Forum:We need to enforce granularity

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > We need to enforce granularity
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 12 February 2010 by Calebchiam.

I've noticed that there are some major inconsistencies with raw/cooked foods and granularity. For example, raw chicken is a seperate article to cooked chicken, but raw lobster and lobster are condensed into one article. I believe we need to have articles like lobster seperated into raw and cooked, but we need to properly enforce granularity for this to happen. Additionally, we may need to make some amendments to granularity so that things like this are black-and-white clear.


Support - As nom. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  06:28, September 26, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - RS:G states that All items, non-player characters (NPCs), quests, whatever, are worthy of their own article, except in special cases where it is decided to combine or delete an article by consensus. The food items are one of these special cases, where it would be better the combine the article. Quite like the Summoning familiar articles that we have which combine the monster, pouch and scroll into the same article. The granularity policy has already made this clear. C.ChiamTalk 06:35, September 26, 2009 (UTC)

Then why aren't, for example, the articles on Raw chicken and cooked chicken redirected to Chicken (food)? ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  06:40, September 26, 2009 (UTC)
Possibly because it would be better for Raw chicken to have its own article due to its many uses in quests, summoning. Other food items, tend to be rather generic. C.ChiamTalk 06:42, September 26, 2009 (UTC)

Support In most of the pages I've checked, there was never any consensus reached to merge the raw and cooked version together, it just happened that someone put the information onto one page. TMIBucket detail.pngrwojy 06:47, September 26, 2009 (UTC)

It is worth noting that silence is a weak form of consensus. Nobody has disagreed with merging the pages thus far (from what I know). C.ChiamTalk 06:50, September 26, 2009 (UTC)
Actually, on Telos's example there was a discussion about whether or not to merge the two (Talk:Raw lobster), but consensus favored merging. But that one discussion should not have decided policy, as one of the arguments for was 'it was done before, let's do it again' which I do not find to be an acceptable reason. It should also be noted that someone did disagree with merge, and even reverted it citing RS:G GNRMPBucket detail.pngrwojy 07:03, September 26, 2009 (UTC)
No one has disagreed with the merging of the other articles. This is a form of consensus, following RS:CONSENSUS. Also, I'm talking about merging the food item articles as a whole, while you are specifically talking about the lobster article. Even so, the consensus for the lobster article was to merge. C.ChiamTalk 07:11, September 26, 2009 (UTC)
In fairness here, often the discussions about merging articles tend to be on the item talk pages themselves and have a very low participation rate in the discussions. I am personally against merging articles of this nature, but it isn't an issue I want to actively get involved with on each and every article when this discussion comes up... particularly when it seems like a death of a thousand cuts. The issue raised here is mostly one of consistency, and I've seen some very inconsistent application of this policy of granularity. If anything, the GEMW project sort of pushed more separation of articles and more granularity since each item also had separate items listed on the GE (for the most part).
For some items, often even the name of multiple items is identical, such as incomplete stews. For those kind of things, putting the intermediary step items into the article might not be a bad idea as there is no use for them outside of making the item itself. The same can be said for items like an unstrung amulet. The issue here is consistency.
In regards to most raw vs. cooked items, often there will be links and training activities centered around the raw items where it makes a big deal to have an independent article in terms of a reference. That seems to be the most useful part of the granularity policy, where most links ought to go to independent articles if referenced for that item. --Robert Horning 08:39, September 26, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Unless you can cite a reason other than "its done like this in these articles but not in these", things are fine the way they are. If you think they should be standardised, you could edit them yourself. Also note that it says "worthy of articles", not "need to be on separate articles". That said, I don't see anything that needs to be changed. Also, remember RS:IAR kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 07:05, September 26, 2009 (UTC)

