passes. bad_fetustalk 14:48, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • Changed to Oppose - If cooked and raw food are separated, these should be two.   Swizz Talk   Events!   15:28, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
Degen is right, anyone whose looking at the scroll page will almost definatly want to know about the actual familiar.   Swizz Talk   Events!   14:31, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
Heh, that's good, "too" meaning also, and "two" meaning two different pages... hehehehe. (davelopo) 20:27, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - I was a bit confused too at first when the pouches and scrolls were on the same page. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 19:12, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • Weeak support Oppose - I don't know why they were put together, and I never really liked it, but this is going to be a big project to sort out! --LiquidTalk 19:45, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
Changed: Degen is right. --LiquidTalk 18:41, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - This defiantly passes the "should this have its own article" test on RS:GRAN. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 19:52, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - I don't see why not. Per all. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 20:59, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
Changed to oppose - Per Degen, Ryan M, and Psycho. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 22:23, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - It will be quite a bit of work, but it needs to be done. HaloTalk 21:02, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - Different items, different pages.  Tien  21:09, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Per Degen's comment.  Tien  15:05, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - I think they were merged because each item (pouch/familiar/scroll) would not have a lot of information, and would always be a stub. But I don't think that's an appropriate reason to merge them. Chicken7 >talk 02:19, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
Changed to Neutral - I think users would rather have all this information on one page, as it is easier. Although having them together could be unorganised. I'll stick to neutral. Chicken7 >talk 08:47, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - I've wanted this change for a long time now. Prayer.png Jedi Talk HS Log Tracker Summoning.png 05:05, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - Whoever does this probably will make the 15,000th article. Lol Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 05:43, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - RS:SNOW anyone? even though it has only been around 24hours. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 07:21, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose This is a case where you have to think and not blindly follow a policy. The scroll has zero use besides when using the familiar, and the only function of the pouch is to call forth the familiar. Here is the thinking part you need to do. When someone is looking up a pouch, it is extremely likely they will want to know about the familiar as well. Same for the scroll. When Summoning first came out we went through a discussion and used our brains to decide to proceed this way. Following a policy blindly that will make it more inconvenient for our readers is a very bad move. It makes zero sense at all to do that. None. Your going to be wasting readers time by making them click more links and jump page to page when everything they want is already on one easy simple page. Don't make it harder on people, that is not our purpose.--Degenret01 08:18, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
Couldn't you just have linked to RS:UCS? ⁓ Hello71 14:43, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
You have a very good point. However, I don't think it was ever mentioned that we would remove the pouch and scroll information from the articles. We could still keep them there, even though it would ruin the purpose of having separate articles in the first place. Still, cooked fish and raw fish have separate articles, but several of the cooked fish articles still have information about fishing locations and experience even though cooked fish can't be caught. Likewise, some raw fish articles have information about cooking experience rates. But on the other hand, cooked fish articles like shrimps do not have any information about fishing locations, which gives people an extra link to click, similar to what would happen if scrolls and pouches were on separate pages. We should fix these inconsistencies.  Tien  15:05, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
When I started splitting the fish articles, I did make sure to move all fishing info to the raw article, and all cooking info to the cooked article. Although someone finished it off before me, so you'd find the higher-levelled fish are inconsistent. Chicken7 >talk 16:00, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per Degenret. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 20:24, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
Also, note that there is a discussion supporting deleting burnt food articles. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 20:28, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per Degenret01. The use of granularity shouldn't be exempt from ignoring to increase the article (vanity I would say seeing at the pointless articles an administrator had done to get to 15,000 articles) count. Use your common sense and realize that the information on the scrolls are minimal to none to constitute an article to them. Take for instance that the community is about to eliminate several hundred (if not a thousand) articles pertaining to the Template:Hasdialogue due to blatant violation of Jagex's intellectual property. Do not create articles because you can. Remember that rules can be broken, you are not bound to them, you are not to follow blindly. We already have over 4,000 stubs and some of them have {{future}} on them and/or are non-existent such as the joke of Dragon ore in a previous Q&A. Don't take Jagex seriously, or it's personnel, and do your research before creating an article such as RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Keyboard control. Ryan PM 20:40, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Raw and cooked are separated because raw is really quite different than cooked if you think about it. Raw food has a lot of uses and attributes that cooked does not. Most importantly, raw fish has a bunch of fishing strategies and methods that have no bearing on the cooked fish article. Scrolls and pouches have no such information. Their only uses relate to the familiar itself, and as such there is not enough extra information to justify an extra article. Its the same reason that poisoned versions of weapons aren't in a separate article. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 21:17, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This would be a bad idea for people like me that don't get to play a lot because it really slows you down when you are trying to look at everything. I think that it is extremely convenient that all the info on familiars is on the same page of the familiar. --Bob quest 17:47, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - This would be much better as having them on the same article does not really make sense to me, and it also causes ALOT of layout issues 02:17, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - People who read the scroll/pouch article might also want to learn about the familiar too, but, you can't really have much information on the scroll/pouch when they are on the familiar's article. Also, just one click isn't really a waste of time, if the reader really wants to learn about the familiar, I don't think they would care about losing two seconds. bad_fetustalk 12:41, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

I think your missing something. (and I do not mean that insultingly) Consider the several reasons a person might want to know about a familiar, either for training summoning, or for deciding which one is best for the particular combat/other need they are about to use one for. They will want to look at several familiars to compare various attributes of each to decide which is best. Now having three or four or five familiar pages open allows a certain easy comparison as one shuffles back and forth checking out stats. Now make that nine or twelve or fifteen pages of comparisons, and trying to make sure they are looking at the right pouch or scroll for the right familiar they are thinking of. It would make it so easy to mess up in this case, and much harder to do these comparisons.--Degenret01 13:04, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
Necessary information on the scroll and pouch can still stay on the familiar's article. Pouch and scroll articles would just have more information on themselves. bad_fetustalk 13:11, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
You could, but it does not address the fact that scroll pages and pouch pages would have almost nothing to them. Yes we have other pages with almost nothing on them, in those cases they really need their own articles. This is a case where the data can logically be placed elsewhere and we thereby avoid having a couple hundred stubs that wouldn't really be of any practical value on their own, and have no chance of "growing" up into real articles.--Degenret01 19:47, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
Even if the information wouldn't be major, it's still pointless to have some of those info on the article of familiar. I do not see why a familiar's article would contain the scroll's/pouch's examine test, grand exchange chart, alch values and anything else that is notable but irrelevant to the familiar itself. The familiar's article would still contain things that are relevant. It also applies the other way. I wouldn't really want to see every single detail about the familiar when I want to check something about to pouch, or scroll. I don't see why anyone else would. bad_fetustalk 13:56, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all Supports. Everything deserves an article. Articles don't hurt anybody... Mark (talk) 17:19, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus to split the familiar pages. C.ChiamTalk 03:28, June 16, 2010 (UTC)