Forum:Wiki changes 2

Forums: Yew Grove > Wiki changes 2

This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 8 October 2010 by Azaz129.

See also: Forum:Wiki changes

So, now that the results are in, let's talk about it. The data can be found at [[RuneScape:Survey/Survey 1]]. I'm working on putting the data into a spreadsheet for download and putting the graphs into HTML vs. images. In the meantime, Discuss. --Aburnett ^(Talk) 22:06, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

Data has been graphed and is also available for download. Sorry it took me so long

--Aburnett ^(Talk) 05:52, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Question - Can you please removing the "Click here to participate in the RuneScape Wiki user survey!" from the survey archive?

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 22:12, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Assuming that this single survey was correct in the peoples opinion, it appears that the 859 vote majority says that any change to the skin would not benefit this wiki. Seeing how well Forum:Logo, Forum:Logo and theme, and Forum:Logo and Theme design feedback went, I'd bet that the default Monaco makes it different from the other sites, garnering as much views as it did back then. Personally, I'd rather do a bit of "here and there" work rather than a site re-masking (custom such as w:c:WoWWiki). But that's just me. Ryan PM 22:24, August 11, 2010 (UTC) (Minor changes) Ryan PM 22:32, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

Although I slightly agree with your statement that the default light skin makes us different from everyone else, the 859 vote is not the majority. Every other option in Question 15 was that the user does want a custom skin. Adding up, that is 1566 users who do want a skin according to Question 15. Let's also remember that the users who took the survey are probably the ones who love us. There might be 20000 players who refuse to use our site because of our poor colour scheme; you never know. Chicken7 ^>talk 08:25, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

I always use Monobook so I have an even more sparse colour scheme. While there are more votes for the non-change this means that consensus seems unlikely given past threads and the indecision in the survey. On a later note, only 15 text answers? Lame... Ryan PM 11:56, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The attention that we give the survey in determining our action should be cursory at most, due to this being a statistically inaccurate straw poll that is way too easy to jinx/manipulate. --Liquid^Talk 05:12, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Today's words of wisdom: Thou shalt be cautious about the weight thou give these results. Anyway, in a lot of these questions, the results were not clear and conclusive. Unfortunately, that restricts the action we can take using these "answers". 222 ^talk 07:16, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

No changes While a good percentage said a change would benefit us, the new desired color scheme desired is totally split. Any one we chose would leave us with less people liking the layout than we have now.--Degenret01 08:26, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

In Question 15, you could not select multiple answers. So the person didn't necessarily hate the answers they didn't choose, just preferred the one they did select. I can hardly see users leaving us over it. Chicken7 ^>talk 08:37, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

The majority was based on the runescape homepage, just some said light others dark. Also maybe when/if we do another one ask that same question but make it multiple answer.

Sentra246

09:24, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Yea, but there is no single other theme that will be more appealing to more people than we have now. If we change it we will simply be making a different group of people happy, not more people.--Degenret01 12:46, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I would rather see any colour scheme over the one we have now, but I could only vote for one. I would really be happy with any of the options, and I am almost certain all the people voting for an alternate theme felt the same way. User:Stelercus/Signature 12:48, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Everybody probably knows it, but I'm pro-change. Mark (talk) 17:35, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that these voters may not be aware of other "custom skins", how they look like, etc. \Mark (talk) 17:42, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Yes maybe the next one we do we need examples and multiple choice, because around 90% of the non-editor base wouldn't know what it would look like.

Sentra246

23:17, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Degen - What he said. User:Haloolah123/Sig 17:37, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

Look guys, when there is no clear consensus among our users/readers over a new color scheme, then we should pick the one that offends the least number of people. That would be a color scheme that uses conservative colors without anything outrageous. The current one we have fits the bill nicely.

Furthermore, I've reitherated this point enough times: this is a straw poll, meaning that it is statiscally insignificant, and we cannot base our course of action on the results of the poll. Don't forget that RS:NOT#DEMOCRACY also applies. --Liquid^Talk 23:24, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

How are we meant to get ideas from our viewers any other way, we need to do it and is there any other way than a survey that is not using consensus.