As Caleb told us, RS:G states that "All items, non-player characters (NPCs), quests, whatever, are worthy of their own article, except in special cases where it is decided to combine or delete an article by consensus." However, in most cases, most of these articles only the "silent consensus" was reached, and this thread itself has broken that consensus. In response to your comment about moving it all myself, I don't have the time or the patience to do it alone, and I wanted to get community approval first. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  08:16, September 26, 2009 (UTC)
I had the impression that you were looking to add something in the granularity policy to clarify this, not to separate these pages. My mistake. C.ChiamTalk 10:27, September 26, 2009 (UTC)
A good example of this is with Pizza. On Talk:Pizza the consensus was achieved with a discussion of one editor agreeing with himself and simply combining the various articles about pizza. IMHO, particularly in light of the different kinds of pizzas that have different preparation steps, this was certainly an article that violated RS:G even in spirit. It essentially reads as 4 independent and separate articles that have been mashed together onto one page. --Robert Horning 08:49, September 26, 2009 (UTC)
Oo-er, this is embarrassing... I keep meaning to separate the pizza article (to me it is pretty clear that they should be separate pages), and I just noticed I promised to make a start "ASAP" on that talk page, and that was well over one year ago.  :-$ It's still on my watch list, I swear! But yes, it is crazy having them all on one page. As for the lobster, I have always thought they should have separate pages (as evidenced on talk pages), even though they are really two forms of the same item. Compare though with Candle and Lit candle, which I agreed should be merged (see Talk:Candle). Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 16:01, September 26, 2009 (UTC)

Question Are you proposing that we enforce granularity on everything? Because often it is a huge waste. Sorry that I am not positive on what your proposing 100%.--Degenret01 02:04, September 27, 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much what I'm proposing is:
  1. Seperate the articles that need to be seperated
  2. Merge the articles that need merging
  3. Generally standardise everything.
  4. Edit the granularity policy to update it for things like this.

~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  03:15, September 27, 2009 (UTC)

  1. Seperate the articles that need to be seperated
  2. Merge the articles that need merging"

That is what I am wondering what you mean. For example, since were discussing pizza, the 1/2 and the whole should be on the same page, while each different type should be seperated, imo. Now that I am all for.--Degenret01 12:48, September 27, 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that I have already expanded the granularity policy to encompass the results of two VfD's, one of which was for Ardal, as cited above. Please do check the wording and make sure that the new guidelines are a fair reflection of the consensus. Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 14:41, September 27, 2009 (UTC)
I guess I'm being quite vague about what I'm proposing to change - that's because I haven't completely figured it out myself yet. We can use this thread to discuss what should be changed (and, for example, if we should merge the chicken articles or unmerge the lobster article). ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  22:34, September 27, 2009 (UTC)

Support - I'd like to see things standardised, too. Another inconsistency is Achievement Diary equipment; explorer's ring is all one article, while each of the rest has one article per level (e.g. Varrock armour 1, Varrock armour 2, Varrock armour 3). Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 12:35, September 27, 2009 (UTC)

Support - I'm supportive of these changes that you propose we should make, but I'd like to point out that you could have gone ahead and done it yourself actually. Regarding the update to the granularity policy, exactly what do you propose that we should add? C.ChiamTalk 13:04, September 27, 2009 (UTC)

-reads what Lee addded- Basically what Lee added/changed. And yes, I suppose I could have done most of this myself. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  22:30, September 27, 2009 (UTC)

Support - For reasons mentioned by Gaz. Ruud (talk)(Suggest me naems) 10:55, October 1, 2009 (UTC)

Support - As long as pages don't get ridiculously long, or have a ridiculous amount of images, this proposal would make finding something much easier via generalization. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 23:25, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Another example is seeds. The Wildblood seeds page contains info on monster drops and brewing with the hops, but the Krandorian seeds page does not contain either. While this is a project that will take a long time, it is a necessary one. I think that for something like this, a WikiGuild should be arranged.--Mirror.png Mirror - Talk - Sign Raw fish-like thing.png 03:31, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

I would agree a WikiGuild may be in order. (I know I'm throwing around WikiGuilds lately Lol ) Chicken7 >talk 04:41, October 12, 2009 (UTC)
Good idea. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  04:58, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not one for creating WikiGuilds (I wouldn't know what to write), so would anybody more experienced in these matters like to take the helm? ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  01:25, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what I'm supporting - But I think we should merge what needs to be merged, and add relevant information to the relevant articles. Common sense. As for lobsters, personally, I believe they're fine as one article if we include information for both items. However, as we already have two articles for cooked chicken and raw chicken, maybe it's best to split them both up as they'd be too long as one article. But then again, for the sake of convenience, it's easier for both the reader and article maker to have the information on one page, provided the information is clearly separated and properly formatted. My head hurts, what are we doing? 20px‎ Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 11:28, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

This is a project that involves either a) seperating all the different pages (ie. lobster and raw lobster are seperate articles) or b) merging all the different pages (ie. chicken and raw chicken are the same article). This doesn't just cover food - also potions, Summoning pouches/scrolls/familiars, generally anything that maybe have been combined. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  11:54, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

Merge or un-merge?

