RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Template:Drops

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was Delete. --LiquidTalk 10:05, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Template:Drops[edit source]

This is only used on the chicken article, and I don't think anyone wants to expand on using this... (see first nomination)

  • Delete - As nom. --Coolnesse 00:33, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep See below - It doesn't really matter if it's only being used in one article now. Its use should be expanded in the future to encompass more articles. We just need a few volunteers to do the work. --LiquidTalk 00:34, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
Are you saying to be bold? --Coolnesse 00:40, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete It's an eyesore. RMVMEBucket detail.pngrwojy 00:48, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Looks bad. You could just put ==Drops== ===100% drop=== ===Herbs=== ===Armour and weapons=== ===Other=== or whatever headings you want. --Iiii I I I 00:56, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - What 3i+1 said makes perfect sense. HaloTalk 00:57, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per all; it's fugly... --Aburnett(Talk) 01:00, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Teh uglies Concerned. I much rather like the regular Drops sections and whatnot that we currently use. Quest point cape.pngLil Diriz 77 Talk Summoning-icon.png 21:30, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - So ugly D: bad_fetustalk 07:59, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep/Hold on - What Helm said. It isn't really a valid to delete based on the reasoning that it isn't used anywhere. This template could be really helpful, plus make the pages a lot more organised. Please don't delete this in the next few days, as I'm going to attempt clean it up and make it look nicer, seeing as everyone thinks it's fugly. Chicken7 >talk 16:35, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
Fugly?? You people have watched too many chick flicks... Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 02:43, April 26, 2010 (UTC)
Keep withdrawn/neutral - I've withdrew my keep, as that template is obsolete to the ones I am testing now in my sandbox. The outcome of this RfD cannot affect the ones I am testing, so this can be deleted anyway. It's already given me inspiration. ^_^ Chicken7 >talk 06:22, May 4, 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - This template violates no policy of any kind, and it certainly could be expanded to be used in some other fashion to help improve creature articles. The beauty of a template is that you can tweak the appearance in multiple ways after the template is completed, and to provide a consistent look and feel across multiple articles. Seriously, I don't get the rationale here for why this must be deleted. Keeping it in the Chicken article might just inspire somebody else to do something else amazing or interesting with this or a new template idea. --Robert Horning 20:32, April 27, 2010 (UTC)
Requests for deletion don't necessarily have to violate a policy. --Coolnesse 21:36, April 27, 2010 (UTC)
True, but the rationale for deletion really ought to be in policy, or as a result of the discussion from the VfD can be used to help write a policy that would respect the edits of somebody trying to improve the wiki. If there is a glaring something that just doesn't fit on the wiki, perhaps it is time that the policy should change. I have seen numerous VfD/RfD discussions that have resulted in a policy change because this is where the problems show up and often push the boundaries of existing policies. This template fits so solidly within the scope of this project, being bold, and doing something to help improve the appearance of the article that it boggles my mind that it is even under dispute here. Seriously, what sort of policy change would you implement here, other than a no new template policy? --Robert Horning 01:17, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
What? New policy? I only have lots of reasons to state that this template, and only this template alone. won't work. No new policies here O_o. --Coolnesse 01:52, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately that sort of violates the principles of assuming good faith on the part of new contributors. The assumption of good faith is that experiments should be encouraged and contributors to this wiki should not have project shut down merely because it goes against the status quo. I've had that happen before and I didn't like it, nor do I think that should be the case here. In terms of a template looking ugly.... fix it! That doesn't need a RfD, it needs some editing and some understanding of how templates work to improve it. So far other than pure aesthetics which might as well be a skin issue, I see no other rationale being brought forth as to why this template needs to be deleted. Indeed, I don't even see that as an argument at all. --Robert Horning 19:38, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, this template doesn't look half bad... It's just that we can't categorise it into different sections (by which I mean weapons, etc.) --Coolnesse 19:48, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
Why not? We have dynamic lists on this wiki that can sort stuff out into categories and be able to put stuff like that into a template. That is a matter of improving the template, not necessarily a problem with having the template on the wiki in the first place... as seems to be the case here. If this is a question on how to break this up into various categories, that can be arranged. --Robert Horning 20:15, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Like Robert said, I saw a lot of potential in this template and took the idea and expanded on it. For an example of what I have turned it into, see User:Chicken7/Sandbox#Testing of Drop tables. I don't think I'll propose the implementation of the template in a Yew Grove, but instead be bold and start changing some articles tonight. What do you think? Smile Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 07:19, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

I still don't like it. The main reason is that the current system is fine, the only improvement this adds is sortability & ge prices, which are one click away. And the fact that it doesn't look good is valid: It is a table, which shouldn't be used in articles unless really necessary. Also, just implementing it would show problems: 1 large table with everything, or several separate smaller tables (for armor, weps, etc)? GTEHBucket detail.pngrwojy 07:25, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
Well, you're a minority, Rwojy. You have overlooked many improvements. Sortability is a major improvement, as viewers can quickly find the item they are looking for if it is not alphabetical. Or they can sort by rarity, and see which items are most common. Etc. And the GE Price is a major benefit. Users can then value their drops and decide whether they want to keep it, instead of accessing each item's individual page. You've overlooked the new consistent rarity column. It's much better than the "make up a new rarity" we currently have, which has made our article's drop lists very inconsistent. And what do you mean we shouldn't use tables in articles? What are they there for? Talk pages? A table's goal is to neatly organise information, and that is exactly what this template does. The one large table/several smaller category tables is the only problem that I see. Even then, we might as well have one large one, as the point of the headers was to bring some sort of organisation and easy navigation, but the table brings much more than they would've ever achieved. I think you just don't like change and all the work it'll take to implement this. Chicken7 >talk 13:36, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Delete - Sorry Chicken, it looks ugly :P Ajraddatz Talk 13:54, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

This discussion isn't about my template. You can delete Template:Drops now. But deleting Template:DropsTableHead and Template:DropsLine would need a new RfD, and it'd be invalid, as the template is under construction. Plus, you've voted to keep (oppose=oppose deletion). Chicken7 >talk 13:56, April 28, 2010 (UTC)
Changed to delete; my noob error. Ajraddatz Talk 14:24, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Request closure - 10 days is enough. Sorry! --Coolnesse 00:12, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Delete, keep withdrawn - At Chicken's request. --LiquidTalk 10:02, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.