Let's be honest, the amount of separate articles for slayer helmets is a bit insane lol. I'm thinking at the VERY LEAST, merge the recolours. Ideally merge even more by adding sections for things like upgrading, charging, enchanting, recolouring, etc. So essentially the only articles that should exist should are:
- Slayer helmet
- Full slayer helmet
- Strong slayer helmet
- Might slayer helmet
- Corrupted slayer helmet
Support - I agree that they can definitely be combined with all the colors and such being in different sections/switchfobox. -
21:45, June 15, 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - I don't see this being a good idea. See Forum:Reevaluating item granularity for the general idea, but we lose item ID cohesion if we do what you suggest. Besides this, I'm concerned about all of the little pieces of data that would be lost in a merge. Further, I don't think a switch infobox solves this problem, because the helm items are hierarchical. The presence of articles for each helm doesn't preclude the possibility of having good "general" articles. ʞooɔ 22:57, June 15, 2017 (UTC)
Not even the colors being merged?
23:05, June 15, 2017 (UTC)
Expanding... I mean don't merge the different pages being charged.. etc.. I am referring to just having a colors section like on cosmetic overrides. -
23:09, June 15, 2017 (UTC)
Comment - Adding a colors section onto the different pages is what I mean. Example being Abyssal whip colors. 23:26, June 15, 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - Per Cook00:18, June 16, 2017 (UTC)
Merge colours - For slayer helms and all recolourable items. Having different pages for them is just pointless. 09:26, June 16, 2017 (UTC)
- I still support merging all coloured varieties of all colourable items because the separate pages are of no help whatsoever to any reader. However, I'll trust Cook blindly on the technical details, and if he says nay, then nay. 15:12, June 19, 2017 (UTC)
Merge colors - For all recolorable items. I thought things like the original loyalty outfits (Dervish robe (blue, female)) were particularly grisly. Addressing a few of Cook's points:
- I'm not convinced item ID cohesion should be a concern; if it was, why don't we have an article for every individual item in the game? I don't think the argument should boil down to "we need a different page for ring of dueling (1), (2), (3), etc.
- What are the little pieces of data that are going to get lost? I've looked at several of the recolor pages and they are literally the same thing, save for references to color. Like literally it's a copypasta.
- Why can't hierarchical pages have switch infoboxes for each individual level in the hierarchy?
The benefits of this would be that we have much fewer pages to worry about maintenance with. If the Dervish outfit suddenly gave 1gp for every snowball thrown at users with "Gaz" in the name, for example, currently we'd have to go around and edit something like 25 pages with the same information. Why not just have one place for every piece and edit only a few pages? It just makes more sense to have the recolors in one place cause they're literally like jewelry charges or potion doses. --LiquidTalk 14:53, June 16, 2017 (UTC)
- You do have a point about the coloured variants, but how would this affect dyed stuff? 16:31, June 16, 2017 (UTC)
- We have some idea of data granularity for every item on the wiki (e.g each id maps to a particular page or section of a switch infobox). Literally whatever else happens, that needs to be preserved in order for our cool automated stuff to work. The different rings of dueling fit naturally (and in order) to a switch infobox, and there's nothing else on the page that differs by id. Contrast with recolors, where we would have to additionally map the equipped images (I don't consider a gallery to be a semantically viable representation -- it's a symptom of the original problem I was addressing in that tbread.) When you ask about pieces of data that would get lost, you seem to be ignoring the uncolored versions, which I think you'll agree can have very different data at times. I think re-merging all recolors sets a bad precedent and puts item granularity on confusing footing. Also, I don't feel that the maintenance argument holds any weight whatsoever -- any tasks where we need to change more than a couple pages are already automated, so there's no difference between doing 20 or 100. Honestly, the only good argument I've heard for merging is that the "main" pages for these articles are somewhat lacking... but again, we can make those better while still keeping individual pages.
