 |
This page or section is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. This thread was archived on 11 August 2015 by Iiii I I I. |
- Original proposal
In Template:Infobox Item, I'd like to see added another line - "Degrades". While it may seem like a huge task due to the large number of already-created articles with this template, and having to put "No" in the vast majority of them, I think it would ultimately add a lot of precision to the Wiki overall. While most (if not all) armour/weapon pages have Template:Infobox Bonuses (which already displays whether or not a particular weapon or piece of armour degrades), and adding a "Degrades" line to the item infobox would be redundant, there are many non-wearable items (cf. items without Template:Infobox Bonuses) which - I think - would benefit from the clarity of a item infobox qualification of degradation. Additionally, degradation goes beyond just "Yes" or "No", because sometimes items degrades to dust while others degrade to a "broken" state (e.g. barrows) or revert back to a different base item (e.g. crystal items), etc. Although this might be too much to put in with the item infobox, I think it would still be feasible to simply put "Yes" or "No", and from there, people can read on in the article if they want more details on what kind of degradation that particular item has.
- Amended proposal
I'd like to see the definition of what it means if an item is "degradable" discussed/expanded upon. While most (if not all) armour/weapon pages have Template:Infobox Bonuses (which already displays whether or not a particular weapon or piece of armour degrades), there are many non-wearable items (cf. items without Template:Infobox Bonuses) which - I think - would benefit from some more classification. Additionally, degradation goes beyond just "Yes" or "No", because sometimes items degrades to dust while others degrade to a "broken" state (e.g. barrows) or revert back to a different base item (e.g. crystal items), etc. As an end result, I'd like something along the lines of a category or a new page which would help classify such items, as well as bring up an important discussion about what it means to degrade. 
Paul Z Talk bite me HS 
23:44, August 7, 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
Oppose - I don't see the point. This is an extremely uncommon trait that is covered perfectly in the prose. Especially since most of their degrade mechanics are going to be different, a simple "yes/no" doesn't give enough information to be useful. If they want the information, they can read the article. It was written for a reason. We already have enough information jammed into infobox item. MolMan 00:04, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- Also, all of the prif crystal items have infobox bonuses because they're equipable. MolMan 00:07, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- The reason I'm suggesting this is I often find myself wanting to know at-a-glance whether an item degrades, and the information (if there is any) is often buried in the paragraphs of the article. As previously mentioned, having it in the item infobox would add a great deal of precision to the Wiki and its classification system. "Cluttered" seems like a flimsy way to shrug off the notion of added precision. The claim that it's a proportionately rare property is true, but that doesn't necessarily provide sufficient grounds for dismissal, seeing as most items aren't stackable, yet that property is listed there.
Paul Z Talk bite me HS 01:03, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- There are more stackable items than there are degrading non equipable items. Over 10% of item pages are categorized as stackable. How many would be categorized as degradable that don't have infobox item? Less than 20 probably. And cluttered is a valid point because if the purpose of an infobox is to provide quick information, there becomes a point where there can be too much information presented in the same area. MolMan 01:10, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- The reason I'm suggesting this is I often find myself wanting to know at-a-glance whether an item degrades, and the information (if there is any) is often buried in the paragraphs of the article. As previously mentioned, having it in the item infobox would add a great deal of precision to the Wiki and its classification system. "Cluttered" seems like a flimsy way to shrug off the notion of added precision. The claim that it's a proportionately rare property is true, but that doesn't necessarily provide sufficient grounds for dismissal, seeing as most items aren't stackable, yet that property is listed there.
