Forum:Reevaluating item granularity

Forums: Yew Grove > Reevaluating item granularity

This page or section is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. This thread was archived on 17 December 2015 by Cqm.

Hey guys! I've been thinking a lot about our item database, and in particular, how we handle item granularity (that is, deciding which groups of items get separate pages). Currently, RS:G asks two questions:

1. Does item A have the same purpose/use as item B?
2. Can item A be substituted with item B?

This is a very weaselly definition, open to whatever interpretation one chooses. For example, a three-dose super attack emphatically cannot be substituted by a four-dose super attack in all cases, as only three-dose potions can be used to make extreme attacks. That said, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who feels potion doses should be split. Further, these guidelines assume that items actually have a purpose or a use, which is also not always the case. What's more, we're also not following even the stated policy -- it says items that look different should be split, but a quick look around shows we're not doing a very good job of that.

I think we should completely throw out the items section of RS:G and establish more concrete criteria for the different types of items that we bunch together on one page. The purpose of this thread is to discuss item granularity, and to reach consensus about what to do in different cases. I'm also hoping some people will be interested in helping enforce whatever consensus we reach, which will (probably) mean splitting and standardizing a bunch of item articles.

An argument for item granularity in general

You may know that every item in RuneScape has an id number associated with it -- you can see a nearly complete list here. We know a lot about each of the items associated with these IDs -- examines, weights, values, combat stats, right click options, members, whether they can be noted, their behavior on death, degrade behavior, and so much more due to what's stored in the cache. Take a look at this for a taste.

That's awesome, and it could enable us to keep a lot of item information automatically up to date with week to week changes. It could also make it trivial to add new parameters from the cache -- like maybe we want to include "unbankable". Unfortunately, it's not always clear what the relationship is between item IDs and wiki articles, because a lot of articles implicitly refer to more than one actual "item". Ignoring noted items, Agility potion actually refers to 4 distinct items, Gnomeballer's tunic refers to 8, Clue scroll (hard) refers to 124! This just makes things difficult because there's no one-to-one correspondence between item IDs and article names. I spent about 30 hours this summer trying to map item IDs to wiki articles, because we can maintain a much more correct and complete database if we have the actual game code backing up the content on some level. It also makes it abundantly clear which items we're missing, because there are item IDs that have no article mapped to them. If we had a correct mapping, adding "unbankable" or death behaviour or anything else we can find in the cache would probably be about an hour of work to set up a script to do it.

On another level, item granularity prevents us from lying to our readers. We say the super restore high alchs for 144 coins -- but actually, every single doses alchs for a different amount, and we're just missing information for three of the doses. Ditto for weights, examines, and sometimes even release dates (fun fact: four-dose potions in general didn't exist until RuneScape 2). Even when we include most of this information (agility potion), it's a clunky mess that's impossible for a computer to make sense of. We say the drygore longsword is tradeable -- but that's really only true for one of the three items represented by that article (the brand new version, versus the used and broken versions).

Now, I'm not (necessarily) claiming that we should split potion doses -- you have to balance maintainability and neatness with what's best for the readers (and not duplicating too much information), but this messiness is a symptom of not caring about how many distinct items were represented on an article. Whether we actually split the articles or not, we should at least have some concept of "data granularity" -- a way to programmatically identify which item IDs correspond to which parts of the item infobox, for the purpose of maintainability and truth.

The cases

I looked through all of the item articles that didn't correspond to a single item ID, and classified them into a few different groups, some of which are sort of covered by the current RS:G, a lot of which aren't. I think the best thing to do is to just decide on how to split these cases one at a time, superseding whatever previous discussion may have taken place about these groups of items in the past, many years ago.

I'm going to do something a little different -- instead of numbering each of the proposals and having everyone say "Support 1, Oppose 2, Neutral 3…" (which is nearly impossible to get any sort of consensus out of), I'm going to separate this out into a bunch of little mini-discussions that can each reach their own conclusions. Please leave comments on individual sections where applicable, to make it easier on whoever closes this.

I don't support splitting all of these groups, but for completeness, we should decide from scratch what to do about each of them. I'm going to put them roughly in order of how palatable granularity would be for that item group. This will let us build the item granularity policy up from nothing.

Things with different appearances and colors

Things like A stylish hat, Ghost buster 500, Diamond jubilee souvenir flag, Abyssal whip, Agility tome, Animals' bones, Artefact, Flowers, Gloves (Canifis), Mystic robe top, Bird's nest.

