RuneScape Wiki
RuneScape Wiki
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page or contact an administrator for aid if no talk page exists.
No archives yet

Removing obsolete fields


JaGeX will be implementing the 3000 coin differential on trading in January, and the store prices of items have been stated as varying with the Grand Exchange price. Therefore, I propose to remove the fields store price and street price. This will require updating the pages for the items that use this infobox to prevent mismatched rows. Chompy bird hat (expert dragon archer).pngDoomedrusher|Talk||Contributions| 00:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The "street price" may still be useful from a historical perspective. Who knows.... Jagex may reverse themselves on this point... so far as to allow a slightly larger trading range or do something that would permit genuine trading of items outside of the Grand Exchange again. "Player Owned Stores" are something where a "street price" would certainly be useful to know about... depending on how that gets implemented.
As for the store prices.... they are not necessarily varying with the Grand Exchange Price. Indeed, the knowledge base explicitly states that the maximum price for an item traded on the Grand Exchange is based upon the store price... however that is determined. I'm supposing here that this is in reference to the price that the "store stock" (not player stock) is sold for that you can buy an infinite number of those items from at a specialty store. There are some items that I have no idea what store sells them for at infinite stock... but perhaps I'm mistaken. Jagex still puts a ceiling price on those items somehow. It certainly would be useful to know not only what the price is but where they are sold in infinite quantities... or if Jagex is simply making this up. For instance, where can you buy an infinite supply of copper and tin ore? (the ceiling is currently 20 coins).
Perhaps instead adding explicit Grand Exchange floor and ceiling prices would be more useful? Unfortunately, I don't know an easy way to get these values unless they come within the +/- 5% range of the Grand Exchange price. There are many items, however, where this is the case, so it isn't impossible to find. Price floors seem to be loosely based upon the High Alch value, and I'm hoping that somewhere Jagex will clarify this issue soon. --Robert Horning 17:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The Grand Exchange floor and ceiling prices are exactly 95% and 105% of the market price (rounded down), respectively. I'm also assuming that store price was based on player stock. There is a mix of infinity price and player stock price for the items right now in the Wiki. Chompy bird hat (expert dragon archer).pngDoomedrusher|Talk||Contributions| 18:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I thought you meant the upper and lower bounds of the price you can buy at. Rod of ivandis detail.pngDoomedrusher|Talk||Contributions||Edit Count| 00:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary.... GE floor is High Alch plus and minus (Jagex really screwed this one up... trust me) the price of a nature rune. The price ceiling is the infinite store stock price... mostly (I've caught a couple items that got this one wrong too... but not all of them.
If you don't believe me, try to buy gold bars for less than 5% of the current price of 210 coins.... you can't. It has hit the absolute price minimum. Also try to buy a potato for more than 16 coins... the current price of a potato. You would assume that +5% would mean that you could buy one for 17 coins... but the exchange simply won't let you. It has hit the price ceiling.
Now what I'm talking about here is the absolute price floor and ceiling, not the daily price range. Yes, there is the +/- 5% rule as well, but that still has to fall somewhere between this hard floor and ceiling. And Jagex isn't exactly all that clear what these other price ranges may be.
For a few items (like mainly buckets and bronze pickaxes), the hard price floor and ceiling are identical... with the current price. I know, this sounds totally insane, and it is. But that is how Jagex set it up, and I think it would be useful to explain this to somebody visiting this website.
As for player stock price... you are correct. It is now the exchange price. So in this sense this particular price field is now meaningless. But it acquires new meaning in the sense that there is an infinite stock price from specialty stores for many items... that really is the new "store" price... and I'm saying that it has genuine consequences in terms of the mechanics of the Grand Exchange and what players may have to pay for something.
This is why I think the "store price" really should remain on this infobox. --Robert Horning 20:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Your observations regarding the Grand Exchange absolute floor/ceiling prices are quite valuable. I would like to put those in the Grand Exchange article, so that readers interested can obtain that information.

Rod of ivandis detail.pngDoomedrusher|Talk||Contributions||Edit Count| 00:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

To keep people from being misled...

Should we add how much items will sell for on the Grand Exchange?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Belligerance (talk).

for what it's worth

Jagex changed the ceiling price on non stackable items. As of right now potatoes are going for 61 coins with the price ceiling not yet being seen in the exchange.

Incidentally the street prices are increasingly inaccurate to the point that the value of them in many instances, historical or otherwise, is dubious at best.