How many non-equippable items would need this property? ʞooɔ 00:11, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- As it stands, I'm not entirely sure. The way I would go about finding that out (if this additional property were implemented) would be to filter items with "Equipable" set to "No" and "Degrades" set to "Yes", so that sort of justifies the need for it in and of itself (though I admit that does come off as circular logic). Off the top I can only come up with a handful of examples, but of course, if this were implemented, the majority of the items with "Degrades" set to "Yes" would in fact be equipable as well. I honestly believe it's worth it in the long run, for the sake of additional information, especially since many items are degradable in some way in recent months/years. It would be an additional filter, in essence. Paul Z Talk bite me HS 01:03, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- Can you name, like, ten of them? I'm having a hard time. ʞooɔ 01:14, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- Wicked pouch, medium pouch, large pouch, giant pouch, massive pouch, chimp ice, all enhancers from Motherlode Maw, all Divination portents, all food (because it degrades to rotten food from ghasts in Mort Myre swamp). While initially they may seem like a stretch, they would technically fit the definition of degradable when you compare them to what makes any equipable degradable item such as any piece of barrows armour degradable for example; it degrades due to a particular action - combat. The same can be said of the items I listed above - even something as initially counter-intuitive as food. Paul Z Talk bite me HS 01:47, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- The wicked pouch can be equipped. Chimp ice does not degrade. It does disappear, but I would not call that degradation. Food being turned into rotten food is not degradation. That's just the item rotting. None of the divination portents degrade, they get used up. Not necessarily degradation. The only divination items that would fit the definition of degradation are the porter items, which are equipable. Just to be nit-picky, the PoP enhancer does not degrade; its charges are used directly by the player by right clicking (so not all motherlode maw enhancers degrade). To cover all bases, I would consider anything manually consumed to fall under a different category, similar to the edibility of food. If you need to stretch the definition of degradation this much to create a decently sized list, I see no use for the category. MolMan 01:54, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- Chimp ice does degrade because it disappears from simply existing in the player's inventory and it must constantly be refreshed or recharged by ice spells. I'm not stretching any definition; you're arguing semantics and purposely being catty about this, instead of objectively evaluating the idea's merits. Adding a "degrades" qualifier to the itembox bonuses was a good idea, and so is this. It's literally the same reasoning. Paul Z Talk bite me HS 02:21, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- You're trying to twist every weird type of consumption or disappearing into degradation, that's not a good idea. Chimp ice is an extremely unique case that can't fit into any real category. I've evaluated the merits, and there are none that justify the parameter. You've failed to explain why this is as good of an idea as adding it to bonuses; it's not the same thing because there are many pieces of equipment (almost 10%) that degrade, all with similar mechanics. You've named less than 30 items that can fit a logical definition of degradation. That's not even a third of a percent. MolMan 02:42, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- No, I'm not. That's a fallacious generalization on your part. I'm sticking to the very definition of what is degradable. I've made sure to steer clear of consumable or transformable items, as I'm well-aware of the distinction. I've thoroughly explained my position on multiple occasions. Refer to what's being said below. I never proposed the line be exclusive to non-equipable degrading items; I said it should be added to all degradable items, regardless of whether or not they're equipable. Paul Z Talk bite me HS 02:57, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- Food transforms into rotten food. You're stretching the definition. MolMan 03:01, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- No, I'm not. That's a fallacious generalization on your part. I'm sticking to the very definition of what is degradable. I've made sure to steer clear of consumable or transformable items, as I'm well-aware of the distinction. I've thoroughly explained my position on multiple occasions. Refer to what's being said below. I never proposed the line be exclusive to non-equipable degrading items; I said it should be added to all degradable items, regardless of whether or not they're equipable.
- You're trying to twist every weird type of consumption or disappearing into degradation, that's not a good idea. Chimp ice is an extremely unique case that can't fit into any real category. I've evaluated the merits, and there are none that justify the parameter. You've failed to explain why this is as good of an idea as adding it to bonuses; it's not the same thing because there are many pieces of equipment (almost 10%) that degrade, all with similar mechanics. You've named less than 30 items that can fit a logical definition of degradation. That's not even a third of a percent. MolMan 02:42, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- Chimp ice does degrade because it disappears from simply existing in the player's inventory and it must constantly be refreshed or recharged by ice spells. I'm not stretching any definition; you're arguing semantics and purposely being catty about this, instead of objectively evaluating the idea's merits. Adding a "degrades" qualifier to the itembox bonuses was a good idea, and so is this. It's literally the same reasoning.