Support split - The current granularity policy asks for this. It seems like a logical thing to do. Discussion topic -- what to do about things like the Samba headdress? ʞooɔ 11:31, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Support split - even if there are many colours and types. Just list all varieties on a disambiguation page. 5-x ^Talk 11:53, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Support split  ThePsionic  12:38, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Support - MolMan 12:53, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Support split - Stuff like the different mystic armour sets not having their own pages has always annoyed me. Different values, methods of obtaining, ect. Wahisietel (Talk) 13:24, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose split - Same item, just changed a tiny bit. I'd rather give all the information in a compact, easy-to-use manner than split it up just to boost the page count Oil4 ^Talk 00:02, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Purpose is not to boost the page count. There are issues (which I went through in detail) with having multiple entities represented on the same page, and it's holding us back from doing some cool things in relation to item lists. Also, in cases like this we've often had informative "easy to use" item group pages (sculpting chisel, teapot, etc) that basically contain all of the general group information, while also linking out to the more database-like individual item articles. I think this applies to all of those identical comments, and it's really important -- having separate articles doesn't at all mean that we can't also have useful general pages. We're not consigned to just having bland disambigs for all of them. ʞooɔ 00:05, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

was meant tongue-in-cheek Oil4 ^Talk 00:07, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Ya but really, you've made the assumption that we can't have easy to use and compact group articles while also supporting these things as individual items. Why? ʞooɔ 00:11, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Because there's only so much time that can be put into it, and I'm not confident that the group articles won't be neglected Oil4 ^Talk 00:14, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Group articles are generally the first thing to be made when splitting happens. ʞooɔ 00:18, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Support - User:TyA/sig 14:04, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Partial support - It's case-by-case I reckon. For instance, having different articles for differently coloured flowers is a bit silly; they are identical in everything but colour, and splitting would add nothing. For bird's nests or mystic gear, the items have a different purpose (nests giving rings or seeds or eggs are sufficiently different to warrant different articles; these would not have the same information verbatim), respectively, are obtained differently (gl buying dark mystic from a shop). Fswe1 15:12, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Flowers have different examines and prices. Did you even look at the infobox? MolMan 15:15, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

True, but they are still all the same item for all intents and purposes. The examine is correlated with the colour and therefore different, yes, but adds no more to one's ability to discriminate between the varieties than does the appearance. The price might be iffy, but I reckon listing the prices separately in a slightly cluttered infobox is more sensible than splitting and having 99% the same information on those pages. Fswe1 18:54, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Rune platebody - Rune platebody (t) MolMan 18:56, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

are quite different beside appearance and price. Fswe1 08:37, December 11, 2015 (UTC)

split  @Gaz#7521 01:08, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

banana split - — Jr Mime (talk) _[VSTF] 01:23, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

Support split - as above arguments. Fearthe1337 (talk) 09:35, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

Support - As per the above arguments. Coelacanth0794 Talk 23:20, December 16, 2015 (UTC)

Charged helmets

Things like Antlers (charged), Full slayer helmet (e).

Support split - Straightforward split for a bunch of pages that will let us highlight the Summoning aspect of these helmets, which is essentially ignored in the current versions. ʞooɔ 11:56, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Support split - two chatheads next to each other never looked good. 5-x ^Talk 11:53, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Support split  ThePsionic  12:39, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Support - MolMan 12:53, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Support split Wahisietel (Talk) 13:24, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose split - Same item, just changed a tiny bit. I'd rather give all the information in a compact, easy-to-use manner than split it up just to boost the page count Oil4 ^Talk 00:02, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Support - User:TyA/sig 14:04, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Support - OK. Fswe1 15:12, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

split  @Gaz#7521 01:08, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

banana split - Split them! — Jr Mime (talk) _[VSTF] 01:23, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

sure - Haidro ^(talk) 05:21, December 14, 2015 (UTC)

Support - They seem to have a very different purpose once charged (would uncharged but enchanted be given a separate page as well?) The slayer helmets look like a huge mess to sort through. Coelacanth0794 Talk 23:20, December 16, 2015 (UTC)

Flatpacks

That is, split the 4-poster flatpack off of the article for the furniture.

Support split - I never liked combining items with non-items. We ignore a lot of essential item information in the furniture infobox, for something that, at the end of the day, is still an item. ʞooɔ 11:56, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Support split - Mostly to get the flatpack item pages done properly, cause I imagine there won't be much info left for furniture pages afterwards, but that's not a big problem. 5-x ^Talk 12:01, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Support split - While the flatpacks and the furniture do have to do with each other, they're not the same thing.  ThePsionic  12:39, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Support - MolMan 12:53, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Support split - I never really got why they didn't have their own pages in the first place. Wahisietel (Talk) 13:24, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Support split - Unintuitive Oil4 ^Talk 00:02, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Support - User:TyA/sig 14:04, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Support - How is this still merged... Fswe1 15:12, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

definitely split  @Gaz#7521 01:08, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

banana split - ThePsi said it. — Jr Mime (talk) _[VSTF] 01:23, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

Monkey-eating-banana-split support - Never understood why they were on the same page. Fearthe1337 (talk) 09:43, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

Support - Haidro ^(talk) 05:21, December 14, 2015 (UTC)

Support - Yeah, being the same page as the furniture seems rather silly. Coelacanth0794 Talk 23:20, December 16, 2015 (UTC)

Heraldic equipment

Things like Banner (Construction) and Rune kiteshield (Arrav) (which Mime already split a few months ago).