  1. REDIRECT user:kytti khat/sig 12:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
While the ceilings have been raised, in some cases significantly, they haven't been eliminated yet. One item I know for a fact that has a hard ceiling is Cheese, priced at a cap of 108 coins. The rationale for this price or even practice is completely beside me, other than perhaps Jagex doesn't want to see players "wasting" their time using the churns to make cheese?
As for historical street prices, their use is mainly as a tool to see how much the changes in the economy have impacted the price of a great many items. The problem with street prices is that you have nothing to establish credibility of the price, unless you are a merchant who very routinely buys or sells that particular item. At least Grand Exchange prices are verifiable by people who don't even trade in that item, and obvious scamers trying to "milk" prices to their benefit can be called on the carpet for manipulating reported prices.
A very common scam, pre Grand Exchange and trade limits, was to have one player yell "Buying Charcoal 3k each" and other "Selling Charcoal 2k each". And then getting some poor sucker to buy the worthless item at 2k each thinking they might make some modest money. It wasn't just charcoal, but it did include some rather interesting items. It is much harder to get away with such a scam right now. --Robert Horning 23:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Correct me if i'm wrong but isn't the store stock for stores such as the Culinaromancer's chest food store (with only limited quantity player stock) based strictly off the current Grand Exchange 'average' price? If so should that Store price field be modified in this template?
What about changing the name of Street price to more accurately reflect it's usage in the new RuneScape post-Grand Exchange economy? Would that be a worthwhile?
What about adding fields (perhaps hidden until used) for the upper and lower price limits? I know I would find that very helpful when viewing item info and believe many others would as well.
  1. REDIRECT user:kytti khat/sig 19:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Culinaromancer's chest is certainly one of the very interesting exceptions of stores that don't sell infinite stock. For most stores, the store "stock price" (also infinite quantity price) is the "ceiling price" for what is sold on the Grand Exchange. The ceiling prices have been raised on the G.E. in an "adjustment", but it still something that impacts the game. This is certainly independent of whatever the grand exchange price is at. "Stackable items" still have a hard price ceiling of the infinite stock price.
I don't understand the upper and lower price limits here, as you are proposing them. Are you talking the hard price ceilings and floors of the prices on the Grand Exchange, or something more simple? Jagex doesn't publish these figures, and with just a few exceptions when prices aren't already at that floor or ceiling, many of the items haven't hit those prices so they are still unknown... or players may have missed when they hit the hard minimum or maximum price, not to mention that Jagex has been changing the game in that respect without any announcement at all. While useful, I don' know how you can verify this information.
In terms of changing the title of "street price" on this template.... what would you change it to? How does it apply and what is different than the Grand Exchange price? By definition, the "street price" is what players are willing to trade each other for items when exchanged in direct player to player transactions. This hasn't changed, and still happens.... although with some hard trade limits that were imposed at the beginning of the year. This price is sometimes... even often... different than the Grand Exchange price. The tough part of a street price is being able to verify the value, but that has always been a problem with street prices in the past as well. --Robert Horning 10:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Well admittedly those weren't fully thought through ideas (and i'm more an idea person than down to earth), however, one thing just hit me that might be quite useful. I've noticed that there are actually two storages places for the store, hi and low alch values. I'd like to propose that they all be sourced the same as the exchange price is now when it is linked back the the gemw entry.
  1. REDIRECT user:kytti khat/sig 16:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Exchange update link

Normally, gemw is used for the exchange= parameter in the Template:Infobox Item to automatically enter the current GEMW price. However, the tradable item for Dragon gauntlets has a different name - Worn-out dragon gauntlets which currently redirects back to Dragon gauntlets. Using Template:GEPrice allows having the current price, but does not have the 'update' linked used with gemw.

I used a work-around to allow the update link, however the link 'update' appears between the price and unit measurement 'coins'.

|exchange = Uncharged: {{GEPrice|Worn-out dragon gauntlets}} <small>[{{fullurl:Exchange:Worn-out dragon gauntlets|action=edit&editintro=GEMW\Edithelp}} update]</small> <!-- Needed as tradable item name is different from article name --> .

I tried a new template Template:GEPriceUpdate which adds coins and 'update link; but in the Infobox Item there's another 'coins' after the update.

Someone want to try to see if they can add another parameter to the exchange= parameter in the Template:Infobox Item to allow a different name then the FULLPAGENAME? In this case, Worn-out dragon gauntlets in the Dragon gauntlets article? thanks, Chrislee33 07:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you are suggesting here. The trick here is that we need to come up with some way of describing (in computer terms) what the difference between a hand-entered price and something that has a different name than the name of the page. Perhaps adding an additional parameter to this template (optional parameter) that would be called "exchangecoins", that if you put something in there (usually just the word no such as "exchangecoins=no") the word "coins" won't be inserted afterward.
This is still getting complicated enough that it may not quite do the job we are trying for. I do like the idea of allowing those kind of prices to have some sort of "update" link to the GEWM page even if it isn't named the same as the article name. --Robert Horning 09:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
How about changing the 'gemw' parameter to pass a variable for the different name? e.g. for the Dragon gauntlets article, 'gemw|Worn-out dragon gauntlets'? Chrislee33 16:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


At the |name option, you have to enter the items name, couldn't we just add the PAGENAME template there? (as standard)

{{Infobox Item
| name      = {{PAGENAME}}
| AKA       = 
| image     = 
| members   = 
| quest     = 
| tradable  = 
| stackable = 
| high      = 
| low       = 
| destroy   = 
| store     = 
| street    = 
| examine   = 
| weight    = 

Buzz (Talk#P ) 12:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. May be coloured blue in the near
There is a problem with just using PAGENAME, namely anypage that doesn't match the item due to duplicate names (e.g., Monk's robe (bottom), Monk's robe (top), Zamorak robe (bottom), etc.) and cases where the template is used to show something that is related to the PAGENAME (e.g., Quiz Master) and this is just the beginning, I'm sure there are many more instances. I believe the name field should be optional for instances like this.
  1. REDIRECT user:kytti khat/sig 14:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Street prices

Street prices are obsolete thanks to the Grand Exchange, 3-30k trade limit, and a "see how much money you're making" meter. Why do we even need this? We can always view an article's history for street prices before the Grand Exchange, so I do not see any harm in removing them. May be coloured blue in the near