- The wicked pouch can be equipped. Chimp ice does not degrade. It does disappear, but I would not call that degradation. Food being turned into rotten food is not degradation. That's just the item rotting. None of the divination portents degrade, they get used up. Not necessarily degradation. The only divination items that would fit the definition of degradation are the porter items, which are equipable. Just to be nit-picky, the PoP enhancer does not degrade; its charges are used directly by the player by right clicking (so not all motherlode maw enhancers degrade). To cover all bases, I would consider anything manually consumed to fall under a different category, similar to the edibility of food. If you need to stretch the definition of degradation this much to create a decently sized list, I see no use for the category. MolMan 01:54, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- Wicked pouch, medium pouch, large pouch, giant pouch, massive pouch, chimp ice, all enhancers from Motherlode Maw, all Divination portents, all food (because it degrades to rotten food from ghasts in Mort Myre swamp). While initially they may seem like a stretch, they would technically fit the definition of degradable when you compare them to what makes any equipable degradable item such as any piece of barrows armour degradable for example; it degrades due to a particular action - combat. The same can be said of the items I listed above - even something as initially counter-intuitive as food.
- I just seriously question whether we can do this with anything approaching consistency. You mention stackable items, but it's painfully obvious whether an item is stackable or not -- it's a flag that Jagex sets that's actually even stored client-side. Ditto for members, tradeable, equipable, lendable...these are unambiguous, hard-coded things that leave very little to interpretation. This is clearly not the case for the proposed degrades parameter -- we already can't agree on a standard, and are fighting over whether food should be classified as such because of ghasts (I personally think this is rather silly, as ghasts turning things to rotten food is a fairly unimportant mechanic that would just be confusing to readers if we referred to food that way solely because of rotten food). But that's beside the point. I don't see the number of pages as particularly relevant, because we'd presumably (like for "edible") hide it for non-degrading items. My issue is more that we'd 99% of the time be just duplicating data from the bonuses infobox, which makes things confusing for readers and also harder to maintain. Furthermore, degradeability is not just a boolean thing -- what actually makes item degradation interesting is its properties: how long does it last for, and what's the final state? We can't represent that with just yes or no, and by expanding our definition of degrading, we make it much harder to intuitively understand our arbitrary definition. For armour, it's almost always "it degrades to broken/dust after n hits", and people know this. Even the reasonable items you suggested (pouches, enhancers) don't have such a straightforward description of how they degrade.
- I'm all for formalizing more about the process by which items become other items, but this proposal doesn't really fix anything and just makes the infobox harder to follow as a reader and harder to reason about as an editor. ʞooɔ 12:27, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- Can you name, like, ten of them? I'm having a hard time. ʞooɔ 01:14, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - The property would only apply to a very small amount of pages in comparison to the amount of pages that use the infobox, not at all worth it. And food isn't degradable. Nty Star Talk 
02:00, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- At the very least, there should be a "Degradable items" page and category, like there is for stackable items. I'm well-aware of Degradation, but that only covers equipable degradable items. My logic is if stackable gets a spot in item infobox and its own category and page, then degradable should get the same treatment. Paul Z Talk bite me HS 02:21, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- I'd be open to merging Category:Degrading equipment into just a Category:Degradable, as the small amount of non-equipable degrading things don't deserve their own category Star Talk 02:29, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to convey; I never meant to have a separate category for just non-equipable degrading items, I just wanted a generalization of degradation to include those few non-equipable degrading items. For me, the logical step-up from that would be to include the "Degrades" qualifier on the infobox item rather than on the infobox bonuses. That way all items can be seen if they degrade or not; degrading equipment included. Paul Z Talk bite me HS 02:38, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- In my opinion, they could deserve their own subcategory, but I'm not strictly against a merge. MolMan 02:42, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, but then you said the at the very least the category, and as the infobox doesn't seem to be getting much support so far then that'd be the more preferable outcome. Or a subcategory as Mol said. Star Talk 02:50, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- Move the degrading tag from the bonuses box to the item infobox, and also expand the category of degrading to include non-equipable degrading items. It's really simple. Mol, you appear to agree with my overall proposal given what you've just