Template talk:Item

Removing obsolete fields
JaGeX will be implementing the 3000 coin differential on trading in January, and the store prices of items have been stated as varying with the Grand Exchange price. Therefore, I propose to remove the fields store price and street price. This will require updating the pages for the items that use this infobox to prevent mismatched rows. Doomedrusher|Talk| |Contributions| 00:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The "street price" may still be useful from a historical perspective. Who knows.... Jagex may reverse themselves on this point... so far as to allow a slightly larger trading range or do something that would permit genuine trading of items outside of the Grand Exchange again.  "Player Owned Stores" are something where a "street price" would certainly be useful to know about... depending on how that gets implemented.


 * As for the store prices.... they are not necessarily varying with the Grand Exchange Price. Indeed, the knowledge base explicitly states that the maximum price for an item traded on the Grand Exchange is based upon the store price... however that is determined.  I'm supposing here that this is in reference to the price that the "store stock" (not player stock) is sold for that you can buy an infinite number of those items from at a specialty store.  There are some items that I have no idea what store sells them for at infinite stock... but perhaps I'm mistaken.  Jagex still puts a ceiling price on those items somehow.  It certainly would be useful to know not only what the price is but where they are sold in infinite quantities... or if Jagex is simply making this up.  For instance, where can you buy an infinite supply of copper and tin ore? (the ceiling is currently 20 coins).


 * Perhaps instead adding explicit Grand Exchange floor and ceiling prices would be more useful? Unfortunately, I don't know an easy way to get these values unless they come within the +/- 5% range of the Grand Exchange price.  There are many items, however, where this is the case, so it isn't impossible to find.  Price floors seem to be loosely based upon the High Alch value, and I'm hoping that somewhere Jagex will clarify this issue soon.  --Robert Horning 17:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The Grand Exchange floor and ceiling prices are exactly 95% and 105% of the market price (rounded down), respectively. I'm also assuming that store price was based on player stock. There is a mix of infinity price and player stock price for the items right now in the Wiki. Doomedrusher|Talk| |Contributions| 18:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I thought you meant the upper and lower bounds of the price you can buy at. Doomedrusher|Talk| |Contributions| |Edit Count| 00:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * On the contrary.... GE floor is High Alch plus and minus (Jagex really screwed this one up... trust me) the price of a nature rune. The price ceiling is the infinite store stock price... mostly (I've caught a couple items that got this one wrong too... but not all of them.


 * If you don't believe me, try to buy gold bars for less than 5% of the current price of 210 coins.... you can't. It has hit the absolute price minimum.  Also try to buy a potato for more than 16 coins... the current price of a potato.  You would assume that +5% would mean that you could buy one for 17 coins... but the exchange simply won't let you.  It has hit the price ceiling.


 * Now what I'm talking about here is the absolute price floor and ceiling, not the daily price range. Yes, there is the +/- 5% rule as well, but that still has to fall somewhere between this hard floor and ceiling.  And Jagex isn't exactly all that clear what these other price ranges may be.


 * For a few items (like mainly buckets and bronze pickaxes), the hard price floor and ceiling are identical... with the current price. I know, this sounds totally insane, and it is.  But that is how Jagex set it up, and I think it would be useful to explain this to somebody visiting this website.


 * As for player stock price... you are correct. It is now the exchange price.  So in this sense this particular price field is now meaningless.  But it acquires new meaning in the sense that there is an infinite stock price from specialty stores for many items... that really is the new "store" price... and I'm saying that it has genuine consequences in terms of the mechanics of the Grand Exchange and what players may have to pay for something.


 * This is why I think the "store price" really should remain on this infobox. --Robert Horning 20:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Your observations regarding the Grand Exchange absolute floor/ceiling prices are quite valuable. I would like to put those in the Grand Exchange article, so that readers interested can obtain that information.

Doomedrusher|Talk| |Contributions| |Edit Count| 00:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

To keep people from being misled...
Should we add how much items will sell for on the Grand Exchange?

for what it's worth
Jagex changed the ceiling price on non stackable items. As of right now potatoes are going for 61 coins with the price ceiling not yet being seen in the exchange.

