RuneScape talk:Granularity

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
This talk page is for discussing the RuneScape:Granularity page.
Archived discussion of the granularity policy from the old forums can be found here.

Comments, feedback, etc. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 21:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I like it, its good. Just needs some more detail.Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs22:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Most of my policies do, lol. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 11:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Complete granularity[edit source]

Why not? It would just be so much nicer and I can't think of any reason not to. --Wowbagger421 02:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, since no one's replying to this, I'll give an example. Many (but not all) foods contain info about both the raw and cooked versions. This means either two infoboxes or one messy one has to be included. There's also a kind of ugly table that contains the fishing tool, req fishing level, fishing exp, cooking level, range only?, cooking exp, and how much it heals for. It would make more sense to me to have a page for raw fish that would contain info about fishing, and cooked which would contain info about cooking. It's not like we're going to run out of space on the wiki or anything. It seems ridiculous to me not to have a page for each when we have individual pages for slang terms. --Wowbagger421 20:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I would agree with the raw and cooked foods having separate pages... JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 19:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, just as I made a page on the suggestion forums about nobody replying... --Wowbagger421 19:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that raw and cooked forms should have separate pages. This need for this is demonstrated very well by comparing raw chickens (which can be used in Summoning) with cooked chickens (which can only be used as food). It would be silly to have Summoning information about raw chickens in the same article on cooked chickens, surely. They are different items, with different values, and different uses. Leevclarke 14:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. One article could be about the fish itself, the other could be about fish the food. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 21:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
There was some debate about this as it applies to lobsters versus raw lobsters - see Talk:Raw lobster. Basically, the consensus was to go against the granularity policy and have them merged. Since we are entitled to ignore all rules if it means improving the wiki, the consensus of opinion prevailed. Then again, that was about a year ago now, so things might have changed. Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 13:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we should try to come to another consensus about this? I think that we should have articles for both items on all fish pages, as that improves the wiki, not only having one article for simple convenience of not having to maintain two articles. Kudos 2 U 13:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Selective application[edit source]

The original intent of this policy, I believe, was to create item, monster, and NPC databases. However, as presently applied, it isn't serving this purpose. Trimmed items, for example, are redirected to their plain counterparts rather than having separate pages as they should. In addition, there are many cases in which granularity was stretched beyond its original purpose. A separate article is not in all cases the best way to present information on a given topic. This policy should be changed to clarify its intent and prevent it from being applied in cases where separate articles are unneeded. Skill 05:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Discuss the specifics here. The only one you mentioned is the trimmed armour; there was a huge debate about it before we decided to have the articles as they are now. I'll see if I can find it. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 09:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
It used to be in the forum archives. I don't know where they've gone since the forums got deleted. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 09:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Took me ages to find the old archives. Why were they moved out of the Forum: namespace? Anyway, here's the discussion. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 09:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
For one, raw and cooked fish articles are still merged, except in the case of lobsters it seems. If all items should have their own articles, why don't these? On the other hand, there are cases in which granularity is taken too far, like animated chair or Varrock Museum Displays. I for one don't think that scenery with no examine option should be anything more than a redirect. Skill 17:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Because...er...*cough* no-one could be bothered. Delete the chais and merge the cases, then JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 19:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Minor?[edit source]

Needles seem major enough to me to be an article. And even if they weren't, how come they're not on the list? White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 03:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see, it says that they are worthy. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 04:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Definition of NPCs[edit source]

I have expanded this policy to include the results of consensus for two VfDs, namely those for Mountain goat and Ardal. The consensus was to keep those, even though they may not be considered "true" NPCs, but may be considered "non-interactive NPCs". I hope this has come out OK, but if there are further adjustments to be made, bring them up here or on the Yew Grove.  :-)Leevclarke talk Max_logo_mini.png bulldog_puppy.png 17:59, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

Dialogue[edit source]

What kind of polices are about dialogues of NPCs? --Flajuram 10:30, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

After RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Template:Hasdialogue, we have to decided to not have dialogues of NPCs. Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 10:33, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Monster Granularity[edit source]

The convention that is defined here has not been implimented on the bestiary lately. It appears that a new effort is going to be put into updating the Bestiary. The Yew Grove discussion found here discusses this.

Initial Concerns[edit source]

I have a question about how to handle monsters with multiple locations and levels, such as the Goblin.

The rules that I am concerned with are as follows:

  1. Monsters of different combat levels must have different articles unless:
    • They have very similar or identical drop tables AND
    • They are found in the same location and all variants can attack and be attacked
  2. If a monster variant needs to be differentiated from other monsters with the same name:
    • If the variant is located in only one location, and is the only such variant to appear in that location, the location name appears in parenthesis after the name
    • If the variant is located in multiple locations, or if is found in one location with other variants that are not applicable for merging under rule #1, (level XX) or another easily distinguishable characteristic appears in parenthesis after the name.

Using the above guidlines would have the following effects on the existing Goblin page:

Levels of Existing Goblins by Location and Switch Infobox Title
Location Common Goblin Goblin Village Goblin Stronghold of Security Goblin God Wars Dungeon Goblin
Lumbridge Level 4, Level 8 N/A N/A N/A
Goblin Village N/A Level 8 N/A N/A
Port Sarim Level 4,
 Level 6
N/A N/A N/A
Digsite Level 16 N/A N/A N/A
Stronghold of Security N/A N/A Level 8, Level 9, Level 10 N/A
Undergound Pass Level 8,
Level 16
N/A N/A N/A
Goblin Cave Level 4, Level 6 N/A N/A N/A
Coal Trucks Level 4, Level 6 N/A N/A N/A
Mort Myre Level 4, Level 8, Level 16 N/A N/A N/A
God Wars Dungeon N/A N/A N/A Level 120
Observatory Dungeon Level 4, Level 8 N/A N/A N/A
East of Gunnarsgrunn Level 16 N/A N/A N/A
Ardougne Level 4, Level 6 N/A N/A N/A
Draynor Village Level 4 N/A N/A N/A

Following the 1st guideline, there should be 11 pages for the common Goblin due to the different combat levels present in different locations and 1 page for each of the remaining goblins. I feel this would be handled more easily by utiliing switch infoboxes for each level of the common Goblin, and list the locations that each variant can be found. The remaining Goblins can be identified by their location. Example: Goblin (God Wars Dungeon)

Mpsmonkey (talk) 23:23, May 22, 2013 (UTC)

Item granularity: Difference between charged equipment and charged jewellery?[edit source]

RuneScape:Granularity#Item_granularity suggests that charged equipment items (such as helms) should be granulized into separate pages. Later on however, the section states that charged jewellery variants should be placed on the same page. My question is what's the difference, or what's the thinking behind these statements?

Furthermore, it appears that multi-levelled armours should in fact be placed on the same page. This would suggest that all of the smithing equipment pages (such as Orikalkum_platebody_+_1 or Elder_rune_platelegs_+_2) should all be placed onto the same base page. #Project? First 99 in Woodcutting Loosy Woodcutting.pngTalkEditsContributions Gilded clock icon.png 20:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)