Untitled[]
I preferred the very first version... Vimescarrot 18:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Merge[]
It has been proposed that Monk's robe (top) and Monk's robe (bottom) be merged into this article.
- Keep seperate. They look a lot better that way and are more granular. -- Couchpotato99 (talk) (contribs) 19:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Merge. They are too similar too keep seperate. Vimescarrot 19:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep seperate. Look at the wizards robes and some other robes, they are seperate articles. Let's try to keep a pattern going and keep things similar even if it takes making two seperate articles. Though similar, they are different items. Cbp 13 20:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oh Couchy, there's a difference between granularity and silliness. A 30 piece armour set is different from a two piece robe set. I don't want to see a new bucket of sand, bucket of milk, bucket of chocolate milk, bucket of water, bucket of ectoplasm, bucket of compost, bucket of supercompost, bucket of candied cotton swabs and broken pencils, et cetera since they are all so similar. And if in fact other two piece sets are split into separate articles, they should be put together as well.
Hyenastetalk 20:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Merge. There isn't enough information for each half of the set to fill an article. It'll end up as a pair of stubs that will always stay as stubs... 61.6.217.182 04:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Merge. I agree, this article is a stub. I came to the page to see how much the robes weigh, only to find that I need to navigate to two more pages just to find that info. There isn't enough info for each robe section to need their own page--let's merge. --D E E J E 20:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Strong oppose merging - Per RS:G. ~ 
Sentry Telos Talk 05:02, January 20, 2010 (UTC)
Better looking?[]
Okay, while we are waiting to see whethere or not the monk's robe articles will be merged together into here, we seem to have another problem. Which version do our editors like more? Version A or Version B? When I changed the setup to version B my edits were reverted, so I'm starting this vote. I believe version A is bad because it doesn't use equipment infoboxes and it puts both pieces of the robe in one item infobox which is wrong because they are two items. Version B seperates between the two pieces of monk's robes but shadowdancer didn't like it. Please vote on which version you like best, and edits can be made from there to perfect the set-up. -- Couchpotato99 (talk) (contribs) 22:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Version B because of the reasons I stated above. -- Couchpotato99 (talk) (contribs) 22:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Eliminated the issue altogether. Any attempt to revert it will be considered vandalism. Shadowdancer 22:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- You do not make decisions for this whole wiki. The vote is still underway, and you shouldn't put two items in one item infobox. -- Couchpotato99 (talk) (contribs) 22:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Eliminated the issue altogether. Any attempt to revert it will be considered vandalism. Shadowdancer 22:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- So basically we're trying to decide whether or not to use an infobox for the robe's stats?
- --Wowbagger421 23:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know what he's trying to do, except to look like he's doing something useful. Shadowdancer 23:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- And if there should be two seperate item infoboxes, and just the general layout. (Note: At this point I accidentally deleted Shadowdancer's post) -- Couchpotato99 (talk) (contribs) 23:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Don't take out Shadow's message. That's just going to piss him off.
- --Wowbagger421 23:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Too late. >_> Shadowdancer 23:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Guess so. You're going to get more hell from this than he is though.
- --Wowbagger421 23:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Too late. >_> Shadowdancer 23:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Version B. If and when people actually start using this wiki as a reference, it would be easier to see that the robes give no defense bonuses and just prayer bonus if it was in infoboxes, rather than having to read through. But it's only just tipped the balanace to version B, it was very nearly Not Bovvered. Vimescarrot 16:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey, we need values on these[]
Somebody bought the set from me for 100 coal, the noob. He set the price though, so it wasn't a scam. How much value did he lose? Mathwhiz90601 21:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well according to the grand exchange watch on the official runescape site, the top and bottom are worth 205 and 544, respectively. Less than 800 for the whole set if that's accurate, so he lost quite a bit of value if he payed 100 coal. Regabuh 16:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hairdo[]
Get a bald hairdo, then, if u r a male player, look exactly like a monk