Incidentally the street prices are increasingly inaccurate to the point that the value of them in many instances, historical or otherwise, is dubious at best.

12:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * While the ceilings have been raised, in some cases significantly, they haven't been eliminated yet. One item I know for a fact that has a hard ceiling is Cheese, priced at a cap of 108 coins.  The rationale for this price or even practice is completely beside me, other than perhaps Jagex doesn't want to see players "wasting" their time using the churns to make cheese?


 * As for historical street prices, their use is mainly as a tool to see how much the changes in the economy have impacted the price of a great many items. The problem with street prices is that you have nothing to establish credibility of the price, unless you are a merchant who very routinely buys or sells that particular item.  At least Grand Exchange prices are verifiable by people who don't even trade in that item, and obvious scamers trying to "milk" prices to their benefit can be called on the carpet for manipulating reported prices.


 * A very common scam, pre Grand Exchange and trade limits, was to have one player yell "Buying Charcoal 3k each" and other "Selling Charcoal 2k each". And then getting some poor sucker to buy the worthless item at 2k each thinking they might make some modest money.  It wasn't just charcoal, but it did include some rather interesting items.  It is much harder to get away with such a scam right now.  --Robert Horning 23:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Correct me if i'm wrong but isn't the store stock for stores such as the Culinaromancer's chest food store (with only limited quantity player stock) based strictly off the current Grand Exchange 'average' price? If so should that Store price field be modified in this template?


 * What about changing the name of Street price to more accurately reflect it's usage in the new RuneScape post-Grand Exchange economy? Would that be a worthwhile?


 * What about adding fields (perhaps hidden until used) for the upper and lower price limits? I know I would find that very helpful when viewing item info and believe many others would as well.  19:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Culinaromancer's chest is certainly one of the very interesting exceptions of stores that don't sell infinite stock. For most stores, the store "stock price" (also infinite quantity price) is the "ceiling price" for what is sold on the Grand Exchange.  The ceiling prices have been raised on the G.E. in an "adjustment", but it still something that impacts the game.  This is certainly independent of whatever the grand exchange price is at.  "Stackable items" still have a hard price ceiling of the infinite stock price.


 * I don't understand the upper and lower price limits here, as you are proposing them. Are you talking the hard price ceilings and floors of the prices on the Grand Exchange, or something more simple?  Jagex doesn't publish these figures, and with just a few exceptions when prices aren't already at that floor or ceiling, many of the items haven't hit those prices so they are still unknown... or players may have missed when they hit the hard minimum or maximum price, not to mention that Jagex has been changing the game in that respect without any announcement at all.  While useful, I don' know how you can verify this information.


 * In terms of changing the title of "street price" on this template.... what would you change it to? How does it apply and what is different than the Grand Exchange price?  By definition, the "street price" is what players are willing to trade each other for items when exchanged in direct player to player transactions.  This hasn't changed, and still happens.... although with some hard trade limits that were imposed at the beginning of the year.  This price is sometimes... even often... different than the Grand Exchange price.  The tough part of a street price is being able to verify the value, but that has always been a problem with street prices in the past as well.  --Robert Horning 10:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well admittedly those weren't fully thought through ideas (and i'm more an idea person than down to earth), however, one thing just hit me that might be quite useful. I've noticed that there are actually two storages places for the store, hi and low alch values. I'd like to propose that they all be sourced the same as the exchange price is now when it is linked back the the gemw entry. 16:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Exchange update link
Normally, gemw is used for the exchange= parameter in the Template:Infobox Item to automatically enter the current GEMW price. However, the tradable item for Dragon gauntlets has a different name - Worn-out dragon gauntlets which currently redirects back to Dragon gauntlets. Using Template:GEPrice allows having the current price, but does not have the 'update' linked used with gemw.

I used a work-around to allow the update link, however the link 'update' appears between the price and unit measurement 'coins'.

.
 * exchange  = Uncharged:  [ update]

I tried a new template Template:GEPriceUpdate which adds coins and 'update'' link; but in the Infobox Item there's another 'coins' after the update.