I think we need to decide if we are going to either un-merge all of the pages related to food, Summoning, potions, etc. into seperate articles (I'm in favour of this), or merge them all so they look like this, all compressed. In my opinion, having all the articles merged makes it look cramped and untidy.

Vote Support 1 to un-merge all articles. Vote Support 2 to merge them all. Vote Support 3 for Azliq's proposal (see her post below). Vote Oppose if you don't want to standardise anything.

Support 1 - As nominator. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  11:54, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

Pending (see below) - I'm not convinced either way is good. I like the convenience of having relevant information in one article (for potions, we do not need one for each dose), but the articles might be too long if we merged them. However, jumping around pages looking for information when it would all work on one page isn't fun either. 20px‎ Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 11:59, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

Some merges (see below) - I'm just throwing this around as an idea. I do think some articles can be merged. There a few pairs of items that go together in particular and having them merged would save readers the hassle of clicking back and forth between two near identical articles. The ones I am thinking of are:

  1. Cooked and raw fish
  2. Clean and grimy herbs
  3. Different doses of potions
  4. Summoning pouches and scrolls

Feel free to add to this list (I've only posted 1-4) or speak against the inclusion of any of these. Cheers, Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 18:14, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

I think all (or at least most of) the summoning familiars, pouches and scrolls are all one page each, as the three are very closely related with each other and not very much with anything else (exception is some scrolls, e.g. the titan's constitution scroll, used for three titans; call to arms scroll, use for four void familiars; etc).
Another merger (as I said above) are the achievement diary rewards, as they all are effectively one item thats been upgraded (you can't have both 1 and 2 at once, for example). Explorer's ring is already merged, while all the others are not. I think they should be.
I otherwise agree with you. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 18:22, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - It is fairly easier to search for the item directly (i.e. using the search box), than to look for information for that item in another item's page. I mean, if other fansites can have separate pages for each item, why not us? Besides, all related items are just one-click away, as they are usually (or supposed to be) linked by navboxes.

In my opinion, cooked/raw food and clean/grimy herbs should be kept separate. These items are essentially very dissimilar items. Potions, however, can be kept merged, as they are actually the same item with different doses/dosages. I can't image having 10 separate articles for Herb tea mix!

As a guideline for granularity and merging, I think we should ask ourselves these questions:

  • Does item A have the same purpose/use as item B?
  • Can I substitute item A with item B?

Using these questions to test for:

  • Potions: Yes, all potions have the same effect when used; and yes, 3-dose can be replaced with 4-dose (Decision: merge)
  • Raw/cooked food: No, raw food is for cooking and cooked food is for eating; and No. (Decision: separate/unmerge)
  • 1/2 pizza full pizza: Yes, and yes. (Decision: merge)
  • Raw/fish Fish: No, and No. (Decision: separate/unmerge)
  • Diary items: No, Explorer's ring 3 has more abilities than Explorer's ring 1; and No, because I can't use Ring 1 for "cabbage-port". (Decision: separate/unmerge)
  • Jade vine and Wild jade vine: No, and no. (Decision: unmerge)
  • Different/trimmed versions of armour/weapons: Yes, and depends...
    • Do they look the same when worn/equipped?
      • If yes, merge. Otherwise, unmerge.