Support split - Logical extension of the splitting of things like trimmed armour. ʞooɔ 11:31, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Support split - Just because both lists of completionist requirements makes the page too long. 5-x ^Talk 11:54, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense. Not sure what I was thinking, but I support anyway. 5-x ^Talk 12:52, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Support split  ThePsionic  12:40, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Support - Duh. I told him to do it. MolMan 12:53, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Support split Wahisietel (Talk) 13:24, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose split - Same item, just changed a tiny bit. I'd rather give all the information in a compact, easy-to-use manner than split it up just to boost the page count Oil4 ^Talk 00:02, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

These are literally as different as rune platebody and rune platebody (t). MolMan 00:22, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Support - User:TyA/sig 14:04, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Support - Boo huge galleries. Fswe1 15:12, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

split  @Gaz#7521 01:08, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

banana split - Duh. I am the one who done it. — Jr Mime (talk) _[VSTF] 01:23, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

split support - Graphically different, and not just a style so to say. Fearthe1337 (talk) 09:44, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

sure - Haidro ^(talk) 05:21, December 14, 2015 (UTC)

Yes - Coelacanth0794 Talk 23:20, December 16, 2015 (UTC)

Dungeoneering duplicates

Things like Hammer (Dungeoneering), runes, charms, other tools.

Support split - we already did it halfway. These often have completely different sprites, examines, values, or other stuff we ignore. ʞooɔ 11:56, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Support split - but someone would then have to comb all Dungeoneering-related pages and change links to point to correct pages. Regardless we'd probably have to add otheruses template anyway. However we look at it, this means some significant manual editing. 5-x ^Talk 12:12, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Support split - Quite some DG items act differently in the dungeon than in the overworld.  ThePsionic  12:40, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Support - I guess MolMan 12:53, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Support split Most DG variants are already split, may as well be consistent. Wahisietel (Talk) 13:24, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Support split - Completely different item Oil4 ^Talk 00:02, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Support - User:TyA/sig 14:04, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Support - For consistency.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fswe1 (talk) on 15:12, December 10, 2015 (UTC).

split  @Gaz#7521 01:08, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

banana split - Diff items, technically. — Jr Mime (talk) _[VSTF] 01:23, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

support split - Consistency. Fearthe1337 (talk) 09:45, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

yes please - Haidro ^(talk) 05:21, December 14, 2015 (UTC)

Support - This would be useful for clarity reasons on other dungeoneering items. Coelacanth0794 Talk 23:20, December 16, 2015 (UTC)

Summoning pouches and scrolls

This is kind of the big one. Splitting off all scrolls and pouches from their Summoning familiar articles.

Support split - I never liked the way we did this, and as far as I can tell it was due to laziness and much more lax granularity standards back when Summoning came out (remember, it wasn't that long before that we decided raw chicken didn't deserve its own page). We're combining too many concepts on a single page, and it gets messy, particularly when we're not really treating items (pouches and scrolls) as items. It's annoying having to maintain two extra "lite Infobox Item" templates when they shouldn't exist at all.

Maybe more importantly, it gets really bad when multiple familiars have the same scroll. Say you want to learn about the bacon blast scroll -- what's your single source of truth for that item? Joke's on you, we don't have an article for that, but we have three crappy sections that all say the same thing! There are many examples of this, like the Call to arms scroll, and the hideous clay familiar articles. It really comes down to...they're items, treat them as such and avoid the mess of trying to pretend they're just attributes of a familiar. ʞooɔ 11:56, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Partial oppose - Keep familiar and pouch info on one page and split scroll info into a separate page. The only way to make a familiar of a particular type to appear is to use its pouch. I don't think duplicating so much information is worth it, it would just confuse the readers. 5-x ^Talk 12:24, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

That...doesn't really solve the problem. You'd need two very distinct infoboxes. And what's wrong with duplicating information? ʞooɔ 12:37, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Support split - This has been a pet peeve of mine for forever. There's plenty of familiars that use the same scrolls, and duplicating the same information in three sections on three articles is just bad.  ThePsionic  12:41, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Support - I've been meaning to. MolMan 12:53, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Support split An argument could probably be made for the pouch and familiar having the same article, but it's probably easier to just split completely. Wahisietel (Talk) 13:24, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Support split - It kinda bothers me how we handled this for a while. https://i.imgur.com/7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH _{(Actually Stinko)} 23:59, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Weak oppose split - While the argument that it's a completely separate item is completely true here, I think it's still much more convenient information-wise to have all the information on a single page. Oil4 ^Talk 00:02, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Support - User:TyA/sig 14:04, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Support - Maybe make a "portal" template that functions as a tiny navbox somewhere easily visible on the page that connects a familiar's article and those of its pouch and scroll? Fswe1 15:12, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

iunno, probably - give example post-split page pls  @Gaz#7521 01:08, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

Support - Diff item, diff use but still goes on the main page, may give a blurb about it and a link. — Jr Mime (talk) _[VSTF] 01:23, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

support split - Heck, I hate the lack of details on some pages what a scroll does and IF I see a scroll I might want to know what other familiars use the same scroll... Fearthe1337 (talk) 09:46, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

Support - This should have been done ages ago.Haidro ^(talk) 05:21, December 14, 2015 (UTC)

Comment - How will this work? What information would and would not be given over to the pouch and/or scroll pages? Coelacanth0794 Talk 23:20, December 16, 2015 (UTC)

Comment - If the pouches were split from the main article, we could more easily (without having an extremely cluttered page/box) show the breakdown of different methods' costs. As it is now, they all look insanely more expensive because (I believe) the Cost/XP shown is merely as if you can't sell any of those pouches. Dsctatom (talk) 23:55, December 16, 2015 (UTC)

Experience lamps

There are 47 items that start with "Small XP lamp", 26 of which are skill-specific from Treasure Hunter, a lot of others are slightly different.