Someone want to try to see if they can add another parameter to the exchange= parameter in the Template:Infobox Item to allow a different name then the FULLPAGENAME? In this case, Worn-out dragon gauntlets in the Dragon gauntlets article? thanks, Chrislee33 07:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely sure what you are suggesting here. The trick here is that we need to come up with some way of describing (in computer terms) what the difference between a hand-entered price and something that has a different name than the name of the page.  Perhaps adding an additional parameter to this template (optional parameter) that would be called "exchangecoins", that if you put something in there (usually just the word no such as "exchangecoins=no") the word "coins" won't be inserted afterward.


 * This is still getting complicated enough that it may not quite do the job we are trying for. I do like the idea of allowing those kind of prices to have some sort of "update" link to the GEWM page even if it isn't named the same as the article name.  --Robert Horning 09:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * How about changing the 'gemw' parameter to pass a variable for the different name? e.g. for the Dragon gauntlets article, 'gemw|Worn-out dragon gauntlets'? Chrislee33 16:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

PAGENAME
At the |name option, you have to enter the items name, couldn't we just add the PAGENAME template there? (as standard)

12:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah.


 * There is a problem with just using PAGENAME, namely anypage that doesn't match the item due to duplicate names (e.g., Monk's robe (bottom), Monk's robe (top), Zamorak robe (bottom), etc.) and cases where the template is used to show something that is related to the PAGENAME (e.g., Quiz Master)  and this is just the beginning, I'm sure there are many more instances.  I believe the name field should be optional for instances like this.  14:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Street prices
Street prices are obsolete thanks to the Grand Exchange, 3-30k trade limit, and a "see how much money you're making" meter. Why do we even need this? We can always view an article's history for street prices before the Grand Exchange, so I do not see any harm in removing them.


 * I don't think the "article's history" is sufficient in this case. Besides, the way that MediaWiki software performs a "historical" snapshot of a previous version (aka when you press the "history" tab and grab a previous version of the page), what you see is the current version of the template.  This means that the "street price" simply can't been seen by looking at an article's history.


 * The real question is if we want to simply remove the data altogether and lose this information. Placing the information in the template and then not displaying the information doesn't do any good either and begs the question.... why even keep that data around at all?


 * I would agree that "street price" means "pre-grand exchange historical price". It doesn't really have any genuine meaning in the current context of the game other than to see what sort of impact on the price of a great many items in the game has occurred due to the introduction of the price controls and the grand exchange.  Once removed, this information will not be restored, nor will it be easy for users of this website to roll back and view this information.  You will have to 1) go back to the historical version of the page and 2) go into edit mode to view the raw wiki mark-up text in order to even see the original historical price.


 * I've suggested caution at removing this information since the Grand Exchange opened, and I am pointing out that this is an irreversible change so far as this part of the template usage on the individual item pages will likely be removed over time once it is removed from this template. This is particularly true if any reverting of the template to display the historical prices is treated as vandalism.


 * For myself, I am neutral on removing the data. I've worked to replace the content with the GEMW data, but that data is fundamentally different from street prices, which is why very legitimately there are two sets of prices for a great many items.... and the street prices are certainly getting stale in terms of their value in current game play.  --Robert Horning 20:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Earthere was simply saying that if we want to see historical data of street prices, we can always edit an old version and look at the template parameters to see that street price. So no, I don't believe we would lose the data.


 * I think that the whole street price field is more of a liability than anything. It's impossible to maintain, as more and more the street price is whatever the heck Jagex tells us it is.  The street price is always going to be around +- 3000 the market price, so there's not much to be gained by differentiating the two.  People only care about the market price now.  I agree that the field should be deleted.  20:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As a practical matter, I am suggesting that "editing an old version and looking at the template parameters" isn't nearly so simple of a task as you are implying. Information is going to be lost, and I have no assurance that wikia is going to preserve historical versions of each page forever.  There is an assumption that they will, and some legal issues that need to be resolved before significantly older pages are deleted, but this is speculation of the worst kind and making assumptions I'm not comfortable to make.  As far as what has happened in the past and what is going to happen in the near future, you are correct that this is the case.