said. Paul Z Talk bite me HS 02:57, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- That's what was meant by merging the degrading equipment category into a general degradable category. I still oppose moving the degrading tag to the infobox, per Mol. Star Talk 03:03, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- No, I don't. I completely understand that your proposal is to move the degradable parameter to the item infobox and to include equipment there as well. I don't agree with it one bit. The degradation is most relevant in the bonuses infobox, that's where it should be. There are not enough non-equipable items to justify putting it in infobox item instead. MolMan 03:01, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- Degradation is most relevant in the item infobox, because degradation is a property comparable to stackability, equipability, tradeability, etc. It has no place among statistics about the item's strength's and weaknesses. Furthermore, the very fact that there are non-equipable degrading items warrants the displacement of the degradation qualifier from the bonuses infobox to the item infobox. You lose all sense of generality when you limit a broad definition to a subset of itself. Paul Z Talk bite me HS 03:09, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- It's a fundamental and common property of equipment. It's not applicable to 99.9% of non-equipable items. As degradation in this definition (the one that's actually applicable to a significant number of items), is specific to combat, it is most relevant in the bonuses infobox. MolMan 03:12, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- It's not exclusive to equipment, which is the entire motivation behind my point. As previously mentioned, some items degrade from simply being worn. Ergo, degradation is not at all inherent to combat. Paul Z Talk bite me HS 03:20, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- With the non combat items being a selection less than 30. Ergo, not worth it. MolMan 03:23, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- "Not worth it" is the laziest excuse anyone could come up with in this situation. The suggestion I'm making has merit and deserves to be implemented, whether or not two community members don't feel like it's worth it. I see that as a projection of sloth towards labour-intensive yet beneficial improvements to the site. For shame. Paul Z Talk bite me HS 03:28, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- "Not worth it" is the laziest excuse anyone could come up with in this situation. The suggestion I'm making has merit and deserves to be implemented, whether or not two community members don't feel like it's worth it. I see that as a projection of sloth towards labour-intensive yet beneficial improvements to the site. For shame.
- With the non combat items being a selection less than 30. Ergo, not worth it. MolMan 03:23, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- It's not exclusive to equipment, which is the entire motivation behind my point. As previously mentioned, some items degrade from simply being worn. Ergo, degradation is not at all inherent to combat.
- It's a fundamental and common property of equipment. It's not applicable to 99.9% of non-equipable items. As degradation in this definition (the one that's actually applicable to a significant number of items), is specific to combat, it is most relevant in the bonuses infobox. MolMan 03:12, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- Degradation is most relevant in the item infobox, because degradation is a property comparable to stackability, equipability, tradeability, etc. It has no place among statistics about the item's strength's and weaknesses. Furthermore, the very fact that there are non-equipable degrading items warrants the displacement of the degradation qualifier from the bonuses infobox to the item infobox. You lose all sense of generality when you limit a broad definition to a subset of itself.
- That's what was meant by merging the degrading equipment category into a general degradable category. I still oppose moving the degrading tag to the infobox, per Mol. Star Talk
- Move the degrading tag from the bonuses box to the item infobox, and also expand the category of degrading to include non-equipable degrading items. It's really simple. Mol, you appear to agree with my overall proposal given what you've just said.
- Yes, but then you said the at the very least the category, and as the infobox doesn't seem to be getting much support so far then that'd be the more preferable outcome. Or a subcategory as Mol said. Star Talk
- I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to convey; I never meant to have a separate category for just non-equipable degrading items, I just wanted a generalization of degradation to include those few non-equipable degrading items. For me, the logical step-up from that would be to include the "Degrades" qualifier on the infobox item rather than on the infobox bonuses. That way all items can be seen if they degrade or not; degrading equipment included.
- I'd be open to merging Category:Degrading equipment into just a Category:Degradable, as the small amount of non-equipable degrading things don't deserve their own category Star Talk
Oppose - I would venture that less than 0.1% of items are degradable. Probably a fraction of that. Waste of whoever has to do the editing's time to upgrade it for that. If you want to quick check if an item degrades, Ctrl+F for degr and that'll show you. Otherwise, how long do you think updating all items would take, and are you willing to do it all yourself?