Support - For no other reason than lamps being complicated to biject to item IDs, I think we should be as granular as possible here. See User:Cook Me Plox/Project Lamp for specifics. (Note that we are already granular for skill-specific fallen stars). ʞooɔ 11:31, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Support split - For consistency. 5-x ^Talk 12:34, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Sure  ThePsionic  12:41, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Support - This is your dumb project though. MolMan 12:53, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Support - Aren't you doing this already? Wahisietel (Talk) 13:24, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Comment - How would they be named? Sometimes, Jagex reuses lamps for latter purposes (mostly TH ones on Holidays). Should they be named from where they were first obtained, or some wierd generalized thing? --Jlun2 (talk) 13:30, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Support - User:TyA/sig 14:04, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Support - Though I ain't doin' it. Fswe1 15:12, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

split  @Gaz#7521 01:08, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

banana split - Have fun splitting them! — Jr Mime (talk) _[VSTF] 01:23, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

Support - Not all XP lamps give the same experience and a fair amount have different looks. Fearthe1337 (talk) 09:47, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

ya sure - Some lamps from different events share the same ID tho (eg: Small festive lamp). I wouldn't split these. Haidro ^(talk) 05:21, December 14, 2015 (UTC)

Sure - Coelacanth0794 Talk 23:20, December 16, 2015 (UTC)

Dungeoneering keys

Support - We decided a few years ago to merge them. Is there any particular reason? We can maintain the main Dungeoneering keys page while simultaneously having separate pages for the keys themselves (which remain items, even if you can't physically put them in your inventory). ʞooɔ 11:31, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Support split - Even though we now have the keybag, the keys are indeed separate items - you can now see them again in their item form when using the area looting interface. 5-x ^Talk 12:17, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Soft oppose - The issue I see here is that you'll get a large amount of pages with the same 3 lines on them. I don't think these keys warrant separate pages.  ThePsionic  12:43, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

The argument for splitting is that dungeoneering keys are just about the only other example where you'd be representing a large number of distinguishable items. The ultimate goal of this thread (one way or another) is to be able to tell programmatically what item IDs correspond to which pages or parts of pages, so we can automate things in the future. There are 64 items on the dungeoneering keys page. The way this thread is going, there's going to be no other articles with more than 10 distinguishable items on them (things like Potatoes). That's a manageable number for a single article. 64 isn't. It's going to stick out like a sore thumb and it's inconsistent with the rest of what we're deciding.

Also, there's nothing preventing us from continuing to have a useful Dungeoneering keys article. I feel like everyone is missing that point... ʞooɔ 00:18, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - Nah MolMan 12:53, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Strong oppose - After some annoying canvasing. MolMan 00:12, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Extremely strong oppose - Cook Me Plox called me a "faggot". MolMan 00:13, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Neutral - He says he's going to do it anyway, so my opinion doesn't matter. MolMan 00:14, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose split - Same item, just changed a tiny bit. I'd rather give all the information in a compact, easy-to-use manner than split it up just to boost the page count Oil4 ^Talk 00:02, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Support - User:TyA/sig 14:04, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - All of the keys have the exact same purpose and there's absolutely nothing that could be said about one particular type of key that isn't true for any other. It also takes a psychologically amazingly low IQ to not be able to figure out what the purpose is of a purple wedge key after reading about an orange crescent key. Dungeoneering keys lists everything there is to know and there's no need for every key to have a separate article other than splitting for the sake of it. While on topic, what about Thok-ised items and keys, and monsters, from the Thok sagas? Should they be split? Fswe1 15:12, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think Thok stuff should certainly be split. Also, I disagree with your assertion that the keys are homogeneous: the gold shield key, for example, isn't obtainable (and there's a particularly interesting reason for this). There's also, like I said, about 5 or 10 keys that have Thok doppelgangers. Certain keys look odd, certain ones have changed appearance over time...they're not nearly as identical as you might think. Also I disagree with the idea that our main concern when making individual pages should be that it's useful to readers -- even if we can't say anything that they don't know already, we should still have the page.

