User talk:WiggleCat

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

Welcome![edit source]

Wiki-wordmark.png
Hello, WiggleCat, and welcome to the RuneScape Wiki! We're happy to see new editors making contributions. Here are a few links you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this automatically inserts your username and the date. If you have any trouble, feel free to ask questions on the user help page, the RSW clan chat, or on Discord, where a lot of our editors hang out.

We hope you like it here and decide to stay!

Wikia forking thread[edit source]

Hey WiggleCat! I wanted to give you a heads up that there's a thread (Forum:Leaving Wikia) up for discussion right now about moving this wiki (and OSRS wiki) away from Wikia, to a self-hosted, Jagex-supported site. We'd love your input on the proposal (and the new wikis). Thanks! Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 15:36, September 30, 2018 (UTC)

Wikian title[edit source]

Hi, would you like to be nomianted for the Wikian title? :) Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 17:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

That would be pretty neat, sure! I wasn't even aware that was a thing. WiggleCat (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
here you go :) Magic logs detail.pngIsobelJTalk page 14:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion[edit source]

Support - Has done much work providing data, initiating discussions and updating the wiki with the latest slayer master across many pages Sevto (talk) 20:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

The Wikian Title[edit source]

Hi WiggleCat, your request for the Wikian title was successful. Please contact Gaz Lloyd on his talk page, in the wiki Discord channel, or in-game (RSN: Gaz_Lloyd) so that he may give you the title. Sincerely, HaidroH rune.pngEagle feather 3.pngCandle (blood red).png 1XqyDNM.png Crystal triskelion fragment 3.pngHazelmere's signet ring.png 03:03, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


Martin Thwait page[edit source]

Hi WiggleCat, you tagged this page for cleanup with the note "wikify shop table" but i'm not quite sure what you had in mind, since the table looks wikified to me. Thanks BetsanTalk 10:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it had something to do with color coding the profits and losses green and red respectively. I'm not sure why I didn't note that down somewhere. WiggleCat (talk) 10:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Caps[edit source]

I know that people are generally pretty bad at caps, but please take a look at RuneScape:Style guide#Case. Capitalising words like lobster is the only correct way to go, and Lobster is just wrong, however rampant it is on this wiki. Thingummywut (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I have a feeling I already know what that article is going to say, and in the example you provided that is correct. You link to the article with the first letter capital and write the word in lowercase because it's in the middle of a sentence and capitalizing an improper noun is indeed incorrect. However in the context of the hidden updates page, the words whose first letter were capitalized were in quotation marks and they were referencing changes to item names specifically, which are in fact written the way they were presented. WiggleCat (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Only the last example was in single quotes, and that doesn't make even that one a proper noun. You could add quotes to other names too, but that wouldn't change the case. Lower case is only correct here. Thingummywut (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
That's not what I meant. I meant the words whose first letter were capitalized are indeed capitalized in the context they're being used. They said × was renamed to ××, and in that context the first letter of both × and ×× is capitalized. Something that begins with a capital letter was renamed to something else that also begins with a capital letter. They're referring to the actual item names themselves in that context and not using the word for the item in a sentence. WiggleCat (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Ripper dinosaur egg[edit source]

Hi, am just wondering about the history of the ripper dinosaur egg. Do you know if the item kept the name 'ripper dinosaur egg' after the unchecked versions were released, or if it instead was renamed into the unchecked version (so, ripper dinosaur (unchecked))? If it's the latter I'd be inclined to merge the two pages Star Talk ayy lmao ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 14:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

No, every dinosaur has its own egg that is different from the unchecked variant of the dinosaur. You can see this on the official Grand Exchange database here.WiggleCat (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

They were released after the Ranch Out Of Time update, not before it, so there was no merge. They function the same way an unchecked spider and a spider egg do. Each dinosaur has one, not just the ones I created pages for. The guide prices just haven't been adjusted by Jagex to match the price of the unchecked dinosaurs much like the guide price for an unchecked spider egg is around 150k while an unchecked spider egg that actually looks like eggs and not a spider is only a handful of coins. WiggleCat (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

To further clarify, this is specifically what I'm talking about. As you can see the egg and the egg are two different items with the same name (tabs above the infobox), produce the same animal when checked, but have different icons and guide prices because physically they're different items with different IDs. The reason I created the separate pages for the dinosaur eggs (or at least only three of them I believe) is that while the exact same scenario going on with the spider eggs is happening with all the dinosaurs too, the eggs that actually look like eggs have different item names (they're actually called egg). Unlike the spider I linked above which has its unchecked form (which is an egg when you put it in a pen) and unchecked egg form under the same item name, the dinosaurs have their unchecked form (which again is an agg when you put it in a pen) and unchecked egg form under two different item names. WiggleCat (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Vote in the Weird Gloop elections![edit source]

Hi WiggleCat!

Because of your involvement with the wiki, you are eligible to vote on the candidates for the board of Weird Gloop, the company that hosts the RuneScape and Old School RuneScape wikis.