Sentra246

23:46, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

The active participants in this wiki must act like representatives of the audience as a whole. We need to ask: is it in the best interest of the wiki to make this change? My answer is firmly no, and those who want to change the skin should get a consensus from users, who would ideally hold the mindset of a representative of the general audience. --Liquid^Talk 00:49, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Here are some essays from Wikipedia you might find the time to read: Voting is not evil, Don't bludgeon the process, Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid, Common sense and decision making, The benefits of not requiring account creation on Wikipedia, IP edits are not anonymous, and IPs are human too. Nothing is set in stone and we cannot vouch for those not here. We weren't appointed to create accounts, nor were any administrators made so by unregistered/unvisited web-savvy individuals. Ryan PM 01:43, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

And here is a policy on the RS Wiki that you might find interesting: RS:NOT#WIKIPEDIA. --Liquid^Talk 02:23, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

We don't have every policy and essay from Wikipedia for obvious reasons. All of those are interesting reads and apply to our wiki. Also, they are essays, not policies. One more thing. I also disagree with your statement, Liquid, that our current Sapphire Monaco offends the least number of people. You can't know that for sure. As I said above, there may be 20,000 users who dislike using our wiki because it does not have a RS-based colour scheme. Therefore, they wouldn't have participated in the poll. Even then, we still had majority of users wanting a different scheme. It can therefore be safely assumed that the players who want a white skin like ours is a tiny minority, -%5 most likely. If anything, a RS-themed skin is likely to attract users, not repel them. For those experienced users who like the white, they can easily change their preferences. Chicken7 ^>talk 05:54, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Sorry if I'm being ignorant or something, but couldn't we make it that on the first visit of an IP, a menu would appear (similar to the one when we create a new page) and they could change the skin? This is something that could be done with cookies or something, unless they're banned on this wiki. Either way, I think the wiki would benefit from a new default skin, even though I would keep the old one since I'm used to it, alot of people don't use this wiki because of the skin (I know atleast one who doesn't...). ^Talk Newbie856 ^{edit count}Nomad guide 01:06, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm quite sure that's possible. Not sure if it can be installed here though, but it's a good idea! Thing is that we can easily add the option "revert to old skin" to for example the top right of the page (like WP with Vector) and have a custom one installed. Mark (talk) 12:37, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

When Wikipedia had there new skin in beta they had this so it should be possible to do.

Sentra246

23:49, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Comment from an expert - If there are 22,471 users on this wiki (including those who have made no edits) and 2,425 replied to the survey with 58% of those saying they want the wiki to have a new skin then we can be 95% certain that the figure is statistically valid to +/-1.86%. This is clear to me that the majority of people want a unique skin. I am a researcher in local government -- Mercifull ^(Talk) 13:54, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. But we also have to remember that most users were anonymous/IPs. Chicken7 ^>talk 14:04, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

If we'd consider monthly visitors the numbers will even decrease further. Mark (talk) 14:07, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

"This site is often found using these keywords:" Uh.... wow... and only 2% addicts? That's lower than I thought it would be.... Ryan PM 14:20, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Chicken7 ^>talk 14:25, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

I personally find it hilarious that we get 1/3 of the traffic http://runescape.com gets (1.1M <-> 2.9M). Mark (talk) 14:42, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Ok lets use monthly visitor figures instead of registered users 557,500... it changes the confidence interval to +/-1.96. The results are still statistically valid and they show that the majority of people want a dedicated skin/design/whatever. --

Mercifull

^(Talk) 16:06, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Surely as an expert you would have to add the caveat that these confidence intervals use the incorrect assumption that the 2425 replies are a random sample of either of those two populations: registered users or monthly registered/unregistered users. Clearly some people are more inclined to answer a survey than others, and it's not hard to imagine that those answering the survey like the site more as it is now. So there's obviously statistically relevant bias as well. The hard part is figuring out how the bias affects the issues at hand. I think I'm with Chicken in that a more accurate sample would probably push even further away from the status quo. Endasil (Talk) @ 06:30, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - If at all possible, I would like to put together a Project page that indirectly answers some of the requests/questions made/asked in the survey once we finish out this discussion. User:Stelercus/Signature 16:27, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Don't change anything - Sorry, but I find the argument "58% of users wanted a different theme, so we change" extremely stupid. In the question below that one, you can see that 35% is happy with the current version. If we changed to the most voted new theme, then only 24% would be happy with that. Question 15 clearly shows to me that this theme is liked more than the others, so we should stick with this one. bad_fetus^talk 11:26, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to note that most of these anonymous users probably don't know about other custom skins. And we're not just doing this because of the survey. Mark (talk) 11:36, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