 * Mind you, I'm not against deleting this field explicitly, and that its historical context is getting lost. Street prices were never anything easy to maintain in the first place, as obtaining reliable information was always a difficult task even for those who were aggressive and active in the trade of that item.  I say this as I was a pre-Grand Exchange merchant (who specialized in gemstones).  I got a pretty good feel for what the "street price" of an item was, and it did vary by quite a bit from day to day and even world to world.  That was the only way you could merchant and was a tough skill to acquire.  Tweaking street price guides was also a common source of vandalism, as less than honest merchants would try to push street prices one way or another on community projects like the Runescape Wiki to go to their advantage (depending if they were buying or selling the item).  Edit wars over prices were nearly legendary.  On this basis, I am glad to see street price guides to finally bite the dust.


 * One of the worst kind of players I encountered as a merchant was one that said "but the price guide says it should be x coins" (fill in the price). That sent chills through my back, and made me practically want to ignore players who said that (even though I wanted to make a sale).  Even now with trade caps, I do find local demand away from the Grand Exchange to be different by sometimes quite a bit than what the "official" exchange price claims.  I hate even more now (behavior-wise) those players who scream "price check" or some other silly notion that the grand exchange price in the trade window means much of anything in terms of how much they should get in direct person-to-person trades.


 * My main concern here is just that major changes that are difficult to reverse should be discussed with all viewpoint presented. This is one of those decisions where a reversal is going to be difficult on a practical basis.  I agree that the prevailing consensus is that the street price needs to be eliminated.  --Robert Horning 10:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it should go - its relevance and accuracy decreases more and more as time goes on. Maybe we could just remove it from the template output as a first step but leave the field each article's raw infobox text? If we decide afterwards it was a mistake we can just revert the template to get it back into the displayed articles. If it turns out everyone's happy with the articles without street price then we can start removing the field from the infobox text on the articles. Pointy 00:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * MM'kay.

AKA
While we're revamping this template, couldn't we make the AKA field not appear in articles if it's left blank? Leevclarke 22:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Grand Exchange price
Now that Jagex has released the Grand Exchange price tracker, it seems to me that maintaining a list of Grand Exchange prices on items' pages is futile. To this end, can I suggest that it be replaced with a link to the item's price tracker at RuneScape.com.

Each item in the database has a unique ID number, for example, a fire rune has ID 554. We can get these easily enough from the URL to the item's page, for example http://itemdb-rs.runescape.com/viewitem.ws?obj=554. We could use this as a parameter in a template, e.g. have something like in the infobox instead of gemw, and in the article it provides a link to "http://itemdb-rs.runescape.com/viewitem.ws?obj=" followed by the ID number. I chose gedb for Grand Exchange Database.

This would give a link to the current G.E. price (as well as trends), and it would require no further maintenance on our part, unlike the GEMW. Leevclarke 17:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you aware that for most items, the list of "Grand Exchange Prices on items' pages" comes from the GEMW? This debate about the futility of the GEMW has been around since it was originally proposed.


 * I do agree that a link to the "official" Grand Exchange database pages would be useful, but there are some strong limitations on how you can use that information, mainly because it isn't available for doing calculators and other similar kinds of tasks. At some point in the future, it would be nice to be able to automatically update the GEMW database directly from Jagex's GEDB.


 * I just don't think this has to be an exclusive option one way or the other, and both could be done. --Robert Horning 11:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

