Talk:Party hat

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape

Is the Durial321's Collection section really needed? Matt2 02:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is. It's not like he's the only person in the world who had a phat set. Tesfan 02:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what I was thinking Matt2 02:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

All gone. Sαcrε Fι 02:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) Matt2 03:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Criticism 2 Move to Partyhat 2.1 "Template:Spelling partyhat|Spelling - Partyhat or party hat" 3 General stores 4 Partial protection. 5 Partyhats vs. Party hats

[edit] Criticism

Some players think that party hats give people who played the game longer an unfair advantage. As in, older people who played longer had the ability to play when the party hats were dropped, meaning that with over 150 000 000 coins or more, people can use that money to buy valuables. People with party hats didn't have to work for millions, all they had to do was pick up a christmas cracker. Many people think that party hats should be deleted, or redropped to make the game fairer.

This section is total biasAtlandy 03:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, it is true since some people do think that. Chiafriend12 03:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

But it's a bit misleading giving this minority viewpoint a prominent position in the article. IMO, we're not here to provide a commentary on RuneScape topics, only to describe them (and perhaps give advice). Skill 05:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Chia...I think phats are stupid, should that be in the article?Atlandy 19:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Only if a notable minority (or majority even) of players think that. Noting about everyone's thoughts would be unnecessary. Also, I must agree with you. So far there's 2/10,000,000 people we know of that thinks so (0.00002% of all RuneScape players or so). Chiafriend12 20:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I will be adding "some players think phats are stupid, and others think they make people look like fruits" There is NO way to verify that people think that...and if they do, then you have to put what others think too.. That is what bias means. We are only to report facts, no what people think of certain items. What about the ip that say "rs is for fags"?According to your logic, that should be includedAtlandy 20:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No, according to my logic if it is a notable thought (maybe I should include to the word "very" to help explain my logic) then it might be included. I never even said anything about a requirement for an inclusion. Chiafriend12 20:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It is an opinion of a few people in RS (according to the article) There should be no opinions in articles. Here is an example about opinion in wikipedia:

For example, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say: "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which can be supported by references to a particular survey; or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also verifiable as fact. In the first instance we assert a personal opinion; in the second and third instances we assert the fact that an opinion exists, by attributing it to reliable sources.Atlandy 20:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're trying to present reasons of why to remove it, you don't have to. You can just remove it. (That's what I'm seeing.) Chiafriend12 20:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC) (EDIT: You can remove it because there is no rule saying you have to have permission or present facts/reasons.)

Before I take away a huge section of an article, I would think there should be some discussion about it to avoid the edit wars that have plagued the wiki in the past. The talk page is designed to discuss article, what is good and bad. Skill and I both thought it was biased and was full of useless opinion....you did not. Obviously, we have come to an agreement that is doesn't belongAtlandy 20:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I always thought it was biased, but never said anything about that. My bad. Chiafriend12 20:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a green one \(^_^)/Krutikovman 00:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah.... That really doesn't belong here. Go to the Forums.  C Teng ^talk 02:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Partyhat

As partyhat is the proper spelling in-game, should this be moved to partyhat? Makemesmile already moved all the different colored ones.  C Teng ^talk 13:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan =D. There's quite alot of reference to change though.Dechaineux ^Talk 13:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's why we didn't move it then. Will we start, then?  C Teng ^talk 14:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh oh, I just realized that RS NPCs refer to party hats with a space, but specific colored ones without one. I guess we shouldn't change the references.  C Teng ^talk 15:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Template:Spelling partyhat|Spelling - Partyhat or party hat"

This is true, but does it really need to be on every partyhat article?  C Teng ^talk 00:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I just looked through the RuneScape website. They use both the word "Party hat" and "partyhat." So, I guess the partyhat template can be taken off.  C Teng ^talk 11:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General stores

Two of the party hat articles say that they can't be sold to general stores anymore. Is this true? If yes, then I have no chances of randomly getting partyhats from quitting players anymore :P. (Okay, now on a more serious note) If yes, I'll add it to the rest of the articles. Don't do it for me. I want the edits :P. FTWinston! ^talk 21:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I just valued each of my discontinued items at the general store. I got the message "You can't sell this item to any shop." This pretty much confirms it for party hats, Christmas crackers, and half full wine jugs even though I do not own any of those items. It is meant to prevent Real World item trading, since the general store value of a rare item is much lower than it's Grand Exchange value. Dtm142 22:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I Valued My Green Party Hat And I Got The Same Message. I Guess I Hoped For A Change, Because IT Used To Be 1 GP.

Cj Pichu Talk 21:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Partial protection.

As party hats are discontinued holiday items, it is unlikely that much more information will be needed to added to this page. As such, with such a rare item, the page is prone to vandalism, and I therefor recommend a partial protection be placed on this page to reduce the time counter vandals must take to ensure the wiki remains clear of vandalism. -- 08:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Reviewing the page history reveals quite a few instances where the article has been vandalised. I think semi-protection is our only option to reduce these issues arising again in the future. CFLM ^{Talk # Sign} 08:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think people who come to vandalize don't really care what article they hit. If P Hats are protected, they will hit something else. And a change on a p Hat article will most likely be reviewed by everyone scanning recent changes, where as sometimes lesser articles don't get checked as much. So it is more likely to be fixed quicker if we leave it as is.--Degenret01 08:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with "I think people who come to vandalize don't really care what article they hit." While I believe that some vandals simply come in and click a link, then start from there, that a fair amount of vandals go after pages that they're heard of before. The more known an item, area, NPC, etc is, the more traffic it receives on the encyclopedia. This holds true for vandals, I believe. Although there is no possible way to end vandalism, perhaps if potential vandals are cut off from the start by semi-protecting some of the most commonly vandalized pages, that they will be deterred from vandalism and perhaps become a positive contributor to the encyclopedia. -- 09:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Partyhats vs. Party hats

I know that the items are partyhats, and in general are party hats, but have NPCs ever referred to party hats in general as partyhats? If so, the page should be moved.  C Teng ^talk 23:15, November 2, 2009 (UTC)