I can't see any other reasons than the survey, which clearly shows that we should not change. bad_fetus^talk 11:37, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

It says we should. See above calculations by Bluesonic. This wiki is in need of a custom skin anyway. Mark (talk) 12:18, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Also, take note of the Main page poll, most people don't even know what skin they're using. Mark (talk) 12:39, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Also, have a read at what I've said a few times above. Just because someone chose to have a dark skin over the light skin option, doesn't mean they HATE the idea of a light skin. It isn't multiple choice; they had to choose their preferred option... Chicken7 ^>talk 12:41, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, best option would be to create yet another survey, include the Sapphire skin and custom ones and make everybody choose. Mark (talk) 13:02, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not the wiki is in need of a custom skin is your own opinion. We cannot and should not change the wiki skin based only on the results of this survey. @Chicken: the fact that the survey doesn't allow the selection of multiple choices is irrelevant-you cannot make assumptions about what other users may think, meaning that you cannot assume that people may like a certain skin even if they did not select it. --Liquid^Talk 17:03, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you. We shouldn't just go ahead. Though this is better than just concensus by a few users here on the forums. This way about a thousand more people may decide which skin they would probably want, may we do another survey on that we could decide (repeat may). Mark (talk) 17:09, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

@Liquid, you can't assume they like one skin only or none at all. Chicken7 ^>talk 07:55, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

Chicken, I don't know if you noticed, but it also doesn't mean they HATE the idea of using the current theme. Just face it, more people likes the current theme. I still haven't seen any valid reasons for changing the skin. bad_fetus^talk 11:14, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Reread the results of question 14... Chicken7 ^>talk 11:28, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

Question 14 is the most pointless question on there. It asks if they want it changed, it doesn't show what they want it to be changed to. You should instead look at Question #15. Majority wants this theme. bad_fetus^talk 12:25, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

The fact they want it changed is enough. As I've said before, Question 15 isn't multiple choice, so it does not mean they hate every other skin. They probably like this one too, as they still use the wiki. When you look at Q15 and say most people want the default, you need to consider that ALL the users above in Q14 who voted that we don't need a new skin are of course going to be the majority against the users who want a skin and have split 5 ways between the allowed options. Chicken7 ^>talk 07:25, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Can we just make another survey with just 2 questions.
Would you like to see the skin of the wiki change? (what is a skin) |Yes |No
What type of skin would you like best| option 1 (example)| option 2 (example) ect.
Note ( ) are links that gives examples/definitions.

Sentra246

08:09, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Chicken, you are assuming that people who want it changed likes all the other skins more than the current one. You can't just asssume whatever you want. bad_fetus^talk 08:30, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Likewise. Chicken7 ^>talk 11:24, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Comment I made a simple export, no formatting/etc, so it's messy. If any wants it, it's [[File:Survey results 20100814 01-51-38.ods]] .ods is an openoffice format, and most spreadsheet programs can open it, like excel. DOSX^rwojy 12:59, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Tables plox. 222 ^talk 08:50, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I think the best solution is to run another poll, this time solely on what skin to use, with multiple choice options. 222 ^talk 08:50, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

And with examples to make sure anons also see the differences.

Oil4 ^Talk 10:27, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Quoting from above "Can we just make another survey with just 2 questions.
Would you like to see the skin of the wiki change? (what is a skin) |Yes |No
What type of skin would you like best| option 1 (example)| option 2 (example) ect.
Note ( ) are links that gives examples/definitions."