High alchemy and low alchemy = N/A?
There are lots of quest items, and other items that cannot be high-alched (or low-alched). Some of these items have "N/A" in the high= and low= fields, while others have the fields are left blank. I propose that for items that are non-tradeable, both fields should NOT be displayed, just like when the Exchange field is not displayed when tradeable = "No". Or, the fields should show something else, rather than "N/A coins" as this sounds ridiculous and is just plain wrong. -- 18:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that "N/A" should not be in this field. Would I be right in thinking that non-tradable items can be alched (that is, the game will allow you to cast the spell on the item), but you will receive zero coins?  For these items, I think we should specify the number 0 in these fields.  If not then set the alch fields to "No", and have them not display in that case.   07:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Equipable
I'm not exactly sure why adding this was a good idea, because most people know that tuna and corn cannot be equipped. It just seems a little unnecessary. I don't think that "stacks" and "destroy" are good, either, but "equipable" is my primary concern right now. 07:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I really do not like this box either. I think we should look at the whole template though, because we should fix all the things at once. How come on some pages there is still a street price, but not on the template? Does that mean on that items page I can remove street? --Degenret01 09:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OK I think equipable is good because some quest items are clothing (might be a hat) but you cannot actually equip it. Degenret, the street price is obsolete now because we're using the exchange instead (so you can remove street fields from articles). I agree with the stacks box because some items that you wouldn't expect to stack, sometimes do. But (I'm not supporting everything) the destroy box I find is unnecessary. About 1 out of 200 items will be destroyable and is it so important to know? So I want to keep equipable and stacks, but no destroy. Cheers, Kandarincrest.gif Chicken7 >talk>RfA 09:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What about the items that do not stack in bank either? [ http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/5128/10finga0.gif] Play 16:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, if a lot of the items aren't equipable, maybe the box should only show up if yes is there or else it just doesn't appear. Kandarincrest.gif Chicken7 >talk>RfA 09:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually would be really keen to keep all these (stacks, destroy and equipable), since they are properties of all items, and I don't think it is always obvious. For example, a bedsheet is equipable (at least after being dipped in the ectoplasm), but I don't think it's obvious from looking at the item name or image.  I'm all for including information in the text of an article, but I think this should be part of the summary infobox.  Leevclarke, AKA Max Bulldog [[File:Bulldogh.gif]] 03:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Some problem
I have found that the Infobox has shifted to the left instead of the original right. See Ring of recoil, Skills necklace. Admins, please correct that. I do not have the power to do so =[. 14:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Template changes/revamp
I have made some changes to the template, and the changes are as follows:


 * 1) The "AKA" field is hidden when left blank.
 * 2) High-alch and Low-alch now has the option "No" which displays "Not applicable"
 * 3) The "Seller" field now appears in the next line, within the "Store price".
 * 4) When the item is tradable and nothing is entered into the "Exchange" field, the item appears in the Category:Needs price
 * 5) Added separate documentation page; modified wording and added more information.
 * 6) Added clarification on the "Street" field.

11:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The AKA field does not show up at all now. Apostata 21:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out! It may take a while for the pages to be updated. 09:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Mainly use?
What is this field for? And it should be "Mainly used for" without the "?" OR "Main use". "Mainly use?" is grammatically incorrect. 08:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussion at RuneScape:Yew_Grove . Chrislee33 09:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Also known as...
If the item name is abbreviated in-game, should the shorter version be included in the AKA field?

Example:

The item name is shortened in GE, though the article name isn't.


 * item=Proselyte harness f
 * AKA=Pros'yte harness f

Note: The example item links to Proselyte armour, but there are other items with such case too.

[ http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/5128/10finga0.gif] Play 16:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the template documentation, item names (what goes in the |name = X field) should match EXACTLY how the object is referred to IN GAME. Alternative names (such as "r pl8" for a rune platebody) can go in the |AKA = X field (separated by commas if there are more than 1). Hope this helps, CFLM ( Talk ) 16:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Linking to Grand Exchange Database data
In addition to a direct price quote from the GEMW, I'd like to add in a link to the Grand Exchange Database information... which BTW is also contained in the GEMW data. This isn't so much of a question on how to get the information into this template, but rather a question on the appearance of each of the items that have this information.

I'm thinking of putting it right below the GE price line with a hyperlink of some sort pointing to the "official" Jagex price history page of the item. Is there any reason why this sort of information shouldn't be added to this template? --Robert Horning 03:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

| edible = less than 150
I undid a change to the template which saw the addition of a new parameter, | edible = X, because we only have about 150 edible items with their own articles, but the template is transcluded on well over 4,000 pages, and there was no discussion about the edit beforehand. If anyone would like to re-add the parameter, please do so AFTER receiving consensus for the move.
 * Thanks, CFLM ( Talk ) 16:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with the edible parameter being added, but it should be an optional parameter that is only displayed if there is something using that parameter.


