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)

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, [[Image:Kandarincrest.gif|25px]] Chicken7 >talk>RfA 09:51, 24 June 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. [[Image:Kandarincrest.gif|25px]] Chicken7 >talk>RfA 09:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)