Sentra246

10:29, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support 2nd "skin" poll - As long as it contains clear information/images on skins! Mark (talk) 21:15, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Note to everyone about assumptions - Let me be quite clear about this: to be scientifically accurate, unless we have valid data to the contrary, we must assume the worst. There is no data to show that a plurality of users prefers any specific skin, so we have to assume the worst, in this case that the voters like only that skin and hate every other skin. Is it accurate? Probably not. But, like I said before, this is the best assumption that we can make that is backed by the facts. The other assumptions are even less scientifically justifiable.

Now, there is the issue of whether or not the survey is actually scientifically accurate. For question 8, 955/2425 responses said that the voter has a Wikia account. That's 39.4% of responders who have accounts. Do you really think that this is a representative sample of our audience? Does 40% of our audience really have Wikia accounts? I don't think so, and for this reason, the survey is not a representative, random sample of our audience. It is a straw poll, which is one of the worst forms of polling and one of the least accurate. The straw poll in the 1936 Presidential Election predicted that FDR would lose by a wide margin. While I personally would have preferred him to lose, he won by a landslide. Why? Because the straw poll overestimated the Republican electorate and vastly underestimated the Democratic electorate. Same story here. We are over-representing our audience that has accounts, and under-representing the anonymous IP users.

So, let's please stop making scientifically unsound assumptions and stop relying on statistically horrible methods to determine our wiki's course of action. Doing so both defies logic and science. --Liquid^Talk 01:59, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Shall we ban established users from voting then? 222 ^talk 06:56, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

No, we can't do that. Really the only way to get a truly representative survey is to take the list of everyone who visits the wiki, randomly pick a certain number of those, and send survey invitations to them. I doubt that is feasible, though. Since this survey is not representative of the general wiki audience, we really shouldn't use it. For example, did you notice that the content, image, and vandalism removal questions had an overwhelming majority of those who thought they were awesome or great? That's because the part of our audience that thinks our content is mediocre was underrepresented in the survey: they weren't bothered enough to vote. That's why I've always been vehemently opposed to this survey and to basing any of our decisions on the results. --Liquid^Talk 12:51, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Thread is stickied - Since this thread obviously affects the wiki quite a lot, and is one of the examples given in Stelercus's Forum:Stickied threads proposal to modify the way we sticky threads. --Liquid^Talk 12:56, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Second poll

Every seems to be arguing these results aren't/are accurate, They don't/do hate the other ones ect. So why not just make another, much simpler survery
Question 1
Would you like to see the skin of the wiki change? (what is a skin) |Yes |No
Question 2
What type of skin would you like best| option 1 (example)| option 2 (example)| option 3 (example) ect.
Note ( ) are links that gives examples/definitions and the survey would be multiple choice (if technically possible). Sentra246 09:20, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Question - How would making the survey simpler benefit the representativeness of that survey? Oil4 ^Talk 11:13, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - There were two main problems with the first survey: it wasn't a representative sample of our audience, and voters were not given the option to pick multiple choices for the skin question. This solves neither of them. --Liquid^Talk 12:47, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

It says that it would be multiple choice.

Sentra246

06:10, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts from a researcher

Blurb

The Runescape Wiki is looking into creating a custom skin for the whole site instead of using the default Monaco wikia gaming theme. This will give it a more unique look such as the Wookiepedia, Halopedia and Memory-alpha].

Q1. Do you think that the Runescape Wiki should have a unique skin?

Yes
No

Q2.a. If you answered 'Yes' to Q1, please let us know what type of skin you like would prefer? Tick all that apply

Option 1
Option 2
Option 3 etc....

Q2.b. What would be your preferred type of skin? Please tick only one

Option 1
Option 2
Option 3 etc....

Q3. If you answered 'No' to Q1, please let us know why?

I prefer the default Monaco skin
I don't like custom skins on Wikias

About you

Q4. Are you a registered member of the RSwiki?

Yes
No
Don't know

Q5. How often do you visit.... blah blah and the other demographic questions.