See meta:Weird Gloop elections/2019/Candidates for candidate presentations, and meta:Weird Gloop elections for how to vote – it'll take maybe 5 minutes.

There are 4 candidates for RuneScape, 4 candidates for OSRS, and 1 candidate for pt-RuneScape. If you'd like to influence who represents the voices of these communities inside the company, I strongly encourage you to vote! You are one of only 204 people that meet the requirements, and this is a chance to help shape the future of the wikis.

Thanks! ʞooɔ 01:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Whoops, forgot to thank you and mention that I voted! WiggleCat (talk) 05:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Grenwalls[edit source]

Sorry for my unclear edit note. My edit was in response to the edit by an IP, "experience rate on grenwalls. (this change could be wrong, however it's more accurate than 18 xp which was the previous statistic.) it's 907.5xp with protean traps, however protean traps tend to give 50% xp boosts than normal, 907.5/1.50 = 605." Since protean traps gives +25% exp, the calculation gives 726. Which I also tested with normal box traps. ArcticFire (talk) 09:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Archaeology in Dungeoneering[edit source]

Hi, I undid your edits about Archaeology in Dungeoneering as it wasn't integrated into the skill. 120 Farming & Herblore affected Dungeoneering regarding only the skill level requirements of puzzles and doors, and this change was probably automatic. The last time a skill was integrated into Dungeoneering was with Divination, in 2013 (neither 120 Slayer nor Invention were). - Habblet (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I saw. I wasn't certain since I hadn't been down there since the update, and I couldn't find anything mentioned anywhere aside from a Reddit post, that wasn't answered, asking the same thing. I've redirected it to nonexistence so the same mistake isn't made twice. WiggleCat (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments[edit source]

Hey, just an FYI regarding your comments on this edit, I had accidentally left a minor numbering error when I updated the template, one week before you fixed it (I would hardly call that "a while"). You'll notice I majorly overhauled and completed the template, so it's not like it was some glaring mistake that was there for months. Just saying. Thanks for fixing it though! RuneMetrics Paul Z Talk bite me HS Contributions 20:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it was you. I recall going through the module's history and finding the error present several months in the past, long before your overhaul. WiggleCat (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Hmmm, I guess that's possible, though I haven't checked every single edit to see when that might have occurred. This version from October (which was the last version before I started modifying things on April 3rd) was correctly numbered. I think it was simply an oversight on my part when I rearranged everything. *shrugs* RuneMetrics Paul Z Talk bite me HS Contributions 23:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I'm positive I skipped down two or three states and checked, saw the error, then skipped down a few more and checked again, and saw it present sometime before the most recent large edit you'd made. At that point I was so many edits down that I may have glimpsed a 2019 date stamp and figured it'd been present for a while. But now that I look again I can see it was introduced here, so I might have gotten lucky and scoped out a revision that had a similar error. I remember the same error being present but the names of the groups it affected were different. So someone else may have made the same error in the past and corrected it, and I happened upon that revision by chance and assumed them to be the same figuring people must have just moved things around all that time without realizing the numbering was wrong. In reality either it was fixed and reintroduced, which seems the most likely, or I mixed something up somewhere. WiggleCat (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
On second thought I probably just mixed up dates. WiggleCat (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Excavation clue scroll rarity[edit source]