That being said, my main reason for wanting to do this is that we absolutely can't achieve article/ID correspondence without splitting Dungeoneering keys. This is a surprisingly crucial part of the overall plan. If you want to call this splitting for the sake of it, then maybe it is...but if you agree with the overall goal of making it easier to organize item articles, then it's for the greater good. ʞooɔ 15:24, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Mm, I guess, though the combined page will indubitably remain the most useful to the average reader. Also, you've piqued my interest; what's up with the gold shield? :) Fswe1 18:57, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

There are 64 dungeoneering keys 8 colors, 8 shapes. In the item ID list, the gold shield key is the last one. Dungeoneering floors can have at most 64 rooms -- but only 63 doors, because the start room obviously doesn't have a door entering it. There's a complicated correspondence between room types/locations and keys to open them, and somehow (possibly accidentally), it only selects from the first 63 keys. It wasn't always this way -- it was changed in a hidden update in mid 2010. ʞooɔ 22:53, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

sure, split  @Gaz#7521 01:08, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

banana split - — Jr Mime (talk) _[VSTF] 01:23, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

don't care -They aren't really going to get much traffic anyway... Haidro ^(talk) 05:21, December 14, 2015 (UTC)

Support split - 64 visually distinct items is too many to manage on a single page when there is additional information going with them (IDs, examines, trivia). This is a step towards data granularity that seems obvious when doing so actually makes it easier to make automated fixes. The group article will still exist, meaning key information is not hidden. Riblet15 07:45, December 15, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose There's just not enough of a difference besides visuals to warrant a change. Coelacanth0794 Talk 23:20, December 16, 2015 (UTC)

How do you propose mapping item IDs to articles without splitting Dungeoneering keys? ʞooɔ 00:01, December 17, 2015 (UTC)

Strange rocks

Strange rocks, Golden rocks.

Support - Why not? We have this giant table at the bottom of strange rock that explains each of the rocks individually, along with their separate images and examines. Sounds page-worthy to me. ʞooɔ 11:31, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Support split - Every page gets its part from that table. Sensible. 5-x ^Talk 11:56, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Support  ThePsionic  12:43, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Support - MolMan 12:53, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Support Wahisietel (Talk) 13:24, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose split - Same item, just changed a tiny bit. I'd rather give all the information in a compact, easy-to-use manner than split it up just to boost the page count Oil4 ^Talk 00:02, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Support - User:TyA/sig 14:04, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Support - Since different rocks would have different information with regards to how to (best) obtain them. Fswe1 15:12, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

obviously split  @Gaz#7521 01:08, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

banana split - diff rocks, one is richer than the other. — Jr Mime (talk) _[VSTF] 01:23, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

Not sure - They are still rather similar. Fearthe1337 (talk) 09:59, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

Definitely support - Much more useful to demonstrate how to obtain each rock.

Support - These individual pages should also specify information regarding their specifications n how to get them (what doesn't work, what used to work, stuff like that) once the pages are made. Coelacanth0794 Talk 23:20, December 16, 2015 (UTC)

Capes of Accomplishment

Support splitting on hooded, trimmed - They look different and have slightly different properties. This was okay when there were only two items corresponding to skillcapes, but all of a sudden there's 8: retro or not, hooded or not, and trimmed or not. 8 capes times two images (one for each gender) is getting out of hand. There's simply too much going on on a single page. ʞooɔ 11:56, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose split - until we have good images to put on all these pages. Currently every other worn image qualifies for retake for one reason or another. 5-x ^Talk 12:36, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

I would argue the main reason we don't have good images is because none of them are the focal point of their own page and nobody noticed how bad they were.. That said, the Adventurer's Log is available any time... ʞooɔ 12:50, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Support split - But keep the retro pages on the pages of their normal counterparts, since they are basically the same item with a slightly different appearance.  ThePsionic  12:44, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Support - 5-x has a retarded reason for opposition MolMan 12:53, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Support - They're currently a mess. Wahisietel (Talk) 13:24, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose split - Same item, just changed a tiny bit. I'd rather give all the information in a compact, easy-to-use manner than split it up just to boost the page count Oil4 ^Talk 00:02, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Support - User:TyA/sig 14:04, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Support - Do something. Fswe1 15:12, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

split  @Gaz#7521 01:08, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

yes please split - They are very ugly, so yes split. — Jr Mime (talk) _[VSTF] 01:23, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Would it be possible to like add checkboxes to the infobox and display of stats/images? e.g. we could do this with 3 checkboxes:

[X] Retro

[X] Hooded

[X] Trimmed

And let JavaScript handle the switching? Fearthe1337 (talk) 09:57, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose split - They're literally the same item, just displayed differently. If anything needs to change it's the galleries on the page. Why not just implement some switch-infobox sorta thing for the equipment infobox to display different images. Haidro ^(talk) 05:21, December 14, 2015 (UTC)

They're not literally the same item. Also switch infobox for bonuses already exists. ʞooɔ 07:58, December 14, 2015 (UTC)

Support split - Opposite of 5-x's reason. People will notice where the information is bad and where our pictures are missing and it will get fixed sooner. Riblet15 07:45, December 15, 2015 (UTC)

Support - Suddenly there's a bunch of new disambig pages Coelacanth0794 Talk 23:20, December 16, 2015 (UTC)

We'd probably be better off with a special hatnote template. MolMan 23:22, December 16, 2015 (UTC)

Multi-levelled equipment

Things like Broken heart.