I believe these questions could be used as an amendment to the granularity policy so that "things are black-and-white clear". Wink We could add more questions like this if necessary. We wouldn't want someone else questioning our logic behind our merge/unmerge decisions later...   az talk   06:46, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

Support Azliq's proposal. Much better than my own. Lol ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  07:14, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
Support - Very nicely thought out, Az! Wink Chicken7 >talk 08:53, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
Support - Az's proposal seems good to me. 20px‎ Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 10:06, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
Support - Yeah, we need to reinforce the policy if we don't want random people changing it every two seconds. Quest point cape.pngTalk Newbie856 edit count Nomad guideMusic icon.png 11:48, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
Support - Az's proposal is great. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 11:53, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
Support - Az, you did a much better job making standards we can apply to eveything. Uniformity and easy interpretation are the way to go. Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 15:48, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
Support - Much better. Though what about the summoning familiars-pouches-scrolls-specials? Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 16:59, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
Comment - using these standards, I think they'd be split. Although, I don't know if I like that (I still support, though) Chicken7 >talk 05:20, November 3, 2009 (UTC)
Reply - We discussed about merging Summoning familiars/pouches/scrolls some time back [insert link here]. I actually remember being part of the merging project. These Summoning items should be an exception as it involves a lots of items, and there was a consensus to merge them. Whenever it involves a lot of items, such as the entire "stock" of the Summoning skill, we should clearly state this in RS:G under the "Exceptions" section.   az talk   23:56, November 3, 2009 (UTC)


Comment - If there is enough support for this proposal, could someone please reword/amend RS:G based on the questions above? I can't find the right words... Lol   az talk   23:56, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - You can't find the right words? Wow, that's a first! Lol Chicken7 >talk 05:31, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Hmm, why not just copy and paste what Az said with a few minor changes? Like this:
Cooked/raw food items and clean/grimy herbs should each have their own articles. These items are very dissimilar items. They cannot be substituted for one another. Potions, however, should be merged, as they are actually the same item with different doses. Any item that has a certain number of uses, such as enchanted jewelery, should be one article. Therefore, while we would have one article for raw lobster and one article for lobster, we would only have one article for each potion. All prayer potion (1), (2), (3), or (4) would all redirect to the same article, "Prayer potion". The same applies for items such as the Amulet of Glory and the Ring of duelling.
As a guideline for granularity and merging, editors should ask themselves these questions:
  • Does item A have the same purpose/use as item B?
  • Can I substitute item A with item B?
I think that might work. 20px‎ Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 22:51, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
Well, I was bold and changed it myself... RuneScape:Granularity 02:27, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
Cool! I used the words already written there as a base and tried to clean it up and add some other stuff in; I think it is pretty finalised now. I left Template:Under construction there if someone still wants to make changes before it is properly official. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 06:49, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Request closure - I made some changes myself, and the "Under construction" template has been removed. But, in Forum:Archive9#Summoning Pouches, Degenret01 says:

Yes it was agreed (emphasis mine) to put everything on one page for each type of familiar. Then the second bunch came out and I know for my part the task seemed daunting...
Degenret01, 10:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling Degenret was referring to an earlier discussion, but I cannot find it at the moment. If anyone can find this discussion, please add a link to that discussion. Other than that, I think the policy has been finalised...   az talk   09:41, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

This one? Forum:Familiar's Special Moves Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 18:02, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
I think Summoning stuff should be seperate. They can't be substituted with one another and serve completely different purposes. ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  02:31, November 8, 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, Oli. And in reply to Telos, let me paraphrase what Degenret01 said in the earlier post.
If you ask the first question, "Does item A have the same purpose/use as item B?" I would say that the pouch and the scroll serves the same purpose, which is, to aid the familiar. Does it have any other purpose/use other than to aid the familiar? I don't think so. Since the scroll and the special attack cannot be used independently, and requires the player to summon the familiar first, the items are linked to the familiar. This would be my defence as why the pouch/scroll/special attack articles were merged into the familiar article. A few exceptions were the Titan's constitution scroll and the Call to arms scroll, as these scrolls serve multiple familiars and therefore cannot be merged.
Telos, if you want, we could reassess this merge decision. Please create another thread if you are still unconvinced. This thread has served its purpose, and should be closed.   az talk   13:28, November 8, 2009 (UTC)
I guess I'm OK with the scroll/pouch articles being the same, as long as the article for the familiar NPCs are seperate. =) ~ Fire Surge icon.png Sentry Telos Talk  08:04, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Closed - Consensus was reached upon what the policy should be, and it has been rewritten. There is no more to comment here, if there are further concerns about Summoning articles, please make a new topic. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 08:22, November 10, 2009 (UTC)