This talk page is for discussing the Template:Item page.
Replacement filing cabinet

Category:Stackable items

If an item has | stackable = yes, it should be put into Category:Stackable items. Chompy bird hat (dragon archer) Dark Behemothtalk Mining master cape 11:42, December 24, 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll create the category and have my bot do some null edits. MolMan 13:21, December 24, 2013 (UTC)


Guys I've changed the abyssal orb to 180m, it was supposed to be a joke, can somebody edit it back please?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) on 14:07, February 4, 2014 (UTC).

Do the God Capes from the Mage Arena protect in the God Wars Dungeon? 04:55, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The list can be found here: God_Wars_Dungeon#God_equipment. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 05:31, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Store Price

I was just thinking, with the rising amount of players doing the solo play where they can't trade with players, I think it'd be nice to include the store prices for selling items.  I think this would benefit players a lot because they won't have to test out one item to see what it sells for

Big Sardine 21:11, May 17, 2014 (UTC)

The [general] store price is the same as the low alchemy value. Weird gloop @Gaz#7521 21:39, May 17, 2014 (UTC)

That's actually not true.  Raw Trout is sold at 6gp, while Raw Salmon is sold at 27gp.  Low alch values are 8gp and 36gp respectively.  Big Sardine 23:32, May 17, 2014 (UTC)
EDIT:  Used a graphing calculator and used a few variables.  Looks like it's storeSellPrice = .75(lowAlchPrice) Big Sardine 23:52, May 17, 2014 (UTC)

The store sell price is 0.3 * item price, low alch is 0.4 * item price and high alch is 0.6 * item price. I and many other solo players would benefit greatly from having a section that shows store sell price (which would be {{#expr:floor({{{store}}}*0.3)}} ). This would not work for items that do not have {{{store}}}, though.
Another thing to note is that one can make money buying items from GE and selling them at GS at store price. It's hard to get data on sell prices, and having that data in the infobox would make it much easier to make money that way (with up-to-date GE prices, and a reliable sell price). --Alicecomma (talk) 18:30, August 9, 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any particular value in extending the infobox to add this. Especially since: 1 it is easy to calculate, 2 alchemy is better. Little benefit for the required work/inflation of template size. MolMan 18:33, August 9, 2014 (UTC)

"Little benefit for the required work" -- It's under 5 min work, and would affect every infobox with a {{{store}}}, immediately taking effect on almost every page out there. --Alicecomma (talk) 18:45, August 9, 2014 (UTC)
The store parameter is used differently than you think. I'd be required to check every instance to make sure no errors arise. It also wouldn't give the full coverage you want. Most everything can be sold to a general store, but not everything has the store parameter. You're left with a small handful of items that you can get the sell to store price for without performing this simple calculation. MolMan 18:51, August 9, 2014 (UTC)

Why exactly isn't {{{price}}} a variable which calculates {{#expr:floor({{{price}}}*multiple)}} for high alch, low alch and sell price, with possible overwrite parameters for special cases? --Alicecomma (talk) 19:06, August 9, 2014 (UTC)
It would over complicate the template. I also find it more friendly for editing and reading. Especially since, say we know the value of an item, but it doesn't give the proper value for high alchemy. With nothing overriding it, the high and low alchemy would be displayed incorrectly, but because they are displayed and line up with standards, the values aren't being questioned. Static values are more reliable. MolMan 19:11, August 9, 2014 (UTC)

The Exchange:*** pages feature an item's exact value. This is more reliable than someone's observations, and it can easily be returned by using {{Exchange:Item|View=value}}, which can be used to {{#expr:floor({{Exchange:Item|View=value}}*0.3)}}. If you didn't know yet, Store price isn't the exact item value either. That one can only be added based on observations, but the High and Low alch (and sell price) shouldn't have to. If the store price isn't the value in an infobox, it's impossible to calculate the sell price.
In short, the framework is there, which is already used for every (accurate) GE market watch page. I'd be surprised if it wasn't possible to add it to the infobox due to loading times, when there's entire market watches with hundreds of values being returned from Template:ExchangeItem. --Alicecomma (talk) 09:22, August 10, 2014 (UTC)
Araxxi's fang is just one example of value and alchemy not lining up. MolMan 12:50, August 10, 2014 (UTC)

a parameter for street prices?

I'm thinking it might be useful to have a "street price" section for tradable items. Some items have a different price on the street than on the Grand Exchange due to low amounts of trades, and there are also tradable items that can't be put on the Grand Exchange. What does everyone else think? --Ixfd64 (talk) 20:47, June 22, 2014 (UTC)

Not useful because they're impossible to keep track of properly and to maintain them. MolMan 20:49, June 22, 2014 (UTC)

Reclaim based on GE or Value

Item value Cost to save
Less than 10,000 0.15x
10,000 - 50,000 500 + 0.1x
50,000 - 250,000 3000 + 0.05x
250,000 - 1,000,000 10500 + 0.02x
1,000,000 - 10,000,000 20500 + 0.01x
More than 10,000,000 70500 + 0.005x

I was wondering how feasible it would be to add reclaim costs to the template if an exchange page exists. I have no idea how to add it myself and it would be nice to have it where if there was no GE it would base the reclaim cost based on the Value field. Thanks, Ryan PM 10:34, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

I'd probably save this until the template is rewritten in Lua. While it's not super complex mathematically, it's going to be pretty messy with parsers. MolMan 11:44, May 28, 2015 (UTC)


I noticed that the infobox has the possiblity to handle LP healed values for the edible parameter. I've not seen it being used anywhere, so I'm wondering, should we start using it, or just remove the extra code from the infobox? An example can be seen here. IP83.101.44.209 (talk) 11:15, July 21, 2015 (UTC)


Should a catagory be added for invention? Including scrap chance and possible components. 16:16, January 25, 2016 (UTC)
No. Use {{Disassemble}} MolMan 16:20, January 25, 2016 (UTC)

I was just wondering what the practicality is of updating every page for items that can be disassembled with the {{Disassemble}} template? Would it be more practical to ALSO add a simple "Can be disassembled? (Yes/No)" to the item infobox? This would mean that for items that CANNOT be disassembled, there is no assumption if a missing disassemble table template is just missing, or that it cannot be done? Also for items that CAN be, but have not been updated with all the requisite information for the new template? I would think it is going to take some time for wiki editors to add this information to every single item page, whereas adding this yes/no could at least provide the initial information much more accessibly? And then, if an item says YES for disassemble, more experienced editors can test in game and add the {{Disassemble}} with detailed information? I am new to the RS wiki, but have been working to learn how everything, well, works... This is just my thought, and I am wondering what others might think? --Jpconway (talk) 16:02, January 26, 2016 (UTC)

The parameter isn't worth adding unless we can match it to a cache value. Which, as far as I am aware, we can't. MolMan 16:04, January 26, 2016 (UTC)

Invention - There should be atleast 2 new fields added to this template. 1 for the junk chance of an item. And one for posible resources and the rarity of each one (this second one is just a list of the posible items). 22:17, January 29, 2016 (UTC)

READ ABOVE MolMan 22:19, January 29, 2016 (UTC)

Death param broken...

The "death" parameter is broken, it doesn't accept any value... Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) 13:37, March 8, 2016 (UTC)

It isn't broken. It's changed, and we haven't implemented the new syntax yet. MolMan 13:59, March 8, 2016 (UTC)
Can it be implemented then? :P Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) 14:07, March 8, 2016 (UTC)
Patience. MolMan 14:08, March 8, 2016 (UTC)
Okay :) *continues to Farm* Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) 14:15, March 8, 2016 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.