How does that look to people? -- Mercifull ^(Talk) 14:21, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - That solves one of the two problems, but it doesn't solve the problem that the survey does not offer a representative sample of our audience. We cannot and should not base our wiki's course of action on a scientifically inaccurate survey, so my position has always been to forgo the survey altogether. --Liquid^Talk 14:32, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Support - What else do you propose? This will allow most users to vote about a new skin, not just us. Also, most active visitors to our wiki will vote on this survey, so it does offer the best "sample" of our audience. IMO this is best, so I support. Mark (talk) 17:11, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

What happened to RS:NOT#DEMOCRACY? My position is that you take the issue of a new skin up in the Yew Grove without any distraction, mention, or discussion of the survey. --Liquid^Talk 17:22, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

But it DOES get a good sample of the audience as I explained in my confidence analysis of the last survey. --

Mercifull

^(Talk) 19:26, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Yep. We aren't basing everything on the survey. We will also take the communitys opinion in consideration. If the community has good reasons to not get a new skin, then we won't get one. Mark (talk) 19:33, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Mercifull, your analysis only showed that the survey was statistically significant. However, you did not make any analysis as to whether or not the surveyees were an accurate representation of the wiki audience. Mark, before we use the survey as any part of our reason for a decision, let us first determine whether or not the survey is valid. --Liquid^Talk 19:51, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Mark (talk) 20:54, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Liquidhelium. Oil4 ^Talk 20:31, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Do note that Wikia plans to replace Monaco. I don't know what the time table is but what looks good or bad on Monaco may be different from what looks good or bad on this new skin. Also, the new skin will probably need a different CSS file. --Quarenon _Talk 20:35, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should put this on hold until wikia makes those changes? User:Haloolah123/Sig 20:40, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

That skin will take about half a year to go online. And yeah, it requires CSS changes. Mark (talk) 20:54, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Will this skin be the current wikipedia one? 222 ^talk 06:51, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

From the feedback I've read, and what I've seen, it's unlikely that skin is going to go live across this wiki. I personally hate it, and I'm pro-change; the conservatives will go psycho if it comes here. Look here for info and a screenie of the new skin. Chicken7 ^>talk 06:54, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

WTF is with name calling crap? Leave your "oh they are conservatives" BS somewhere else.--User:Degenret01 06:56, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Chicken is just saying something often typical of conservatives, I NEVER said ALWAYS. Also, your sig stuffed up. Just pointing it out. 222 ^talk 07:04, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Because it is said a lot does not make it okay. He can stay on topic. User:Degenret01 07:06, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I never said anyone was a conservative, apart from myself being pro-change. I can say whatever I want about myself; that isn't even offensive. And it is completely on-topic, as this thread is about changes... I have no idea what has got you so worked up over something so minor... Chicken7 ^>talk 10:31, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Helm. bad_fetus^talk 07:06, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - The new skin looks a lot more modern, unfortunately I haven't yet had the privilege of trying it out. Perhaps Chicken can give us an insite into it. 222 ^talk 07:09, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - A lot of people are opposing "per Liquid" despite me proving that the results would be statistically significant and accurate. Sometimes the way this wiki works seems mad to me. --

Mercifull

^(Talk) 09:26, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

You're not alone, Mercifull. And thebrains, they haven't released a beta yet I believe; hopefully I get into the closed one next week! Chicken7 ^>talk 10:31, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you will attempt to break something for them? Personally, I'd rather be able to force the available skins to recognize even more (the older/defunct skins) despite them being listed on $wgSkipSkin. While I can keep adding ?useskin=____ to the url, I'd like it to be permanent if possible via CSS/JS. Ryan PM 11:17, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Mercifull, that's because we believe you are wrong, and Helm explained why. bad_fetus^talk 11:23, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

And I believe that there is a teapot orbiting between earth and mars but that doesn't make it fact. A confidence anaylsis is a tried and tested mathematical formula used by research agencies all around the world (I work for one). If you are able to provide evidence to refute this then there will be a lot of people who want to have a few words... --