Slight support split - Especially when they have separate names. I'm not a fan of the switchfobox bonuses. ʞooɔ 11:31, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose split - Often there's an option on the item to switch between the levels. From the reader's perspective, that's the same item - it just gets replaced on the spot. The switch infobox does its job nicely. 5-x ^Talk 11:58, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose split - For searchability reasons. Redirects and switch infoboxes should be able to handle this.  ThePsionic  12:45, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - MolMan 12:53, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Collection bag varies on Barbarian Assault levels. Does this count? --Jlun2 (talk) 13:26, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose split - Same item, just changed a tiny bit. I'd rather give all the information in a compact, easy-to-use manner than split it up just to boost the page count Oil4 ^Talk 00:02, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Oppse - User:TyA/sig 14:04, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - Fswe1 15:12, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

meh  @Gaz#7521 01:08, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

banana meh too - Not quite sure about this one. — Jr Mime (talk) _[VSTF] 01:23, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

Comment - If they look similar a switchbox should do fine. Fearthe1337 (talk) 09:56, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

no - Haidro ^(talk) 05:21, December 14, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose They still have the same function and are probably the same item with modifications on their numbers. Also, cook, what examples can you give me for "hen they have separate names"? Depending on these, I'd support those. Coelacanth0794 Talk 23:20, December 16, 2015 (UTC)

Food bites

Things like ½ anchovy pizza.

Slight support split - They're just different enough in my book to be split-worthy. If people won't go for that, then some level of data granularity at least. ʞooɔ 11:31, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose split - It seems to me this is hardly different from potions or jewellery. 5-x ^Talk 12:14, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose split - Per 5-x; some exceptions apply, like Half full wine jug.  ThePsionic  12:45, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Neutral - This comment has no value MolMan 12:53, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - Not really any different from potion doses. Wahisietel (Talk) 13:24, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose split - Same item, just changed a tiny bit. I'd rather give all the information in a compact, easy-to-use manner than split it up just to boost the page count Oil4 ^Talk 00:02, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - User:TyA/sig 14:04, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - Only if we split potions by dose. Which we shouldn't. Fswe1 15:12, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

na  @Gaz#7521 01:08, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - — Jr Mime (talk) _[VSTF] 01:23, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - Nothing a switchbox can not handle. Fearthe1337 (talk) 09:59, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

no - Haidro ^(talk) 05:21, December 14, 2015 (UTC)

Support split - Almost all item data between parts is different (name, inventory image, weight, examine, amount healed, ID). Some of the items have completely gotten ignored, such as the linked example ½ anchovy pizza not even going to the right article. The data granularity becomes difficult on a single article when this many things differ between the items. Riblet15 07:45, December 15, 2015 (UTC)

Minor support split - These are generally different enough to warrant a page, with their varying hit points and their fancy graphics. Coelacanth0794 Talk 23:20, December 16, 2015 (UTC)

Pets

Slight support split - This is a tough one. All non-companion pet pages are really one or more NPCs and one or more items lumped together in a single article. As was the case with auras, we're ignoring a lot of crucial item-specific data by not using Infobox Item. Still, any page splitting would lead to some duplicated information between the NPC and item articles. ʞooɔ 11:31, December 9, 2015 (UTC) After looking at some specific pet pages, I feel like this is a rare case where a switch infobox (as used on Clockwork cat) would be useful. ʞooɔ 11:18, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose split - Too much duplication. 5-x ^Talk 12:31, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with duplication? Seriously. ʞooɔ 12:36, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

There's a difference between logical and confusing duplication. Looking for a hat and finding out it has different colours is not a problem - the reader will just pick one of the pages from a disambiguation. However, looking for a pet and finding that there's a page for the pet as an item and the pet as an NPC poses a problem - it's not obvious where to find the information one is looking for. Will there be even a disambig for that? How to pick what info belongs on the item page, and what belongs on the NPC page? I'm just not sold on this kind of thing. Same applies to pouch versus familiar. 5-x ^Talk 13:00, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Or information vital to both pages could be on both pages. Not that they should be split. We should use my idea because it's a great idea. MolMan 13:01, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a disambiguation can be created for that. Also, on the top it can be written weather the user is on the page they want to read.  Utkar ▸ 

 Choose Option 

 Examine 
 Trade with 
 Follow 

15:19, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - Use the item infobox on item pets and have a separate Infobox for pets. Like what I did for seeds. MolMan 12:53, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Works for me, although we'd have to decide how exactly to fit the "Infobox Pet" if it's not going to always be on the right. Just make it so it fits in both places? ʞooɔ 13:06, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose proposed split - Because honestly things would get messier than they are already. All followers are linked to an item, and splitting would end up having pages like Baby penguin (blue, item), Baby penguin (blue, npc), Penguin (blue, item), Penguin (blue, npc). A nightmare to navigate and pretty unnecessary. We could update infobox pet to have more parameters though. I do support splitting growth stages, since they have different names, functions, ect. Wahisietel (Talk) 13:24, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose split - Same item thing, just changed a tiny bit. I'd rather give all the information in a compact, easy-to-use manner than split it up just to boost the page count Oil4 ^Talk 00:03, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - User:TyA/sig 14:04, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - Same everything, different colours. Tables aren't very desirable, but they work. Fswe1 15:12, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Thoughts on splitting off the hunter versions of the pets that you have to catch? (such as Squirrel and Gecko?) Wahisietel (Talk) 17:28, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. Switch infobox would become messy. Fswe1 18:59, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Good idea in my opinion.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fearthe1337 (talk).

definitely split hunter variant, probably split pet item from pet npc  @Gaz#7521 01:08, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

gaz ditto splits - — Jr Mime (talk) _[VSTF] 01:23, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

Switchbox - I'd say a switch box would be best for most of these.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fearthe1337 (talk).