 * I should point out, however, that discussions and consensus building are relatively uncommon for changes even to this template... especially for adding a new parameter. I certainly have seen a number of changes to this template without any discussion prior to those changes being made.  Many of those changes have been made in good faith and certainly weren't vandalism such as this addition of an edible field.


 * Urging caution is useful, but let's not be mean to the new user, and Assume good faith. Also keep in mind:  Runescape:Ignore all rules  --Robert Horning 15:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This type of entry is what i would consider a good, hidden until used type item. Thus prevented needless clutter on items pages. There are a likely others that would work well like that. 10:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of template tweaks
It occurred to me that there are a series of items that are tradeable within minigames (e.g., coloured flowers, banner, sacred_clay-in-game_weapons, but being minigame items that do not exist outside of these minigames they will never be traded on the GE. I'm thinking of added a tertiary option setting for the |tradeable= parameter (currently it is either "no" or yes/description). The new option would be named something like "minionly" which would allow for the hiding of |Exchange_price= and maybe even |Store_price= if the items all tend to go that way. 10:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

copying to new wikia
Im trying to improve the danish version of the runescape wikia, but how, HOW can i "copy" this so it can be used on the danish version. I know my question is very unclear, but i hope someone can reply. <font style="background:olive"> Frede173  16:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the problems with this template is that it makes use of a whole bunch of other templates, and thus you need to copy all of those other templates (and everything they depend upon) as well. The GEMW data is likely to be the most complicated, as that is a huge project that has involved dozens of users.  It might simply be best to remove those features for now when moving to another language edition.  Are there some specific problems that seem to be an issue on the Danish edition of this wiki?  --Robert Horning 16:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

High/Low alch
It might be beneficial to have a number in parentheses next to the high and low alch that says how negative/positive the profit for alching that item is based on the alch value - cosmic runes price on the ge. And possibly another value for Alch value - (item on ge+cosmic on ge). Dsctatom 23:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting.... to say the least. Price floors on the Grand Exchange pretty much keep any sort of profitable method of earning money from alching items purchased from other players... at least if you buy the items in bulk or from the GE.  This is why yew longbow alching is a dead art form now.  The only items I know that are remotely profitable to alch any more are battlestaves, and that only if you buy the staves yourself and not from the GE.


 * More to the point, Jagex has deliberately set up the Grand Exchange so there would never be a profit from performing alchemy. Yeah, it stinks, and I don't like the price floors either.  It is something barely mentioned in the Knowledge Base and not even acknowledged by Jagex staff... other than they did allow a thread on the topic to keep going in the Recent Updates forum for around 6 months.


 * BTW, it is a Nature rune and not a Cosmic rune that you need for performing alchemy. A small detail (huge on price) that does make a difference.  Cosmic runes are for enchanting items like a Games necklace or Amulet of power.  --Robert Horning 01:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Weight
Just a little addition: Since all stackable items have no weight, a logical with to do would be to add something along the lines of "if stackable=yes, weight=0", overriding the weight field all together, or whatever. Just a thought. 17:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Directly disable the exchange field
"If the item is not tradable, this field will be hidden (not shown), and the field may be removed or left blank." This is very good, but some item are tradeable, but isn't tradeable on GE. Such as the Stealing Creation items, they are tradeable inside the minigame, but the player can't bring them out from the game. So that would be very good if we can directly disable the exchange field using 'exchange = no'. Please add this feature to the template and sorry for my very bad english. Thanks! Fullmoney91 19:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

GE on Pages that don't have Title Matches
This template appears to grab GE prices for an item that matches the title of the page, even if a different name has been typed in place of "Name". Here you can see the problem I am referring to. I don't know much about templates, but would it be possible so it looks up the GE price for the item in the "Name" field instead of the page title? In this way we can have infoboxes on pages that do not match the name of the item, yet still have a fully functional GE field. 17:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

GE price field suggestion
Right now the link next to the GE price only lets you "edit", but I think it'd be better if it gave you an option to edit and to view the price history. The "edit" link (could be shortened to "E") would still work just like it does now, but there would also be a "view" link (again, could be shortened to "V") that took you to the plain GE price page for whatever item there is. 19:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Displaying the Market History chart
I added code into the template to show the price history chart, as it has been updated by User:Azliq7 with his chart bot. At the moment it is just a thumbnail where the details are hard to pick out, but at least the gist of the information is there and people reading these pages can note that the chart exists... perhaps right clicking to see the larger version of the information.

