RuneScape:Requests for splitting

This is the place for discussion of page splits.

Guidethrough split by season
Each season now has a guide that is very lengthy. It would be a good idea to split the guides by season.


 * Support as nom. 13:39, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This would make it take longer for people to use the seperate guides/ --MeStarfinder 13:02, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Second disagree. I just read the page for the first time and found it a suitable size, with all the info I need in one place. I would find it too tedious to go back and forward to another page, then back and forward to a third and fourth, all the while waiting for server response and page loads on my browser. Much simpler and faster to scroll around on one page. Warp9pnt9 17:06, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - It is annoying to have to load up all of the guides if I'm only going to look up on. I think we should have the guides be sub pages and create a template similar to the ones used that say all the mini-games to where they are all still linked. 03:15, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree - I don't think the separate sections are particularly long enough to be in different articles. In many cases of splitting articles, such as Barbarian Assault, the sections that are split from the main article are as long as a standard in-depth article. The separate sections for the gardens aren't close to long enough, IMHO.
 * Disagree - it's not like it's that hard to scroll down, but making it be split up won't help too much for the people who have computers that have laggs, or just have computers that take forever to load pages. Plus, it would make it harder to find the ones your looking for it, say, you had just become a member or never played sorcereress's garden before and didn't know which ones there where. You'd have to come look at this page, then go back and look at that page, and then blibbity blah blah blah. BIG WASTE OF TIME. it's easier for someone to just type in "sorceress's garden" than it is to type in "sorceress's Garden/winter room". I mean, people come to this  page (not this discussion page; you know what i mean) to find out what sorceress's garden is, not to look at the seperate rooms/enclosuers everytime. Sometimes yes, you do want to find out something about the room, but if you were comparing or trying to look at what levels you need [without looking in another guide, such as the on in-game] and what herbs you get, it's SO much easier to be loooking at one page then to go back and forth between pages, wasting time. Pie Luvr 22:45, July 21, 2010 (UTC) if there's anymore typos someone tell me pl0x...
 * Support - I believe it would be better to split up the page. Not only would that keep the page shorter, it would also direct people to pages relevant to the specific garden for which they're looking.  00:21, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree - I hate splited guides. I click once in the Contents tab, to reach the spot then it say Main article: . if I want to read the full page I must open a lot other webpages too. Annoying.--Fullmoney91 16:13, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

Team cape
I propose that we split this article into multiple articles called team-1 cape, team-2 cape, and so on. Reasons: 17:16, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Our granularity policy
 * Exchange prices. They are different for all of the capes, and the infobox in this article doesn't help.

Sorry C Teng about that, I didn't realize how many edts you had so sorry about that. Azorrez 01:40, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator. 17:16, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - I know they're technically different, but having 50 different articles about basically the same item seems excessive. I think we could put the exchange prices in the table below, to show that they have different prices. 21:31, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - When people go on the wiki and look for team capes, they won't want to have to search through 50 unnecissary pages to find the right info, the main difference is cosmetic and the price varies little between them. Also, to answer about the normal capes having their own articles, they have to have an item used on them and there are not 50 of them.
 * Support - If all the different colors of normal capes have their own separate articles despite being more similar to each other than the team capes, there's really no reason the team capes shouldn't have their own articles.--Kirbychu HR&#39;D 15:38, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Are you kidding me! If you look more closely at the granularity policy you'll see that things having different names but same use they should be merged or never seperatd. Plus I reckon C Teng just wants some attention with the Runescape Wikia... Oh well... This was Azorrez 05:20, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Saying C Teng just wants attention is assuming bad faith. Maybe you should read up on on some of the wiki's policies regarding community discussion. 20:06, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all supporters. --Coolnesse 15:34, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - They have different ge values, different inventory images and are bought off different people. Plus this would allow larger photos of each cape in-game, meaning that the patterns are easier to see (since they are not 10 pixels wide). 05:29, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Alternate solution - Having a full 50 pages seems excessive, why not just use tables displaying them? I do agree that the current solution could use some reworking.
 * Oppose - a table showing current GE price and vendor is a far more elegant solution. Searches for individual team capes redirect here anyway, and someone trying to pick a team cape might like to see them all on the same page to find out what they look like without having 50 tabs open.
 * Changed to Oppose per opposers. --Coolnesse 00:48, April 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Support some way to show ge prices Any solution should work as long as all prices are listed. 01:51, March 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that 50 pages is obviously out of the question. However, making 5 pages, one for each colour, or 10 pages, one for each cape design, sounds like a better idea. Don't ya think? ;)
 * Support -Per RS:G 00:41, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - Per Sentra.  20:49, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Replying to Team 6 and 7, using the template:GEprice and organizing all the prices of individual capes (probably in a table) can do the job, without having to create unuseful standardized articles. 13:03, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - They are different from each other, they look different, their prices are different. These are enough reasons for a new page imo. 13:46, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Mobilising Armies
User:Azliq7 added the split tag so lets discuss it here:

Support - This article is pretty big and could do with some information split out into subpages. I don't know much about the minigame so I'm not sure what could logically be put on different pages. Thoughts, suggestions??? 18:50, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - The page is pretty huge and unorganised, and already has many subpages (see [ Special:PrefixIndex]) - maybe a /Rewards subpage, as that section takes up a huge amount of space. 19:04, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Not a comfortable read and can be easily split into many pages as some parts already are. Simple fix. 19:16, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. 21:26, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Rewards, for example, would be very logical to split off. 18:16, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

Contra - Why split the page? it may be long but all the info is tied together, it would be harder to maintain 15 different pages then contain 1. 22:53, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per above. --Coolnesse 15:27, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It is so big it is becoming cumbersome. Splitting fixes this. 07:13, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - but with an overview here. I have added a little about the basic invest/rewards mechanism to the lead, which I hope is clear. Certainly I was confused trying to rely on the information that was here before. Rich Farmbrough, 11:26 3 March 2010 (GMT).

Closed - I think that it is a small enough size now, so I removed the template. 06:56, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Cape of Accomplishment
Can we split between untrimmed capes, trimmed capes and hoods?

Discussion

 * Split - As nom/Per RS:G. --Coolnesse 21:59, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Splitish - yes to untrimmed and trimmed, but not the hoods -- 21:28, April 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - That would be taking RS:G way too seriously. 16:49, April 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The page isn't too long and all the info there is useful to someone looking it up. It would be annoying to most readers to have to look up three pages just to get the core info about skillcapes. Inelcirc 00:33, April 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose If this page were longer then yes but not when its that short 14:48, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral - Per Farxodor and C Teng. 18:11, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This article is not long enough to be split anyways. 02:13, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - Each of the items have different stats. They each look different.  That doesn't seem like taking it too far to me.   11:47, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel that you are voting based on an alterior motif just to meet the 15,000 article milestone. 19:14, May 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - Per Hal, they are completely different. 14:24, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure the page explains pretty well the minor difference between the untrimmed and trimmed of +4 prayer and how the capes are trimmed, and what else is there to say about the hood? "It goes with the corresponding cape"? 19:16, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * RS:G, the difference is notable. 19:35, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Pizza
I think it should be divided, and every type of pizza given its own page. Doucher4000 19:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I will be too much of a hassle for the reader. 00:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * as it is this page is very inconvenient to the reader as the GEMW for cooking is listed as 50% complete this is one of the pages bogging down this process--Duckersmash3 20:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I support splitting. 09:15, September 26, 2009 (UTC)


 * I too support the splitting of this article. -- 06:30, October 5, 2009 (UTC)


 * I also agree. --87.52.71.146 15:13, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

I am splitting up this article to enforce RS:GRAN.... any last words? --Robert Horning 23:33, October 10, 2009 (UTC)