Comment - Hey I think I did the clockwork cat switchbox, did I accidentally a trend Coelacanth0794 Talk 23:20, December 16, 2015 (UTC)

Degraded equipment

Things like Torag's helm, Adamant spikeshield, Drygore longsword.

Slight oppose split, support data granularity - It would perhaps be confusing to have so many different pages for what are to many people the "same" entity. But...we should still have some way of enforcing and displaying the fact that these are separate items with slightly different attributes. Perhaps something similar to {{Infobox Monster new}} in the way that it swaps out individual parameters ʞooɔ 11:31, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose split - Again, too much duplication. Infobox item new? 5-x ^Talk 12:31, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

When infobox item gets updated, it won't be getting a new template. Monster got a new template because it needed new parameter names and a new format. Too much more would be missing from existing pages if the original infobox was just overridden. I don't plan to change the syntax of infobox item in any way, except maybe making an alchable parameter instead of having to set both high and low to "no". MolMan 00:33, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose split - Switchfoboxes ahoy!  ThePsionic  12:47, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

No split - granularity ofc MolMan 12:53, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Wahisietel (Talk) 13:24, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose split - Same item, just changed a tiny bit. I'd rather give all the information in a compact, easy-to-use manner than split it up just to boost the page count Oil4 ^Talk 00:02, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - User:TyA/sig 14:04, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - Nay. Fswe1 15:12, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

switchfo  @Gaz#7521 01:08, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - — Jr Mime (talk) _[VSTF] 01:23, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

SwitchBox support - Many only have 3 ids, which are rather similar. Fearthe1337 (talk) 09:53, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

no - Haidro ^(talk) 05:21, December 14, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - Relevant information about repairing is easer to work with when confined to the same article about the normal piece of equipment. Coelacanth0794 Talk 23:20, December 16, 2015 (UTC)

Doses and charges

Things like Apples, Agility potion, Amulet of glory.

Oppose split, but support data granularity - Having 8 versions of the ring of duelling is overkill. ʞooɔ 11:56, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose split - The current presentation is fine. 5-x ^Talk 12:31, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Current presentation is not fine. Impossible to extract any useful information from a single infobox. ʞooɔ 12:35, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose split - This would get real messy real fast.  ThePsionic  12:47, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

No split - granularity ofc MolMan 12:53, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Wahisietel (Talk) 13:24, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose split - Though I think we should seek another way to get all the info to readers, like individual potion dosages alching for different amounts; kinda like the GE prices showing up for each version. https://i.imgur.com/7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH _{(Actually Stinko)} 23:59, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose split - Same item, just changed a tiny bit. I'd rather give all the information in a compact, easy-to-use manner than split it up just to boost the page count Oil4 ^Talk 00:02, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - User:TyA/sig 14:04, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - eh Fswe1 15:12, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

na man  @Gaz#7521 01:08, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - — Jr Mime (talk) _[VSTF] 01:23, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - Makes no sense to split them by charges. Heck, In my opinion it is a short coming of the game not supporting "meta-data" pet item :) Fearthe1337 (talk) 09:50, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

no - Haidro ^(talk) 05:21, December 14, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose not as cool as thanksgiving leftovers Coelacanth0794 Talk 23:20, December 16, 2015 (UTC)

Treasure Trails scrolls and caskets

Technically there's a separate item for each distinct clue…

Oppose split - There's simply no way to enforce granularity in this case in a meaningful way. ʞooɔ 11:31, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose split - That would mess up with treasure trail guides. 5-x ^Talk 12:07, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

No split - why does this forum use retarded apostrophes? MolMan 12:53, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Cook's written this in MS Paint text field. 5-x ^Talk 13:04, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose split - Just no.  ThePsionic  12:48, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Wahisietel (Talk) 13:24, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose split - Same item, just changed a tiny bit. I'd rather give all the information in a compact, easy-to-use manner than split it up just to boost the page count Oil4 ^Talk 00:02, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - User:TyA/sig 14:04, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Strong support - lol Fswe1 15:12, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

You monster Coelacanth0794 Talk 23:20, December 16, 2015 (UTC)

wouldn't that just become a spread-out version of fttg  @Gaz#7521 01:08, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - Nope. — Jr Mime (talk) _[VSTF] 01:23, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

Slight support - For easy - hard clues, no support. Elite clues have however 1 clue item per specific clue (e.g. 1 for each scan, 1 for compass) which I would support splitting. Fearthe1337 (talk) 09:51, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

no - Haidro ^(talk) 05:21, December 14, 2015 (UTC)