Mercifull

^(Talk) 11:31, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Mercifull, did you read what I said? I said that I did no dispute your confidence analysis; that is most likely accurate. However, I'm saying that the data you based it on is crap because it's not representative. You could make up awesome data, run a Mann-Whitney or chi-squared on it, get a really nice p-value, and end up with nothing but meaningless numbers. If the data you based your statistical analysis on are bad, then the analysis is meaningless, regardless of how good it looks. --Liquid^Talk 12:09, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Data has been graphed and is also available for download. Sorry it took me so long --Aburnett ^(Talk) 05:52, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I have looked through the 'additional comments' section and i found a few things were brought up a lot, they were:

Comments about the skin and logo
People seems to really like the trivia sections
Quest guides need to be more have more information in the walk-through, a summary of the walk-through and have a estimated completion time
We need skill calculators
Adds on some pages and other things make pages very laggy (enough for some people to leave)
People wanting the drop tables on all pages not just some (being implemented now)
More pictures on NPC's pages
Better quality GIF's and HD pictures
A list/page of all items.
Clue scroll pages and guides need updating
The new sidebar is good/ not enough links in the new sidebar

There was also a lot of positive feedback and people saying one of the best things is how quickly pages are made for new updates. Sentra246 07:59, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Can we actually make skill calculators? I mean are there technical restrictions? Ads, we can't do anything about. A page of all items. Serious lag! 222 ^talk 08:17, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, these were just the things that i noticed mentioned a few times that weren't "RSWIKI OWNZ!" and someone said "bukkitz" don't know who that might have been Chess

Sentra246

08:21, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Interesting comments. I think Trivia sections are not encyclopaedic, but quite interesting; many seem to share that view. Quest guides will be updated soon, including estimated times. We do have a lack of calculators. Drop tables are being updated on ALL monster pages; after that, we aim to make drop lists on the actual item pages. We already have categories for lists of all items, but we should have alphabetical lists with more detailed information such as a picture, GE price, alchemy prices, weight, etc. That's my opinions. Cheers, Chicken7 ^>talk 11:21, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

We can make calculators...just need to be good with js. (Not me). User:Haloolah123/Sig 17:54, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Drop tables are annoying. It really strains the eyes updating them

. I went through about 5 monsters and I was tired. Can this be automated (drop lists aren't standardized, so I guess no.) 222 ^talk 10:02, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

I was the one that said bukkitz ^_^ bad_fetus^talk 09:52, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

I could make (skill) calculators (just see Calculator:Woodcutting and Calculators/Mining calculator (albeit that one needs some cleanup on the code, it was my first calc)), I'm just lazy is all...

. In all seriousness though, we not only lack actual calculators, we lack the people who can make them and are willing to make them. I think that with maybe 10 people who can meet those criteria, we could have a calc for every skill by the end of this year.

^Talk Newbie856 ^{edit count}Nomad guide

06:02, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

PS: I might have said RSWIKI OWNZ....

I'm too illcoderate to make a calculator. 222 ^talk 06:35, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

The woodcutting one is good except i think one of things people want in it is when you type your username and it gets your xp straight from the hiscores.

Sentra246

09:13, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you know what guys (and girls)? I've decided that I'm going to make a universal calc row template (a row which will work with any skill and non-skill calc one could possibly make, assuming it's properly used). Alongside, I will make a calc for every skill where it is possible atm (dungeoneering is an example where it can't be done... yet, I have plans for that calc

). I will implement the things people want, highscore input and such. Expect this in a few days, a week tops (gonna kill the part of me that wants a time commitment

). I've been thinking about the universal row thing overnight and I realize I won't be able to get a good night sleep until I do it

. If anyone wants to help me they're more than welcome to.

^Talk Newbie856 ^{edit count}Nomad guide

15:58, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: Hmm... Nevermind the deadline, with the xp weekend announced, expect an additionnal 2 weeks delay. Sorry.

^Talk Newbie856 ^{edit count}Nomad guide

17:42, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... it's made but it kinda doesn't work, if someone is really interested in it, they could try fixing it or something (it's in my sandbox), I'm too lazy to do it.

^Talk Newbie856 ^{edit count}Nomad guide

00:25, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment - Discussion seems to have stalled, probably because there isn't something solid to oppose or support here. 222 ^talk 07:24, September 17, 2010 (UTC)