Immo Voted Worst Wikian 2013 
03:29, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- It's an easily bottable task. Also, as addressed on multiple occassions, just because it's a daunting task to to the large number of already-created item pages does not mean the idea does not is not good or doesn't deserve to be implemented. Worst case scenario is I'd do it myself. Your gripes with this suggestion aren't valid. Paul Z Talk bite me HS 03:35, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- You are far too emotionally involved in this idea to look at it objectively. How many people use the wiki to check if an item degrades? Immo Voted Worst Wikian 2013 03:38, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- Emotionally involved? You've got to be kidding me. The idea is objectively worthy of implementation. Again, as I've stated many times before, when I look at pages I often want to know if an item is degradable. The very fact that the bonuses infobox has it inherently indicates merit. Paul Z Talk bite me HS 04:40, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- So we should put locations the items can be found in the infobox because the NPC infobox has it? Or the gender for items? Because some items have gender, such as Monkey (item). It only benefits a small number of pages, but when I look at that page, I want to be able to look at the infobox for all that info. Never mind that it could be in the prose. Some items have the ability to produce sound. The fact that Template:Infobox Emote has a sound parameter inherently indicates merit for that. MolMan 04:46, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- Ah now you're committing a classic fallacy. You're comparing apples and oranges. I'm only talking about items here. Not emotes, not NPCs, items. Now please, stop trying to dismantle my argument by using a logical fallacy. It sort of undermines your credibility. Paul Z Talk bite me HS 05:11, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- And you're picking and choosing what to respond to, and building a strawman. Most of his points refer to items, so the fact you've only responded to the NPC part is ridiculous Immo Voted Worst Wikian 2013 20:37, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- I'm directly responding to everything that has been posted on this entire topic. I'm not at all picking and choosing what to respond to and building a strawman. His entire argument rests on comparisons between NPCs and items, and emotes and items. His singular example of a Monkey (item) is invalid, since the question of gender is inherent to an entirely different subsets of articles. Not only that, but it also touches on something I purposely avoided in my original proposal: pets. Either way, degradable items are either equipable or non-equipable, but the main thing is they're all exclusively items. How about you stop with the off-topic personal attacks and focus on the most recent statements in this topic? Paul Z Talk bite me HS 20:50, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- I'm directly responding to everything that has been posted on this entire topic. I'm not at all picking and choosing what to respond to and building a strawman. His entire argument rests on comparisons between NPCs and items, and emotes and items. His singular example of a Monkey (item) is invalid, since the question of gender is inherent to an entirely different subsets of articles. Not only that, but it also touches on something I purposely avoided in my original proposal: pets. Either way, degradable items are either equipable or non-equipable, but the main thing is they're all exclusively items. How about you stop with the off-topic personal attacks and focus on the most recent statements in this topic?
- And you're picking and choosing what to respond to, and building a strawman. Most of his points refer to items, so the fact you've only responded to the NPC part is ridiculous
- Ah now you're committing a classic fallacy. You're comparing apples and oranges. I'm only talking about items here. Not emotes, not NPCs, items. Now please, stop trying to dismantle my argument by using a logical fallacy. It sort of undermines your credibility.
- So we should put locations the items can be found in the infobox because the NPC infobox has it? Or the gender for items? Because some items have gender, such as Monkey (item). It only benefits a small number of pages, but when I look at that page, I want to be able to look at the infobox for all that info. Never mind that it could be in the prose. Some items have the ability to produce sound. The fact that Template:Infobox Emote has a sound parameter inherently indicates merit for that. MolMan 04:46, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- Emotionally involved? You've got to be kidding me. The idea is objectively worthy of implementation. Again, as I've stated many times before, when I look at pages I often want to know if an item is degradable. The very fact that the bonuses infobox has it inherently indicates merit.
- You are far too emotionally involved in this idea to look at it objectively. How many people use the wiki to check if an item degrades?
- When you say "easily bottable", how much have you looked into the technical requirements of doing so? Is there a list somewhere of items that degrade according to your definition of degradation? User:Cqm/Signature
- Whether I've looked into or not is entirely irrelevant. Regardless, as I've just conceded above, how about a category for non-equipable degrading items? Paul Z Talk bite me HS 15:58, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- Except it's not irrelevant. It's all very well and good having these ideas, but someone has to be able to implement it. I can see how degradable equipment can be identified, but the rest is rather ambiguous and thus requires manual changes.