I don't think the "article's history" is sufficient in this case. Besides, the way that MediaWiki software performs a "historical" snapshot of a previous version (aka when you press the "history" tab and grab a previous version of the page), what you see is the current version of the template. This means that the "street price" simply can't been seen by looking at an article's history.
The real question is if we want to simply remove the data altogether and lose this information. Placing the information in the template and then not displaying the information doesn't do any good either and begs the question.... why even keep that data around at all?
I would agree that "street price" means "pre-grand exchange historical price". It doesn't really have any genuine meaning in the current context of the game other than to see what sort of impact on the price of a great many items in the game has occurred due to the introduction of the price controls and the grand exchange. Once removed, this information will not be restored, nor will it be easy for users of this website to roll back and view this information. You will have to 1) go back to the historical version of the page and 2) go into edit mode to view the raw wiki mark-up text in order to even see the original historical price.
I've suggested caution at removing this information since the Grand Exchange opened, and I am pointing out that this is an irreversible change so far as this part of the template usage on the individual item pages will likely be removed over time once it is removed from this template. This is particularly true if any reverting of the template to display the historical prices is treated as vandalism.
For myself, I am neutral on removing the data. I've worked to replace the content with the GEMW data, but that data is fundamentally different from street prices, which is why very legitimately there are two sets of prices for a great many items.... and the street prices are certainly getting stale in terms of their value in current game play. --Robert Horning 20:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I think Earthere was simply saying that if we want to see historical data of street prices, we can always edit an old version and look at the template parameters to see that street price. So no, I don't believe we would lose the data.
I think that the whole street price field is more of a liability than anything. It's impossible to maintain, as more and more the street price is whatever the heck Jagex tells us it is. The street price is always going to be around +- 3000 the market price, so there's not much to be gained by differentiating the two. People only care about the market price now. I agree that the field should be deleted. Endasil (Talk) @  20:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
As a practical matter, I am suggesting that "editing an old version and looking at the template parameters" isn't nearly so simple of a task as you are implying. Information is going to be lost, and I have no assurance that wikia is going to preserve historical versions of each page forever. There is an assumption that they will, and some legal issues that need to be resolved before significantly older pages are deleted, but this is speculation of the worst kind and making assumptions I'm not comfortable to make. As far as what has happened in the past and what is going to happen in the near future, you are correct that this is the case.
Mind you, I'm not against deleting this field explicitly, and that its historical context is getting lost. Street prices were never anything easy to maintain in the first place, as obtaining reliable information was always a difficult task even for those who were aggressive and active in the trade of that item. I say this as I was a pre-Grand Exchange merchant (who specialized in gemstones). I got a pretty good feel for what the "street price" of an item was, and it did vary by quite a bit from day to day and even world to world. That was the only way you could merchant and was a tough skill to acquire. Tweaking street price guides was also a common source of vandalism, as less than honest merchants would try to push street prices one way or another on community projects like the Runescape Wiki to go to their advantage (depending if they were buying or selling the item). Edit wars over prices were nearly legendary. On this basis, I am glad to see street price guides to finally bite the dust.
One of the worst kind of players I encountered as a merchant was one that said "but the price guide says it should be x coins" (fill in the price). That sent chills through my back, and made me practically want to ignore players who said that (even though I wanted to make a sale). Even now with trade caps, I do find local demand away from the Grand Exchange to be different by sometimes quite a bit than what the "official" exchange price claims. I hate even more now (behavior-wise) those players who scream "price check" or some other silly notion that the grand exchange price in the trade window means much of anything in terms of how much they should get in direct person-to-person trades.
My main concern here is just that major changes that are difficult to reverse should be discussed with all viewpoint presented. This is one of those decisions where a reversal is going to be difficult on a practical basis. I agree that the prevailing consensus is that the street price needs to be eliminated. --Robert Horning 10:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it should go - its relevance and accuracy decreases more and more as time goes on. Maybe we could just remove it from the template output as a first step but leave the field each article's raw infobox text? If we decide afterwards it was a mistake we can just revert the template to get it back into the displayed articles. If it turns out everyone's happy with the articles without street price then we can start removing the field from the infobox text on the articles. Pointy 00:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
MM'kay. May be coloured blue in the near


While we're revamping this template, couldn't we make the AKA field not appear in articles if it's left blank? Leevclarke 22:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Grand Exchange price

Now that Jagex has released the Grand Exchange price tracker, it seems to me that maintaining a list of Grand Exchange prices on items' pages is futile. To this end, can I suggest that it be replaced with a link to the item's price tracker at

Each item in the database has a unique ID number, for example, a fire rune has ID 554. We can get these easily enough from the URL to the item's page, for example We could use this as a parameter in a template, e.g. have something like {{gedb|554}} in the infobox instead of gemw, and in the article it provides a link to "" followed by the ID number. I chose gedb for Grand Exchange Database.

This would give a link to the current G.E. price (as well as trends), and it would require no further maintenance on our part, unlike the GEMW. Leevclarke 17:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you aware that for most items, the list of "Grand Exchange Prices on items' pages" comes from the GEMW? This debate about the futility of the GEMW has been around since it was originally proposed.
I do agree that a link to the "official" Grand Exchange database pages would be useful, but there are some strong limitations on how you can use that information, mainly because it isn't available for doing calculators and other similar kinds of tasks. At some point in the future, it would be nice to be able to automatically update the GEMW database directly from Jagex's GEDB.
I just don't think this has to be an exclusive option one way or the other, and both could be done. --Robert Horning 11:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

High alchemy and low alchemy = N/A?