You condensed clue scrolls to one line in Treasure Trails for excavation. Have you personally witnessed or have other reliable information on high level clues from low level hotspots, or low level clues from high level hotspots? I'm only 61 Archaeology and haven't seen many clues yet, but they've all been easy or medium, which is in line with other gathering skilling clues. If e.g. elites are given by third age iron cache, this would break the formula that's been forming in this data collection table. Thingummywut (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes. If, for instance, you go to the article for Third Aged iron caches, you can see each type of clue scroll in the drop table. It's the same for every excavation site and material cache. WiggleCat (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm aware that they all appear in the template for tetracompass pieces. I postulate that it's incorrect, though, as it's against both my personal experience and the way that other gathering skills yield clues. Thingummywut (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Each excavation site and material cache is capable of dropping clue scrolls. Even if the tables are wrong and lower level excavation sites and material caches can only drop lower level clue scrolls, they all drop them. For that reason listing each one individually on the Treasure Trails page feels unnecessary. However if the tables are in fact incorrect, and you can't receive elites from a Third Age iron cache for example, then I feel a better solution would be to figure out which clue scrolls drop at which hotspots and caches and then group them together. Where did the drop tables for hotspots and caches originate from? WiggleCat (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree that in the end listing all gathering methods is excessive in Treasure Trails page. But since we don't yet know the mechanics that determine the clue scroll difficulties, this table acts as a good way to figure that out. Polluting it with inaccurate data like for excavation hotspots doesn't help with this goal. Clue scrolls were added to tetracompass table by User:ChangingLane without further explanation. Thingummywut (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
For now we could scrap the hard and elite listing from the table entry (on the Treasure Trails page) untill we can verify it. Easy and medium clues are probably correct. I myself have received six easies from six different excavation hotspots before I knew the Treasure Trails page recorded them. Unless you had another solution in mind until we find out for sure? WiggleCat (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I would be hesitant to add anything I haven't seen personally. To me the ideal solution would be to remove the clues from tetracompass table (it's very likely implemented in game separately too), and slowly keep adding them to hotspot drop tables as we gather data. Treasure Trails table can be updated too; I don't really care where the data is as long as it's recorded somewhere. I shall do this right away. Thingummywut (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I've personally gotten all types of clue scrolls from excavation hotspots (except for masters). I did notice though that my level 3 skiller was mainly getting easy and medium clue scrolls and my main was mainly getting hard and elite clue scrolls, so I think it depends on your total level. ChangingLane (talk) 12:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Alright then, I suppose that confirms it. Should we just revert things back to the way they were prior to this discussion then? WiggleCat (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Just one more clarification: You mentioned getting them from excavation hotspot in general, and this was never disputed. Have you gotten all types of clues from a single hotspot? It would be in line with other skilling if for instance level 1-80 hotspots gave easy and medium clues, and 80+ gave hards and elites. We still haven't figured out the exact level where this happens, if its skill-dependent, or if there is some kind of overlap for different clue rarities. Adding them all to all hotspots would mean that it's been confirmed that it's skill-dependent. Also, if it was governed by total level, it'd be a weirdly high cutoff point as I'm nearly maxed except for Archaeology, and I'm getting easy and medium clues from low-level excavation. Is ChangingLane aware of these mechanics? Thingummywut (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
ChangingLane will have to answer any questions related to where which clue scrolls were obtained. I'm maxed myself aside from archaeology and have only excavated easy scrolls. My decisions were based off of their data. If they can confirm they've gotten elites or hards from the lower level excavation hotspots and caches then I suppose that confirms it. Their main has 120 archaeology so it may scale with archaeology level or, like you said, they may have gotten hard and elites from higher level areas. Unfortunately I don't know the answer. WiggleCat (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

RDT[edit source]

This is why there were separate rows for some items in the same table. https://imgur.com/7oHtna4
No reason they couldn't be merged like you've done. Thanks!
Pocket Sapphi 12:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

RE:Reversion Of Wikian Discussion[edit source]

No worries, mobile and the wiki don't tend to enjoy playing nicely together. Talk-to Kelsey 14:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Scenery license and wanted pages[edit source]

Hey! I saw you were fixing some scenery licenses to get rid of wanted pages, thanks for the help, the list of wanted pages can get out of hand sometimes. I just wanted to remind you about a few things regarding using the license. The license is only properly used when the subject of the images is either interactive or non-interactive scenery. If it's just general landscape images, it's not the scenery that we refer to. Thus, images like File:Grim Tales Grimgnash.png should not have the license and should instead have Category:Images in Burthorpe and Taverley added. In addition, on files like File:Catapult (Invasion of Falador).png, even though the page it linked to was a wanted page, it should still have that as the subject name. The subject of that file isn't the Invasion of Falador, it's the catapult. That's a valid wanted page and that page should instead be created instead of having the subject changed to an already-existing page. Thanks again for the help! ɳex undique 01:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I actually didn't know that. I didn't do much looking around when I was correcting that and probably should have looked into the context a bit more. At face value they just appeared to be errors. To be clear you're saying the wanted pages should be created? What would I put on such pages? Most of the reason I edited them the way I did was because creating a page called "Invasion of Falador screenshot" didn't really make sense to me. Pet cat (purple) chathead.png WiggleCat Meow! 02:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
If they're correct wanted pages, yes. The catapult was interactive scenery so an article on it would be appropriate, but the article would probably be named "Catapult (Invasion of Falador)". In that case, the previous subject name was wrongly worded. In creating it, you would put Template:Infobox interactive scenery and all available information on it. ɳex undique 02:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Noted. I'll take care of it when I get a chance assuming someone else doesn't swoop in before me. Pet cat (purple) chathead.png WiggleCat Meow! 02:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Archaeology Hotspot Calculator[edit source]

I saw your post on the calculator's discussion page and published a potential fix. Could you let me know how the update fares comparitively to your artefact rates? If you want to talk in realtime, you can go to my user page and add me on discord. Thanks. Seth BOI Archaeology.png 18:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Kerapac Track tables[edit source]

I don't know if you noticed, but for Kerapac Track there are no mentions that the task tables only apply for maxed skills. So, if you're seeing different values for quantities or accepted tasks, the old data shouldn't be removed unless you know that it was incorrect. Just posting because I've seen multiple edits where you've replaced data with new values without explanation. Thingummywut (talk) 08:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh. No, I didn't know that. Thanks. Pet cat (purple) chathead.png WiggleCat Meow! 13:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)