- I'm all for something to identify the sort of items you're mentioning, although I think there's some confusion here between degradable and usable (as in a set number of uses). For example, some of the motherlode maw enhancers seem more akin to a ring of recoil rather than runecrafting pouch. User:Cqm/Signature
- Whether I've looked into or not is entirely irrelevant. Regardless, as I've just conceded above, how about a category for non-equipable degrading items?
- When you say "easily bottable", how much have you looked into the technical requirements of doing so? Is there a list somewhere of items that degrade according to your definition of degradation? User:Cqm/Signature
Meh - I don't really think it needs to be in the infobox, but whatever. I feel like the prose needs more work though - standardising it, getting/verifying the number of charges (since 'this item lasts x hours' is vague) and expanding degradation would serve us better. 
@Gaz#7521 17:50, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- Well it seems that something is going to be done to a certain extent. If not adding it to the item infobox then it seems a category would be a decent alternative. Paul Z Talk bite me HS 19:07, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
- Adding/merging into the category is fine by me. I'd just like the degrade mechanics to be clarified and expanded per this thread. @Gaz#7521 14:05, August 9, 2015 (UTC)
- Equipment should remain distinct from whatever we decide to define as "degradation" for items. As such, I'd prefer a separate category. I guess degrading equipment could be a subcategory of that new one. MolMan 14:07, August 9, 2015 (UTC)
- Adding/merging into the category is fine by me. I'd just like the degrade mechanics to be clarified and expanded per this thread.
Oppose - per Mol Man's comments. --Deltaslug (talk) 13:45, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
- All of which have been thoroughly refuted and we're at a much later stage in the discussion. At least try to be well-informed. Paul Z Talk bite me HS 14:32, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
- There's no need to be rude. Also, you did a very poor job at refuting. People are allowed to participate in this discussion until it's closed. I can understand wanting to reply to every comment, but at least try to make a useful response. MolMan 14:33, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
- Hahaha I'm not at all being rude. I did an impeccable job at refuting your poorly-construed arguments. I never said people couldn't participate; I said if he's going to come into it this late, he should at least try and be well-informed. Speaking of useless responses, yours would be a textbook definition. You've been consistently fallaciously attempting to reciprocate the general style of comments I've made, and it only serves to demonstrate how you've got nothing legitimate to say. This is my topic, and I will stay on top of replying to every comment. We've already come to a general consensus about it, so there's no point blowing smoke up each other's asses. Paul Z Talk bite me HS 18:06, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
- Hahaha I'm not at all being rude. I did an impeccable job at refuting your poorly-construed arguments. I never said people couldn't participate; I said if he's going to come into it this late, he should at least try and be well-informed. Speaking of useless responses, yours would be a textbook definition. You've been consistently fallaciously attempting to reciprocate the general style of comments I've made, and it only serves to demonstrate how you've got nothing legitimate to say. This is my topic, and I will stay on top of replying to every comment. We've already come to a general consensus about it, so there's no point blowing smoke up each other's asses.
- There's no need to be rude. Also, you did a very poor job at refuting. People are allowed to participate in this discussion until it's closed. I can understand wanting to reply to every comment, but at least try to make a useful response. MolMan 14:33, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
Oppose/Comment - This seems pointless. How many items, outside of armour, would actually benefit from this? What also qualifies as degradation? You can say jewellery charges degrade; are you going to change those pages as well. This is just going to cause more trouble to try to clarify things than it's worth. I rather just change the Infobox Bonuses display something other than yes/no; degrade to dust, degrade to broken, etc. would be more useful that completely reorganizing the infobox for items. https://i.imgur.com/BGUyLfN.png https://i.imgur.com/CJaW7Er.png 18:19, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
- Yet another person who clearly hasn't ready anything that's already been said. Paul Z Talk bite me HS 19:28, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
- You don't seem to get how consensus works. This is a place for decisions to be made on changes that affect a wide number of pages via discussion with the community. I haven't seen anyone be actually convinced by this proposal in any of it's iterations, and for the record arguing with any opposition doesn't constitute refutation. You need to explain to people why it's needed, why it's a good idea and if someone has further questions or doubts then explain it in more detail. If I were to close this right now it would be unsuccessful and I would be very surprised if I found any admin disagreeing with that viewpoint. For the record, I think select parts of this proposal have merit, but you're not doing yourself any favours by alienating anyone who might be able to help you realise your goal. User:Cqm/Signature
- I seem to be doing this a lot today, but...