There are lots of quest items, and other items that cannot be high-alched (or low-alched). Some of these items have "N/A" in the high= and low= fields, while others have the fields are left blank. I propose that for items that are non-tradeable, both fields should NOT be displayed, just like when the Exchange field is not displayed when tradeable = "No". Or, the fields should show something else, rather than "N/A coins" as this sounds ridiculous and is just plain wrong. --  az talk   18:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "N/A" should not be in this field. Would I be right in thinking that non-tradable items can be alched (that is, the game will allow you to cast the spell on the item), but you will receive zero coins? For these items, I think we should specify the number 0 in these fields. If not then set the alch fields to "No", and have them not display in that case. Leevclarke talk 07:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Just letting yo uknow I found out first hand chaotic weaponry CAN be alchemized, though this site says literally "cannot be alchemized".
I alchemized my chaotic longsword. And I may be having to quit over this. Trust me. You can alchemize chaotic weaponry. -.-Mark Belain 20:51, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
These CAN be highalched. they give a 7.2K when you do.
And another thing, the KBD heads can be alched for 30,000 High and 20,000 low.
I think the fields should always be displayed, if they can't be alched people will want to know that. My contributionsTHARKON 18:44, May 29, 2011 (UTC)


I think "Equipable" should be "Equipable on", and values should be "Head", "Neck", "Weapon Hand", "Shield Hand", "Two Hands", "Body", etc, plus "None" if not equipable. Two hand weapons can often be confused with one hand weapons. Also, it is not obvious that items like Magical blastbox is a weapon or shield.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) on 02:45, September 26, 2011 (UTC).

Don't think it would hurt, although the confusion can already be resolved by what's listed in {{Template:Infobox Bonuses|slot}} which is usually on the same pages. My contributionsTHARKON 04:02, September 26, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure why adding this was a good idea, because most people know that tuna and corn cannot be equipped. It just seems a little unnecessary. I don't think that "stacks" and "destroy" are good, either, but "equipable" is my primary concern right now. --Sαcrε (edit my sig) | (edit my user page) 07:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I really do not like this box either. I think we should look at the whole template though, because we should fix all the things at once. How come on some pages there is still a street price, but not on the template? Does that mean on that items page I can remove street? --Degenret01 09:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
OK I think equipable is good because some quest items are clothing (might be a hat) but you cannot actually equip it. Degenret, the street price is obsolete now because we're using the exchange instead (so you can remove street fields from articles). I agree with the stacks box because some items that you wouldn't expect to stack, sometimes do. But (I'm not supporting everything) the destroy box I find is unnecessary. About 1 out of 200 items will be destroyable and is it so important to know? So I want to keep equipable and stacks, but no destroy. Cheers, User:Chicken7 09:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
What about the items that do not stack in bank either?User:10finland01 16:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, if a lot of the items aren't equipable, maybe the box should only show up if yes is there or else it just doesn't appear. Chicken7 >talk 09:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I actually would be really keen to keep all these (stacks, destroy and equipable), since they are properties of all items, and I don't think it is always obvious. For example, a bedsheet is equipable (at least after being dipped in the ectoplasm), but I don't think it's obvious from looking at the item name or image. I'm all for including information in the text of an article, but I think this should be part of the summary infobox. Leevclarke talk 03:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Some problem

I have found that the Infobox has shifted to the left instead of the original right. See Ring of recoil , Skills necklace.

Admins, please correct that. I do not have the power to do so =[. XDRAGONAITE +Saradomin's Book of Wisdom.png 14:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Template changes/revamp

I have made some changes to the template, and the changes are as follows:

  1. The "AKA" field is hidden when left blank.
  2. High-alch and Low-alch now has the option "No" which displays "Not applicable"
  3. The "Seller" field now appears in the next line, within the "Store price".
  4. When the item is tradable and nothing is entered into the "Exchange" field, the item appears in the Category:Needs price
  5. Added separate documentation page; modified wording and added more information.
  6. Added clarification on the "Street" field.

  az talk   11:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The AKA field does not show up at all now. Apostata 21:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out! It may take a while for the pages to be updated.   az talk   09:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Mainly use?

What is this field for? And it should be "Mainly used for" without the "?" OR "Main use". "Mainly use?" is grammatically incorrect.   az talk   08:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at RuneScape:Yew_Grove#Template:Infobox_item . Chrislee33 09:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Also known as...

If the item name is abbreviated in-game, should the shorter version be included in the AKA field?


The item name is shortened in GE, though the article name isn't.
|item=Proselyte harness f
|AKA=Pros'yte harness f

Note: The example item links to Proselyte armour, but there are other items with such case too. 16:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the template documentation, item names (what goes in the |name = X field) should match EXACTLY how the object is referred to IN GAME. Alternative names (such as "r pl8" for a rune platebody) can go in the |AKA = X field (separated by commas if there are more than 1). Hope this helps, CFLM (Talk) 16:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Linking to Grand Exchange Database data

In addition to a direct price quote from the GEMW, I'd like to add in a link to the Grand Exchange Database information... which BTW is also contained in the GEMW data. This isn't so much of a question on how to get the information into this template, but rather a question on the appearance of each of the items that have this information.

I'm thinking of putting it right below the GE price line with a hyperlink of some sort pointing to the "official" Jagex price history page of the item. Is there any reason why this sort of information shouldn't be added to this template? --Robert Horning 03:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

| edible = less than 150

I undid a change to the template which saw the addition of a new parameter, | edible = X, because we only have about 150 edible items with their own articles, but the template is transcluded on well over 4,000 pages, and there was no discussion about the edit beforehand. If anyone would like to re-add the parameter, please do so AFTER receiving consensus for the move.

