Forum:Using GEMW for High and Low Alchemy values in infoboxes

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Using GEMW for High and Low Alchemy values in infoboxes
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 6 June 2011 by Suppa chuppa.

See here and here for previous discussions on this topic.

I'm suggesting using the High Alchemy and Low Alchemy values already stored in the GEMW and have them displayed in the infoboxes, in a similar way the market prices are displayed. If there is an error it can be easily spotted because the regular pages are visited more often than the GEMW pages. My contributionsTHARKONSignatures I made 19:49, May 30, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment - The current 'IPs only edit Exchange: through script' thing means that only users could do this. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 20:04, May 30, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Why put information in 2 places, when we only need it in one? Using the value from the Exchange namespace also helps because it is harder to vandalise, and isn't vandalised as often. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 06:26, May 31, 2011 (UTC)

Support - It makes it easier to add such data by having it in one location, and also prevents such data from being added twice. As Sentra mentioned, it also reduces the chances of vandalism. 222 talk 06:58, May 31, 2011 (UTC)

Question - Should we have some kind of script for this too then? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 09:33, May 31, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Obviously helpful. bad_fetustalk 13:23, May 31, 2011 (UTC)

Support - For reasons stated above. And to Joeytje50, assuming you mean editing through script, probably not, as alch values don't change, so only one edit is needed. —Galrion (talk) 17:02, May 31, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose-slanted comment - Untradeable items? That is all. Ardougne cloak 4.png Raging Bull Talk 17:12, May 31, 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose - You guys are seriously not thinking this through at all. To begin with (as bull said) there are 3,724 untradeable items, which means that they don't have GEMW pages. We would either need to create GEMW pages for all of them (complete waste of time) or continue to use the old parameters for untradeable items (which defeats the entire purpose of your proposal.) Secondly, as of this writing there are 559 GEMW pages that need alch prices, compared with 62 (mostly non-Exchange) alch prices that are missing on Infobox Item. Finally, you have to remember the pages that are actually multiple items (like potions) that would need a completely new infrastructure similar to {{Exchange potion}}.

This whole proposal is an impossible solution to a nonexistent problem. There is very little alchemy vandalism, and whatever small amount there is would be outweighed by people being unable to correct incorrect alch prices (and believe me, there are a lot of them.) By my count there have been a total of 66 new Exchange pages in the last 5 months. The amount of work necessary to make this proposal work is so much greater than whatever useless benefit you claim that it has. ʞooɔ 17:29, May 31, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - As Bull's comment suggest there would be the problem of Untradeable items. There is 3700, or so, of these and would all have to be manually re-entered. Also the fact of Vandalism on them, even if a few are vandalised people are constantly monitouring vandalism. Seems to be this new System would be an attempt to fix an unbroken thing and will simply cause things to be broken. Jedi Donald2 17:37, May 31, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose both - After getting an explanation from Joey in irc, I see that my proposal is not possible, and the original proposal doesn't work per bull. Thus, while I liked the idea, I'm opposing. bad_fetustalk 18:09, May 31, 2011 (UTC)

While you like this idea, its a stupid idea? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 18:31, May 31, 2011 (UTC)
Supoort - whatever. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 18:35, May 31, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Cook/Bull/everyone. Not much more I can say. (: sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 18:35, May 31, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Per Cook/Bull. HaloTalk 17:38, June 2, 2011 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

As mentioned by Bull above, there will be problems with untradable items with the proposed system. On the other hand, that problem can easily be fixed by applying the system the other way around. In other words, the problem can be fixed by storing the prices in infoboxes instead of the gemw, and have those prices displayed on the gemw. This has the same benefits with the original proposal, it allows a user to keep track of them more easily since there are half as pages to keep track of, minimizes the amount vandalism those values might receive and makes gemw page creation faster. Unlike the original proposal, it also makes it easier for an ip to correct the price of an item since ip's can't edit exchange as evil mentioned, it gets rid of the problem with untradable items. A bot could easily implement this system. The only problem a bot would face is articles that have multiple items like arrows, as cook mentioned above, which the bot could easily skip; and since there aren't like thousands of those articles, a user can simply go through them. If this passes, I'd be more than happy to go through those. bad_fetustalk 17:40, May 31, 2011 (UTC)

This is impossible. There is no way to get the alchemy prices from the item pages, other than using {{#explode:}} and/or <onlyinclude> tags. This would either cost a lot of loading time for {{#explode:}} and a lot of work for <onlyinclude>(adding it to every single item page). The other way around is not an option. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 17:53, May 31, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - This will not be implemented. Suppa chuppa Talk 17:04, June 6, 2011 (UTC)