The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it.
The result was Keep
Tanning dragonhide MMGsEdit
So, um... I was told to create this page: i.imgur.com/jccFU3n.png
These are the money making guides in question:
It's the fact that they are misleading that I have an issue with. I'm 100% positive many players fell victim to it, and tried to buy hides only to realise they couldn't. Merchers/flippers have a hayday with them, and purposely abuse hide stock because of this. There are many players who have simply scrolled through the mmg list and looked at the gp/h listed within the table. This is what they see:
They don't click on the guide link, and instead take what it says at face value thinking they can just mass-buy hides and make gp. This also helps contribute to the whole "anti-wiki" sentiment a lot of players have; the ones who claim info on the Wiki is questionable. This is something I've personally seen brought up many times, and took the liberty of defending against it.
So, I'm really hoping these could be either deleted, or maybe edited on the table somehow to say "read description", or something. The gp/h it claims to make, is absurd - but possible, given you properly prepare and follow the guide as stated. The majority of other guides listed on the money making guide page can be taken at face value; this plays a part in why these tanning hide ones are misleading.
Comment - I agree on the fact the guides are rather unrealistic at times. Maybe rework the guides into taking account the fact there's a 4 hour limit? If that ends up unpopular, then it would be better to remove for now. --Jlun2 (talk) 20:07, March 4, 2018 (UTC)
Comment - It is a bit unrealistic due to the 4 hour buy limit, so maybe have the money making reflect that? As for GE prices and such, there are warnings saying that GE prices change and the profit can change depending on those prices. These warnings are on all prices and also at the top of the mmg page. --Talk-toKelsey 20:09, March 4, 2018 (UTC)
Comment - Put it into the recurring maybe? 15:57, March 5, 2018 (UTC)
Closed - valid concerns raised but there's no clear consensus on how to address them. If anyone wants to propose a solution then a discussion can be made again in future. IsobelJ 18:21, March 23, 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.