Thanks, CFLM (Talk) 16:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the edible parameter being added, but it should be an optional parameter that is only displayed if there is something using that parameter.
I should point out, however, that discussions and consensus building are relatively uncommon for changes even to this template... especially for adding a new parameter. I certainly have seen a number of changes to this template without any discussion prior to those changes being made. Many of those changes have been made in good faith and certainly weren't vandalism such as this addition of an edible field.
Urging caution is useful, but let's not be mean to the new user, and Assume good faith. Also keep in mind: Runescape:Ignore all rules --Robert Horning 15:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
This type of entry is what i would consider a good, hidden until used type item. Thus prevented needless clutter on items pages. There are a likely others that would work well like that.
  1. REDIRECT User:Kytti khat/sig 10:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of template tweaks

It occurred to me that there are a series of items that are tradeable within minigames (e.g., coloured flowers, banner, sacred_clay-in-game_weapons, but being minigame items that do not exist outside of these minigames they will never be traded on the GE. I'm thinking of added a tertiary option setting for the |tradeable= parameter (currently it is either "no" or yes/description). The new option would be named something like "minionly" which would allow for the hiding of |Exchange_price= and maybe even |Store_price= if the items all tend to go that way.

  1. REDIRECT User:Kytti khat/sig 10:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

copying to new wikia

Im trying to improve the danish version of the runescape wikia, but how, HOW can i "copy" this so it can be used on the danish version. I know my question is very unclear, but i hope someone can reply. FredeTalk 16:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

One of the problems with this template is that it makes use of a whole bunch of other templates, and thus you need to copy all of those other templates (and everything they depend upon) as well. The GEMW data is likely to be the most complicated, as that is a huge project that has involved dozens of users. It might simply be best to remove those features for now when moving to another language edition. Are there some specific problems that seem to be an issue on the Danish edition of this wiki? --Robert Horning 16:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

High/Low alch

It might be beneficial to have a number in parentheses next to the high and low alch that says how negative/positive the profit for alching that item is based on the alch value - cosmic runes price on the ge. And possibly another value for Alch value - (item on ge+cosmic on ge). Dsctatom 23:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting.... to say the least. Price floors on the Grand Exchange pretty much keep any sort of profitable method of earning money from alching items purchased from other players... at least if you buy the items in bulk or from the GE. This is why yew longbow alching is a dead art form now. The only items I know that are remotely profitable to alch any more are battlestaves, and that only if you buy the staves yourself and not from the GE.
More to the point, Jagex has deliberately set up the Grand Exchange so there would never be a profit from performing alchemy. Yeah, it stinks, and I don't like the price floors either. It is something barely mentioned in the Knowledge Base and not even acknowledged by Jagex staff... other than they did allow a thread on the topic to keep going in the Recent Updates forum for around 6 months.
BTW, it is a Nature rune and not a Cosmic rune that you need for performing alchemy. A small detail (huge on price) that does make a difference. Cosmic runes are for enchanting items like a Games necklace or Amulet of power. --Robert Horning 01:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


Just a little addition: Since all stackable items have no weight, a logical with to do would be to add something along the lines of "if stackable=yes, weight=0", overriding the weight field all together, or whatever. Just a thought. Weird gloop.png @Gaz#7521 17:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Directly disable the exchange field

"If the item is not tradable, this field will be hidden (not shown), and the field may be removed or left blank." This is very good, but some item are tradeable, but isn't tradeable on GE. Such as the Stealing Creation items, they are tradeable inside the minigame, but the player can't bring them out from the game. So that would be very good if we can directly disable the exchange field using 'exchange = no'. Please add this feature to the template and sorry for my very bad english. Thanks! Fullmoney91 19:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

GE on Pages that don't have Title Matches

This template appears to grab GE prices for an item that matches the title of the page, even if a different name has been typed in place of "Name". Here you can see the problem I am referring to. I don't know much about templates, but would it be possible so it looks up the GE price for the item in the "Name" field instead of the page title? In this way we can have infoboxes on pages that do not match the name of the item, yet still have a fully functional GE field. Robot talkSilver bar.png 17:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

GE price field suggestion

Right now the link next to the GE price only lets you "edit", but I think it'd be better if it gave you an option to edit and to view the price history. The "edit" link (could be shortened to "E") would still work just like it does now, but there would also be a "view" link (again, could be shortened to "V") that took you to the plain GE price page for whatever item there is. Robot talkSilver bar.png 19:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Displaying the Market History chart

I added code into the template to show the price history chart, as it has been updated by User:Azliq7 with his chart bot. At the moment it is just a thumbnail where the details are hard to pick out, but at least the gist of the information is there and people reading these pages can note that the chart exists... perhaps right clicking to see the larger version of the information.

This information will only be displayed if the "exchange=" field is "GEMW". Not all of the item pages have this set correctly, including a few item pages that are still manually adjusted without GEMW data at all. As such, it is likely that this chart doesn't exist and won't be displayed. I would like to get some feedback on this, if there are any ideas on how to improve the positioning of this chart or perhaps other aspects of its display. --Robert Horning 20:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thats a good idea. I like it. I think it would look a little better with a title (Price History or something). Other than that, I think its pretty good; big enough to see the general idea of what's happening without taking over the infobox, and of course it can be clicked to see the full version (maybe noting that underneath?). Weird gloop.png @Gaz#7521 21:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Excellent ideas here. I'm thinking "Price History" above the chart, and perhaps a "click here to enlarge" hyperlink underneath that goes straight to the image itself. Ideally, it would be awesome if we could get some Javescript or something that would put a "hover over" popup that would display the image in an enlarged format. For now it will merely go to the image itself, just like clicking on the image does right now. --Robert Horning 04:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I am willing to offer my help on a script for showing an enlarged GEMH chart as a mouseover tooltip. --Quarenon  Talk 04:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
A bit late but finally released a test script to do this. It can be tested by inserting importScript('User:Quarenon/gemhpop.js'); into your monaco.js or monobook.js file. I've tested it a little in Chrome 3.0, FF 3.6, and IE8 with both skins. The positioning of the graph with respect to the mouse cursor is somewhat finicky, and the screenshot I took has some color contrast problems, but it's progress. Smile
--Quarenon  Talk 07:02, January 1, 2010 (UTC)

Release date?

