RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Template:Melee weapons that have special attacks

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, 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.

Template:Melee weapons that have special attacks

This RfD also includes the following templates:

  • Ranged weapons that have special attacks
  • Magic weapons that have special attacks

As a few of us discussed on Discord, these navboxes are unnecessary. A category for this is fine, otherwise we're going to end up with navboxes for all kinds of different parameters that a weapon might have, like one for weapons that inflict poison.

I originally deleted these templates after removing them from the pages they were on but due to a dispute about it on MAGE-KIL-R's and Salix of Prifddinas' talk page, I have restored them and am making this RfD instead. I am not going to re-add the navboxes to all of the articles I removed them from before this RfD ends to avoid potentially wasting time and effort doing so.

Delete - As nominator. jayden 13:40, July 21, 2017 (UTC)

Comment - I don't mind keeping them, but I can see the point for deleting them. Hmm... Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 13:48, July 21, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - As a Wikian, I agree with your point that we should also have templates for other, seemingly arbitrary, parameters if these are to stay, and they achieve little more than a category would. As a player, however, I find these templates strangely helpful in a way I cannot really explain. :/ User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 20:34, July 21, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - navboxes are used to facilitate navigation between similar articles: similar in purpose, similar in source, similar in appearance, etc. These navboxes neither group similar articles together nor do they make navigation easier.

First, none of the weapons have any connection with each other apart from the fact that they have special attacks (all of which have different effects and requirements). Possessing a special attack is just a "property" of an item, like tradeability or weight, and is too broad of a category to be made into a navbox. Second, no information about special attacks is actually provided, not even their names, which defeats the purpose of a navbox about special attacks and makes them useless for navigational purposes. --Iiii I I I 22:47, July 21, 2017 (UTC)

Would you say it's a good idea to list the special attacks instead of the weapons? (with the inventory icon linking to the weapon) User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 07:12, July 22, 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - As creator of the original navbox prior to it being split into 3 different fighting classes, I created it because I felt that weapons that allowed players to unlock the use of the Constitution combat ability Weapon Special Attack should be able to readily navigate from weapon to weapon to compare and contrast which weapon they would like to equip in order to use to this ability.

I felt that simply being in the same category is insufficient because the list was lengthy. Also would like to note that items within a navbox are typically already part of the same category. For example, the navbox for "bows" has only weapons that are also part of the category "bows", however that doesn't make the navbox useless. Otherwise ALL navboxes are useless.

That's my opinion on the matter. Pernix cowl detail.png MAGE-KIL-R (Talk)Zaros symbol.png 11:23, July 22, 2017 (UTC)

Navboxes are usually the same as a category, to have a more pleasing visual representation of that category, so it's not a matter of that categories can have navboxes for them, this is about, if this specific category should have (a) navbox(es). In my opinion we can keep these, but I'm kind of conflicted about this, as I can see the point that Jayden is making. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 18:01, July 22, 2017 (UTC)
The fact that these weapons grant access to a specific combat ability is the main reason I created the original navbox. This makes these weapons unique. I believe that having (a) navbox(es) of items that unlock an additional feature of the game is reasonable and would be helpful to users. Pernix cowl detail.png MAGE-KIL-R (Talk)Zaros symbol.png 20:08, July 22, 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion though, it doesn't change the fact that it as an arbitrary weapon parameter. It simply isn't important. A lot of items in game can be disassembled, should we create navboxes for each type of item that can be disassembled? When you see it from that angle, you'll see why it doesn't quite make a lot of sense jayden 20:11, July 22, 2017 (UTC)
Disassembling items doesn't unlock a singular specific feature of the game, so I don't feel that's an equivalent comparison. These weapons have a commonality in that they are required in order to use a specific and singular Constitution combat ability. If, for example, the Tuska's Wrath Constitution ability required specific weapons to be equipped in order to use it, I would feel that a navbox would be beneficial for that too. I feel these navboxes would be very helpful so that if a player is wanting to unlock this specific Constitution ability they could compare and contrast their options. Pernix cowl detail.png MAGE-KIL-R (Talk)Zaros symbol.png 20:54, July 22, 2017 (UTC)
Using an item that has a special attack does not unlock a Constitution ability. The ability is always unlocked, but you can only use it with certain weapons. Using an item that is two-handed does not unlock two-handed abilities. The abilities are always unlocked, but you can only use them with two-handed weapons. I don't think that argument makes a whole lot of sense here. And you could argue the point that two-handed weapons have navboxes, but a weapon being two-handed isn't as arbitrary as a weapon having a special attack. jayden 16:01, July 23, 2017 (UTC)
I should have not used the word 'unlock(ed)'. It was a poor choice. I simply meant the ability was able to used. In my opinion the difference is that if any of these weapons are equipped, it allows for this one very specific ability to used. (Two-handed weapons when equipped grant the use of several abilities, not just one). I feel it's a highly unique attribute that a solitary and specific ability is inherently tied to a specific set of weaponry. You feel this fact is arbitrary, while I feel it is important and it sets these weapons apart from the others. Pernix cowl detail.png MAGE-KIL-R (Talk)Zaros symbol.png 23:43, July 23, 2017 (UTC)

Comment - There seems to be a precedent already for a so called arbitrary parameter of weapons, or in this case different kinds of equipment, namely [[Template:Prayer items]]. If these navboxes are removed then that one should be removed as well. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 17:43, July 22, 2017 (UTC)

Delete - Per Jayden. For Salix's most recent comment - typically, templates like [[Template:Prayer items]] or Template:Weight are most helpful for navigating to determine the best possible benefit or combination for the specific parameter. Special attacks are distinct for each weapon, and aren't just an additive parameter (each special functions in a different way, and only one can be used at a time). As these templates are not classified by function (such as like Healing, Stunning, etc), I don't think these types of nav boxes will be useful for navigation without needing going to the source page of all special attacks to determine what each attack does, which defeats the point of a nav box. Smithing.pngAescopalus talkCrafting.png 23:45, July 27, 2017 (UTC)

Comment - So perhaps the templates should be combined back to 1 template and renamed "Items that allow the Weapon Special Attack ability to be used". Pernix cowl detail.png MAGE-KIL-R (Talk)Zaros symbol.png 00:01, July 28, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - Templates will be deleted. This RfD was fairly narrow in scope and not as visible as a Yew Grove discussion, and thus its applicability should be limited to the three templates nominated for deletion. Broader applications of template granularity should be determined in the Yew Grove. --LiquidTalk 20:22, July 31, 2017 (UTC)


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