No - that's impossible Coelacanth0794 Talk 23:20, December 16, 2015 (UTC)

Logically distinct tomes

Depends - For item groups where we can reasonably identify a particular item (usually based on examine info, so like Scabarite notes or Ancient pages), I see no reason not to split. I've always hated having examine = Varies and then a big long list later on down the page. On the other hand, for a journal page, while there really are 20 distinct items, we have no way of telling the pages apart besides banking and checking the IDs in the Companion App. ʞooɔ 11:46, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Partial support - only when examine info differs. 5-x ^Talk 12:31, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Do whatever - Per 5-x, basically.  ThePsionic  12:48, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

No split - but granularity ofc MolMan 12:53, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Partial support - Per Cook and 5-x Wahisietel (Talk) 13:24, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose split - Same item, just changed a tiny bit. I'd rather give all the information in a compact, easy-to-use manner than split it up just to boost the page count Oil4 ^Talk 00:02, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

if they're distinct enough in inventory (icon/examine/name)  @Gaz#7521 01:08, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

^ - — Jr Mime (talk) _[VSTF] 01:23, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

Support - for Gaz's statement. Fearthe1337 (talk) 09:52, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

Support for items that have more than just id differences - As cook said, ancient pages are something I'd support for this. Coelacanth0794 Talk 23:20, December 16, 2015 (UTC)

Final thoughts

Jagex has (perhaps inadvertently) given us the opportunity to make our lives a lot easier, by exposing all of this data about item IDs. It's on us to organize what we have already, to make it straightforward to automatically keep a lot of our item information in sync with the game itself. It's conceivable that when all this is said and done, we could have a bot go through on update days to fix changed examines, stats, weights, whatever. Hell, we could even auto-create item articles if we felt like it. I have to imagine this will be worth it in the long run.

Another huge problem with being lazy about item granularity: it lets us be lazy about missing information. Take a look at any of the skillcape articles -- we're just missing a bunch of content about the other versions of the cape, missing images, all this stuff. It's easy to ignore because it's not obvious that there are multiple distinct entities being represented on the same page. Ditto with a lot of recent summoning scrolls: it's easier to ignore a terrible section on a page than it is to ignore a terrible entire page, so these bad sections stay bad until someone (usually me) notices and half-fixes them. It's not a coincidence.

Lastly, if anyone is interested in helping with this, let me know. I don't expect this to be an enormous long-term project, but it wouldn't hurt to have other interested parties. ʞooɔ 11:31, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Overall discussion

30k pages plz - ʞooɔ 11:31, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

50k MolMan 12:53, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Not before we start making pages for scenery objects. 5-x ^Talk 13:11, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Comment If I were to assist with this project, would I need to access the cache/whatever it's called? I'm not sure how I feel about that. https://i.imgur.com/7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH _{(Actually Stinko)} 23:59, December 9, 2015 (UTC)

Nope! All useful information has already been extracted, and it's mainly used to just see what we're missing. Pretty much everything you'd need to make individual pages can be found here. ʞooɔ 00:09, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Cache is a naughty thing on the wiki because we made it a naughty thing. Our having a completed Christmas Advent Calendar (2015) page was brought up on one of the latest streams, and the mod's response was along the lines of "They have their ways." I think it's fairly safe to say that Jagex doesn't care about viewing the cache, especially with our more recent growing relationship. Unless I misinterpreted what you meant when you said "feel", and maybe you just don't feel like doing it for another reason. MolMan 00:39, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Source 5-x ^Talk 14:09, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

The cache is pretty great though.  @Gaz#7521 01:08, December 12, 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Rather than doing a message in each section, granularity would be nice to have where it can help map out articles to specific ItemID's. I'm all for expanding the amount of articles we have, even though I do not necessarily agree on adding every version of a clue scroll as an article. We should get to that point where a bot should be able to create basic pages within minutes of a system update seeing as the tools are available from Jagex, even if they are unintentional. Ryan PM 20:15, December 13, 2015 (UTC)

Closed - To go through each section individually:

1. Items with different appearances and colours should have separate articles.
2. Helmets and their charged variants should have separate articles.
3. Flatpacked items of furniture should have their own articles.
4. Heraldic armour should have separate articles.
5. Items found in dungeoneering should have separate articles to their normal equivalent.
6. Summoning scrolls and pouches should be split from the summoning familiar article.
7. Experience lamps should have separate articles.
8. Dungeoneering keys should have an article each.
9. Strange and Golden rocks should have separate articles.
10. Capes of accomplishment should have separate articles.
11. There is no consensus to split multi-levelled equipment.
12. There is no consensus to split food that is eaten in bites.
13. There is no consensus to split pet articles.
14. There is no consensus to split degraded equipment from their non-degraded variants.
15. There is no consensus to split potions or jewellery into their per-dose or per-charge variants.
16. There is no consensus to split treasure caskets and scrolls.
17. There is no consensus on a hard rule for tomes, however there are cases where this is agreed to be the best course of action. Therefore, we default to RS:UCS.

All hail Cook Me Plox for merging 17 split discussions into a single forum. User:Cqm/Signature