Currently, almost no article about items contains the release date. Adding a box for this would encourage adding this kind of information, which I think is useful. For items which hasn't got a release date filled in, they will contain "Unknown". While for those items which has always been in RuneScape, that is the items that has been in the game since before RuneScape Classic, should/could either contain "From start." or the field simply isn't visible. What do you think? --Magnea8 - Profile and Talk. 15:33, September 6, 2009 (UTC)

I think this would be an excellent suggestion, other than trying to find a reliable source of information for when each item came out. I wonder if or some other major fan site has this information we could draw upon?
At the very least, when new items are released, we could note it here and try to put it in. This would be some useful information. --Robert Horning 13:59, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
I also like it. For sources we could use's news archives or our updates archives (the latter would probably be easier, as we can search them easier and they go back further).
  • Two new params: added, the date it was added, and update, the name of the Update: page that announced it's release (without the Update:).
  • The new row would be along the lines of:
!Date released
|{{#if:{{{added|}}}|{{{added}}} {{#if:{{{update|}}}|([[Update:{{{update}}}|{{{update}}}]])|(Update unknown [edit link])}}|Unknown [edit link]}}
Or something. Maybe a category for pages without dates/updates, too? Weird gloop.png @Gaz#7521 19:49, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
I like it, and a category as you said would be good too.--Magnea8 - Profile and Talk. 12:35, September 13, 2009 (UTC)


The name of the variable is Stackable, but the label is Stacks. Seems that when new items are added, the default Infobox Item does not have stackable, so the info for Stacks is Unknown. Clicking on the edit button opens the edit window, but the variable stackable is not listed. For those who do not know how to find this template page, the logical step would be to type in |stacks=No or Yes which, of course, does not work as the variable is named Stackable. I propose changing the label from Stacks to Stackable. Chrislee33 03:33, September 12, 2009 (UTC)

Second. Robot talkSilver bar.png 22:47, September 12, 2009 (UTC)


Why do we have the edible parameter if we have Template:Infobox Food? User:C Teng/sig 15:06, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

Because, it wouldn't work with certain things, e.g. Caviar ShinyUnown T | C | E 17:52, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Loss when high/low alching

I think we should add another box to calculate the loss when alchemising items. Example:


This is just a concept and is not the final outcome. Comments? ShinyUnown T | C | E 17:53, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, but I'm not sure on the implementation... maybe it'd be better handled by exchange pages, organised into things like Grand Exchange Market Watch/Alchemy, though I'd like to see more opinions too. Weird gloop.png @Gaz#7521 18:05, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

This is kind of clutter. Most items aren't candidates for Hi alch, and many are for your Explorers ring (where the calculation is, of course, different). Maybe we could work on some javascript improvements to the alch calculators? Where it might also be useful is in the drop template - on a long trip with many relatively high value drops it is normal, I am told, to high alch stuff on the fly. The best way would to be to use the exchange pages as the back end - they are set up for it but many prices aren't built in yet. Rich Farmbrough, 16:22 16 March 2010 (GMT).


I was thinking about this a while ago, and I was wondering if the infobox template can have a "Lendable?" parameter. Fishing.png NnK Oliver (600613) talk 04:17, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

I thought about it too, and yes it would be easy to add. But then I thought that if these are all the lendable items, it isn't needed. UPEROBucket detail.pngrwojy 04:19, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
I think it is notable then if it is so few items, though the KB says that more will be added Rich Farmbrough, 16:23 16 March 2010 (GMT).

Items kept on death value field

I think the value of the item in the items kept on death interface should be added. --User:Tyilo/Signature 12:33, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

I think that is the Hi Alch value? Rich Farmbrough, 16:06 16 March 2010 (GMT).
What about the items you can't alch? -Tyilo (i know i forgot to login)


The latter should shortly (in a few hours) be safe to remove. Rich Farmbrough, 16:06 16 March 2010 (GMT).

[View] - [Talk].....Do we need this?

At the bottom it says [View] - [Talk].... do we really need this for the template as no other template has this Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 21:58, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Actually every template with semi-complex documentation or the possibility of being expanded does. See Forum:Template links. Weird gloop.png @Gaz#7521 22:14, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Korasi's sword.

And this bug/glitch was/is able to do with getting some how to inventory, pulling Grand tree pod to teleport, and toggle Add note in Notes.

Also it appers to be found in quickchat as exam: 'I got an item: ...', 'That item is: ...' & so on..

Kandarian banner

Lol could add in banners site on Trivia that Kandarian reminds of Citroën's logo, lål.