--User:Saftzie/Signature 20:34, August 10, 2015 (UTC)Bludgeon: To beat powerfully with force with an object of great mass.
Bludgeoning the process is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. This can happen on a talk page, deletion discussion or in any discussion at Wikipedia. It is undesirable. If pushed too far, it may be considered a form of disruptive editing.- We had reached a consensus about the concept of creating or expanding a category that would help classify non-equipable degrading items. Before bringing this idea here, I'd briefly talked about it in chat mainly with Coel. He seemed to have supported the idea at the time. I have explained why it's needed and why it's a good idea. I have also explained it in more detail when questioned, and that's led to the current idea of having a category of some kind. There are too many personal attacks on this page. You've just said that some parts of my idea have merit; why not develop on that so we can actually discuss it? Instead you think that an objective idea can be affected by its proposer. Oh and Saftzie, I'm not bludgeoning; I'm defending my point. Paul Z Talk bite me HS 20:55, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
- We had reached a consensus about the concept of creating or expanding a category that would help classify non-equipable degrading items. Before bringing this idea here, I'd briefly talked about it in chat mainly with Coel. He seemed to have supported the idea at the time. I have explained why it's needed and why it's a good idea. I have also explained it in more detail when questioned, and that's led to the current idea of having a category of some kind. There are too many personal attacks on this page. You've just said that some parts of my idea have merit; why not develop on that so we can actually discuss it? Instead you think that an objective idea can be affected by its proposer. Oh and Saftzie, I'm not bludgeoning; I'm defending my point.
Oppose infobox and category - Since we really can't agree on a definition of degradeable non-equipment that includes more than about ten items. Of particular concern is the difference between items that lose charges (portents) and those which degrade. For example, I wouldn't consider rings of duelling or amulets of glory to be degradeable items, but they apparently would fit your definition. I also don't think knowing that these items degrade is particularly useful beyond what we could say in prose, and because (presumably) we would keep the Infobox Bonuses parameter, we'd just have a bunch of space being taken up by duplicate information. While it would be beneficial to formalize and explain which items turn into other items, neither an infobox parameter nor a category seem to be the appropriate way to deal with this exceedingly minor idea. ʞooɔ 20:44, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
- Also, if you've changed your proposal, I would recommend updating the top of this page. Most people are responding to your original proposal, which you seem to have modified. ʞooɔ 20:49, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
- As I've said before, why don't we go with that so that this proposal isn't for nothing? There's clearly something that can be taken away from all this. Exactly what at this point I'm not sure of. If not a category, then how are we to - as you say - "formalize and explain which items turn into other items"? Edit after editing conflict: I wasn't aware that could be done. Paul Z Talk bite me HS 20:55, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, apparently I can't change the title because that "breaks RS:FAR" according to IIIiililillil. Paul Z Talk bite me HS 21:04, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
- Modify your proposal meaning your paragraph at the top of the page, not the forumheader template. The name parameter needs to be the same as the actual pagename for when this thread is archived. --Iiii I I I 21:07, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, apparently I can't change the title because that "breaks RS:FAR" according to IIIiililillil.
- As I've said before, why don't we go with that so that this proposal isn't for nothing? There's clearly something that can be taken away from all this. Exactly what at this point I'm not sure of. If not a category, then how are we to - as you say - "formalize and explain which items turn into other items"? Edit after editing conflict: I wasn't aware that could be done.
Oppose all - Per everything above. 
ThePsionic 
22:48, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
- Why am I not surprised that you chimed in with that sort of blanket statement. Paul Z Talk bite me HS 23:11, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - Per Cook, doesn't seem feasible to me with our current things available. – Ozank Cx 23:14, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, yeah, because a category or page is totally unfeasible. Paul Z Talk bite me HS 23:16, August 10, 2015 (UTC)
Closed - unsuccessful. Nominator has withdrawn. --Iiii I I I 00:31, August 11, 2015 (UTC)