- This feels like one of those things where the people who actually do the work on the item database feel one way, and those that don't feel another way (there are many examples of this). I think if this actually passes, whoever tries to merge everything (if anyone) will eventually see why what you're proposing isn't actually easy or desirable. ʞooɔ 16:42, June 16, 2017 (UTC)
- I will admit that I know very little about the technical side of this, and am happy to defer to people who do know, but there's a lot that doesn't make sense.
- Item ID maps - if it maps to a section of a switch infobox, then what difference does it make if the IDs are in order or not?
- Other things to change on page/uncolored version: I actually think a gallery is great to feature all the colored versions of the item. Especially because we can just use the uncolored as the default version for the page. When we can manage Cake on the same page, for example, I don't think it'll be an issue to put the colored versions together. One of the concerns brought up on the original thread was that splitting would cause the base case page to be neglected, and I think that's been shown.
- Maintenance: sure, I'll take your word for it.
- I don't think merging them puts item granularity on confusing footing, it makes it more consistent with items consumed in portions (potions, pies, cakes, etc) and jewelry charges.
- My main point here is that while I appreciate the data granularity stuff, I think the balance between having a database that a computer can look through and make sense of, and having an article that readers can easily navigate, has swung a bit far towards the automation. Ultimately we're not trying to build a wiki easy for computers to navigate, we're trying to make a useful resource for people. I don't have time right now but I'll throw up a mock page later when I get home. --LiquidTalk 17:40, June 16, 2017 (UTC)
- So what's wrong with something like ? --LiquidTalk 02:47, June 17, 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - As per Cook -16:27, June 16, 2017 (UTC)
Merge colours - As per Liquid and Jayden.17:26, June 19, 2017 (UTC)
Merge loyalty recolours only - Per Liquid. Limiting this to loyalty recolours limits the scope (adding to, not overruling Reevaluating item granularity). It also gives a clear guideline as to what should and should not be merged in other articles as well (for example, not Treasure Trail dyed equipment or Balmung). Aescopalus (talk) 22:25, June 19, 2017 (UTC)
- What's your reasoning for limiting it to loyalty recolors? Personally I think Barbarian assault recolors like abyssal whip or dark bow are basically the same thing as loyalty point recolors. --LiquidTalk 23:49, June 19, 2017 (UTC)
- My concern is the guidelines for what is included in this decision are not defined clearly enough at this time, and a huge number of items would need to be evaluated on a case by case basis without any consistency at the outset. Perhaps limiting it to loyalty and minigame recolours (including the BA recolours) is the best way to go; however, there does need to be some form of easily determined criteria for these merges. For example, should we merge different colours of afros (non-tradeables)? What about tricorn hats (non-tradeable minigame reward from Trouble Brewing)? Or stripy pirate shirts (tradeables)? Why abyssal whip recolours and not treasure trail dyed equipment? (note: I do not support merging treasure trail dyed equipments, per Salix) Aescopalus (talk) 03:03, June 20, 2017 (UTC)
Extreme support for merging - Any merging we can do helps the readers. How many clicks must a person go through to get the data they are after? Any reductions we can do the more we serve our number one purpose, helping the player. Degenret01 (talk)
Neutral and comment - I know a neutral doesn't help. I get where everyone is coming from on the Item ID. However, we do have other tiered items in game that are shown with their levels, stats, and such on merged pages as well. Same with NPCs who have 2-10 different looks in game. Seeing as the Slayer Helmet has the same functions across all levels, just increases in stats and the % accuracy/dmg and changes in color. But it won't break my heart to keep them separate pages. --Deltaslug (talk) 01:48, June 21, 2017 (UTC)
Comment - While Cook brings up points which I'd imagine have validity behind, I mostly agree with Liquid as it's the closest to what I'm proposing. Aescopalus made a point about it being subject to criteria and the only term that could come to mind was reversible customisation. Just know that merging just the recolours gets rid of 80% of the slayer helmet articles with the recolouring ability. It just seems off to have copypasta all over. 13:46, June 22, 2017 (UTC)