Suggested field

Why not use "Price Check" as a standard field? may seem redundant at times but it its commonality may be of use whenever a given item has no formal "Store price". I bite do u 08:17, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

The price check interface always displays the grand exchange price, which we already have... Unless you mean something different. Weird gloop.png @Gaz#7521 16:00, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
I am referring to items not available in GE or shop... in Daemonheim for instance, many items unavailable for purchase can be valued through a "Price Check" allegedly derived from 'would-be' shop prices...
should PC be reflecting other pricing systems variably, instead of duplicating fields perhaps it may be more sensible to note which field is mirrored. It may sounds trivial, but it is arguably vital information.
(Edit) for example; consider Dromoleather boots. ingame it is valued at 'X' by PC. however since it is not sold at the shop nor at exchange the item page fails to indicate any pricing (alchemy prices currently unavailable). my offer was an attempt aimed at resolving this type of issue. hope that clarifies it :) I bite do u 02:31, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Well it would be better, to me, if we made a new, adapted template for all Dungeoneering items. I do believe the price check interface shows the smuggler's buy price, or maybe the alchemy price, I'll have to check that. Outside of Daemonheim the interface shows the GE value, so yeah a new template for it would be better. I'll create a draft version and see what you think. (This is kinda under discussion here, but that's more about splitting items present in both locations, like hammers, but still.) Weird gloop.png @Gaz#7521 15:29, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Adding max quantity / 4 hours when buying/selling from G.E.?

How about adding that to the infobox? Would be useful since there are a lot of exeptions (for example, the limit for some dragon items is 100 and for some, it is 10). Looler 20:33, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this is strictly needed in the infobox. The generalisations on Grand Exchange#Buying & selling rates hold true most of the time, and if not it should be noted in the article itself. Though I'm not massively opposed to the idea. Weird gloop.png @Gaz#7521 23:37, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
Well I got involved a lot in that page, and a lot of items are not in there, and I think it won't be a good idea to add them all, because the list would be too big. I think that this list should be there, for the most traded and common items only. That's why I think adding another line in the infobox is a good idea. Looler 00:02, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
So can we implement it? Looler 20:45, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

A "No" Option for Update Parameter

I don't want to mess it up so can someone put a 'no' option for the update parameter? Some early items were released without updates, so it would be useful there, and some people are using this template on their userpage, so it would be useful there as well. I'd rather not try because my coding skills are rather sub-par Lol. ɳex undique 03:42, December 24, 2010 (UTC)


Title says it all. I think that would be a nice touch to the infobox.

A Random 24/12/2010

I'm a wiki noob and need to figure out how to upload the image of an item to that box in the corner.. Already uploaded it just can't figure out how to put in the template at top of article. Thanks! Tick..Tick... Boom! 16:04, February 1, 2011 (UTC)Thing O Doom.

I'll add that idea to Yew Grove. Imdill3 03:50, March 10, 2011 (UTC)


Someone (on 4 seperate occassions) added script for "Tradable", presumably meaning "Tradeable", a section alreadys fully scrripted. I have removed "Tradable" as it added much confusion. [Please Note: "Tradeable (The real system) is unaffected and will remain in the same place. Imdill3 03:50, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

Forum:Tradable vs. Tradeable. Weird gloop.png @Gaz#7521 10:42, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

Using GEMW for High and Low Alchemy values.

After a small discussion here I came to realize that the GEMW already supports alchemy prices, so why aren't we using them for the infoboxes. The infoboxes are the perfect way to ensure that errors are caught because of the many people using them. Looking at the code of the infobox in its current state I think it doesn't require much code, just some copy pasting from the Exchange field to the Alchemy fields. My contributionsTHARKON 18:52, May 29, 2011 (UTC) I took the liberty to write the code in case consensus gets passed:

!nowrap="nowrap"|[[High Level Alchemy|High Alch]]
|{{#if:{{{high|}}}|{{#switch:{{lc:{{{high}}}}}|no=Cannot be alchemised|gemw={{Exchange:{{{gemwname|{{#if:{{{name|}}}|{{{name}}}|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}|View=HighAlch}} coins <small>([[Exchange:{{{gemwname|{{#if:{{{name|}}}|{{{name}}}|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}|update]])</small>|#default={{{high}}} coins}}|Unknown <small>[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} edit]</small>{{Mainonly|[[Category:Needs alchemy information]]}}}}
!nowrap="nowrap"|[[Low Level Alchemy|Low Alch]]
|{{#if:{{{low|}}}|{{#switch:{{lc:{{{low}}}}}|no=Cannot be alchemised|gemw={{Exchange:{{{gemwname|{{#if:{{{name|}}}|{{{name}}}|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}|View=LowAlch}} coins <small>([[Exchange:{{{gemwname|{{#if:{{{name|}}}|{{{name}}}|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}|update]])</small>|#default={{{low}}} coins}}|Unknown <small>[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=edit}} edit]</small>{{Mainonly|[[Category:Needs alchemy information]]}}}}

My research copy is currently using this code. My contributionsTHARKON 20:10, May 29, 2011 (UTC)

I'd probably advise YGing this. This page gets next to no traffic. Weird gloop.png @Gaz#7521 21:05, May 29, 2011 (UTC)


is 0.0kg

Mobilizing Armies credit information

Discussion is starting over at Talk:Mobilising Armies/Investments about adding a column to the InfoItem box (perhaps below the GE Market Price) stating the Mobilizing Armies credit value of the item. This would be invaluable for players of that game as the information on MA credit value items is quite sketchy. Comments?Epass 03:05, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

I like it. Perhaps add it to GEMW pages too although last time I suggested something like that it wasn't received well. My contributionsTHARKON 10:49, July 14, 2011 (UTC)
I've been thinking some more, and considering all the MA items are tradable, the values seem to be variable (why else are people editting them constantly) and that they are used in calculators, maybe the GEMW is the right place after all. My contributionsTHARKON 15:04, July 23, 2011 (UTC)

Tiger Sharks

does any1 know wht level with cooking gauntlets tht u stop burning tiger sharks?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobbygotswag (talk) on 21:30, 2011 August 23 (UTC).