This information will only be displayed if the "exchange=" field is "GEMW". Not all of the item pages have this set correctly, including a few item pages that are still manually adjusted without GEMW data at all. As such, it is likely that this chart doesn't exist and won't be displayed. I would like to get some feedback on this, if there are any ideas on how to improve the positioning of this chart or perhaps other aspects of its display. --Robert Horning 20:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thats a good idea. I like it. I think it would look a little better with a title (Price History or something). Other than that, I think its pretty good; big enough to see the general idea of what's happening without taking over the infobox, and of course it can be clicked to see the full version (maybe noting that underneath?). 21:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent ideas here. I'm thinking "Price History" above the chart, and perhaps a "click here to enlarge" hyperlink underneath that goes straight to the image itself.  Ideally, it would be awesome if we could get some Javescript or something that would put a "hover over" popup that would display the image in an enlarged format.  For now it will merely go to the image itself, just like clicking on the image does right now.  --Robert Horning 04:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am willing to offer my help on a script for showing an enlarged GEMH chart as a mouseover tooltip. -- 04:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A bit late but finally released a test script to do this. It can be tested by inserting   into your monaco.js or monobook.js file.  I've tested it a little in Chrome 3.0, FF 3.6, and IE8 with both skins.  The positioning of the graph with respect to the mouse cursor is somewhat finicky, and the screenshot I took has some color contrast problems, but it's progress.
 * http://img693.imageshack.us/img693/4039/gemhpop.th.png
 * -- 07:02, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

Release date?
Currently, almost no article about items contains the release date. Adding a box for this would encourage adding this kind of information, which I think is useful. For items which hasn't got a release date filled in, they will contain "Unknown". While for those items which has always been in RuneScape, that is the items that has been in the game since before RuneScape Classic, should/could either contain "From start." or the field simply isn't visible. What do you think? -- 15:33, September 6, 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this would be an excellent suggestion, other than trying to find a reliable source of information for when each item came out. I wonder if tip.it or some other major fan site has this information we could draw upon?


 * At the very least, when new items are released, we could note it here and try to put it in. This would be some useful information.  --Robert Horning 13:59, September 6, 2009 (UTC)


 * I also like it. For sources we could use RuneScape.com's news archives or our updates archives (the latter would probably be easier, as we can search them easier and they go back further).
 * Suggestions:
 * Two new params:, the date it was added, and  , the name of the Update: page that announced it's release (without the Update:).
 * The new row would be along the lines of:

!Date released
 * Or something. Maybe a category for pages without dates/updates, too? 19:49, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
 * Or something. Maybe a category for pages without dates/updates, too? 19:49, September 6, 2009 (UTC)


 * I like it, and a category as you said would be good too.-- 12:35, September 13, 2009 (UTC)

Stackable
The name of the variable is Stackable, but the label is Stacks. Seems that when new items are added, the default Infobox Item does not have stackable, so the info for Stacks is Unknown. Clicking on the edit button opens the edit window, but the variable stackable is not listed. For those who do not know how to find this template page, the logical step would be to type in |stacks=No or Yes which, of course, does not work as the variable is named Stackable. I propose changing the label from Stacks to Stackable. Chrislee33 03:33, September 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * Second. 22:47, September 12, 2009 (UTC)

Edible?
Why do we have the edible parameter if we have Template:Infobox Food? 15:06, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Because, it wouldn't work with certain things, e.g. Caviar 17:52, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Loss when high/low alching
I think we should add another box to calculate the loss when alchemising items. Example:

This is just a concept and is not the final outcome. Comments? 17:53, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, but I'm not sure on the implementation... maybe it'd be better handled by exchange pages, organised into things like Grand Exchange Market Watch/High Alchemy, though I'd like to see more opinions too. 18:05, February 20, 2010 (UTC)