Not sure what this has got to do with this template but you stop burning Sharks at level 94 when using Cooking gauntlets. My contributionsTHARKON 01:26, August 24, 2011 (UTC)


I know it seems weird asking this for a general item infobox, but it might be useful to know (and see it in the infobox) if a weapon is 1- or 2-handed. Can some-one shed some light on this? . . . Yours, This user admires the Void Knights. Who aim to maintain Gielinor's Equilibrium. Enquidou Talk This user likes to do Quests and genuinely loves the story line; lore is his love! . . 17:38, October 18, 2011 (UTC)

This is handled by Template:Infobox Bonuses. The icon to the right of the attack bonuses shows what slot the item is equipped in - two-handed items are represented by both the right and left hand slot icons (or if you prefer, the sword and the shield). Weird gloop.png @Gaz#7521 18:04, October 18, 2011 (UTC)

Specialised Herblore template?

I was wondering if instead of this one we should make and use a specialised template for potions, which includes stuff like ingredients, total cost of ingredients, type of potion eg barb mixes, etc and not include useless things such as weight (all potions are weightless), edible (course it is), equipable, et cetera. Bluefire2 18:22, October 18, 2011 (UTC)

EDIT - Also, how about changing "edible" to "consumable" in the template itself? Bluefire2 22:14, October 18, 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that there are many more items that are consumable, smithing consumes ore and coal for example. Articles on potions explain ingredients already, usually in a table, that table could be templated perhaps, but would suggest separately of the infobox. My contributionsTHARKON 09:43, October 20, 2011 (UTC)
I get your point there about consumable, but for the other bit I meant like spells all have the runes and their costs in their template, so why not do likewise for potions? Sounds good to me. Bluefire2 16:52, October 20, 2011 (UTC)
Actually, just the runes, the cost is in the articles themselves, sometimes trough a separate template. I guess the reason why I feel this way is that for spells there isn't much else to put in the infobox, they aren't items. Potions are items first and then a specific kind of item. If we make a separate one for potions we also need one for food, for ores, for bars, for weapons, for armour, etc.. some of those templates exist, like {{Infobox Bonuses}}, but they are in addition to this one. So for potions {{Potion costs}} should cover this, and if it doesn't maybe it could be changed so it does and then make sure all potion articles use that template. Many spells are still missing {{Spell cost table}} as well I see now as well. My contributionsTHARKON 22:44, October 20, 2011 (UTC)
Well, I guess so, but the spell template also says spell spcific stuff like base xp, level etc. As for making a separate template for other stuff, we already have one for weapons, we don't exactly need one for food, and we could just take the potion template that already exists, merge the applicable criteria into it from this template to make a potion specific template, and just replace the infobox:item on every potion page with the new template. That sounds like a lot of work, however if need be I am prepared to do that. Bluefire2 08:24, October 21, 2011 (UTC)

Exchange price multiple calculator is ugly clutter.

I find that new little box next to every price to be ugly. It clutters the Infobox and is of dubious value. Every computer comes with a calculator app. People can just use that, it's just as fast to hit Alt-Tab, switch to a Calculator, and type in the numbers, without causing bloat on the site for no reason. Warp9pnt9 14:20, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Before I read this post I didn't even know what it did, I thought it was for updating the price, but that didn't work. Suppose it could be useful to some people, maybe 7 digits is a bit much though. My contributionsTHARKON 19:31, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

I cannot believe I hadn't noticed this earlier!

A large mistake! It says weight in the final parameter! But weight is measured in N, whereas (k)g is the unit for mass. I'd change it, but there is a warning that I should discuss it first. Well, here we are! 18px-Avatar.png Fswe1 26px-Brassica_Prime_symbol.svg.png 15:35, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

While that is scientifically correct, almost everyone can understand weight being measured in kilograms. Also, the kg is used as the unit for weight ingame (File:Item stats.png), so sticking to the 'everything as it is ingame' mantle, I'd oppose a change. Weird gloop.png @Gaz#7521 16:03, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
Think I saw this topic somewhere else on this wiki as well. You are correct when real life is concerned, but stick to what's used in the game. My contributionsTHARKON 22:41, January 9, 2012 (UTC)
We don't even know the gravitational acceleration on RuneScape, so actual weight isn't known at all. If you want you can assume that the acceleration is 1 and imagine that all instances of kg are replaced with N. My contributionsTHARKON 22:43, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

Having Buy Limits included

I get asked all day "what is the buy limit of <item> in the GE." I understand that there is a section for buy limits on the Grand Exchange webpage and a ton of annotations but it does not include everything. Could someone please add buy limits into the infobox item template. I found someone on rs forums,,18,844,63790352 , that has a more detailed list of items and their buy limits for a start. Aalii (talk) 07:43, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

You should probably start a discussion at Forum:Yew Grove for this User:Tyilo/Signature 15:33, August 1, 2012 (UTC).

Challenge XP Lamp - XP gained when rubbing the lamp from random event.

lvl 65 - 9665

Fakturaman (talk) 18:13, October 12, 2012 (UTC)


Did Jagex remove weight, or did they just hide it?

I ran a small test wearing nothing and then wearing full torag's with an inventory of rune bars, and didn't find a noticeable difference. My contributionsTHARKON 01:01, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

its still supposed to be there, even if it's less effective.

Santa hat.png Plsamson talk Quest point cape.png 23:33, December 11, 2012 (UTC)