Talk:RuneScape armour

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 June 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete.

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 July 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 July 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep because the nomination is too soon after the other one; it's a good idea to let the dust settle and let proposals be fulfulled before the process begins again..

Facts please?

As I reworded the article just now I noticed some facts that I do not think are entirley accurate. I am thinking then specificly about dragon full helmet and dragon square sheilds not excisting. However, I myself have not played RuneScape activly in about six months, so someone should be able to do a better job than me at fact checking. I hope I didn't step on any toes with the rewording, feel free to change anything back if you feel that was better. Clq 22:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon square sheild does exist...
dragon full helm does exist [Changed]
dragon med helm does J.J.Sagnella 22:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trimmed, gold, God and heraldic armour?

Should we add that in?

Yes. J.J.Sagnella 21:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added trimmed Dracion 11:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prices

Anyone suppose we remove all prices to items? It seems too crufty to me to include them. Hyenaste ^(tell) 00:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think adding store-prices for some items is appropriate but market prices definately have no place in this page. Curran919 20:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Store prices are ok because they stay the same, player to player prices shouldnt be listed though - • The Giant Puffin • 09:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I do not yet know how to revert a page. I'm sure I will eventually figure it out or happen across instructions, so I hope I removed all the obscene language. I apologize for my ignorance in this respect. Xela Yrag 19:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I learned, thank you for the link, Hyenaste, and for your kind words!!! 8) Xela Yrag 14:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Order of topics

The topics in this article started with the least important armours, so I moved that section down. I hope that is acceptable. I will be reading again to make sure this doesn't play havoc with anything in the sections that now come before the Auxilliary section. As usual, any assistance in this respect is appreciated. Xela Yrag 15:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonusless Items

I think it would be appropriate to remove certain items that do not boost your stats. Afterall this is an armour forums and if were were to include all weildable or wearable items, it would be extremely excessive. For example: We dont have party hats in the helm section and we dont have a rings section, so why should we include Ice Gloves or Catspeak Amulets? On the same coin, i think it would benefit to leave such items like team capes in the article. If i dont get any input in a few days ill do it myself. Curran919 20:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, Ice gloves give quite a good boost, not only that they are used in many quests and haence very notable gloves and if we don't put them here where else do we put them? As for the catspeak amulet, I'll repeat pretty much what I sai for the last one.J.J.Sagnella 21:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see both sides of this argument. Yes, we call the article "Armour" and some of these items are not exactly armour. However, they are required to be worn for certain quests, and they replace armour items when they are worn, which definitely affects the attack and defence bonuses that are in effect for the player during the quest. I think they should stay, especially after rereading the first paragraph of the Amulets section, which pretty well explains why they are included. Maybe this section needs to be moved up so that it is the first section of the Auxilliary section? Xela Yrag 12:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repairing Barrows armours in POHs

Is this a verified thing? Do we have a reference for it that we can site here? I haven't heard anything about it other than here, so I am sceptical. Also, the way I understand it, you can repair broken arrow and staffs at the repair bench, which has nothing to do with the armour stand, so I am still questioning the validity here. I didn't want to change it, because my construction level is not high enough yet to verify this for myself. And, as I have said before, I can't access the game at work to read the Knowledge Base to see what Jagex has to say about it. Assistance please. Xela Yrag 19:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No way to directly link (that I can find), but if you go here: http://kbase.runescape.com/lang/en/aff/runescape/viewcategory.ws?ref=main&cat_id=775 and choose the workshop article (number one at the moment), it confirms towards the bottom of the page that one can repair barrow items. Also, I have done it myself ;P Good luck. Clq 19:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link. I checked it out. Very interesting addition! Xela Yrag 16:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How did all that stuff get listed in my edit?

I didn't change most of that, such as Americanizing the spelling of defence, so why is it showing up under my name? The only thing I did in that edit was remove the word granite from the helmets section. I agree with all of it except "defense", but I didn't do it. Xela Yrag 05:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember the British Spelling of "defence" and "defensive" J.J.Sagnella 07:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AS to how you did it.... I'm puzzled. J.J.Sagnella 07:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see now. You reverted it before editing it. J.J.Sagnella 07:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Revised Version

Ok, just my opinion here, but I think you went a little overboard with the deletions. I agree that there was some information there that needed to be reworded and some that needed to be removed, but not more than two-thirds of the article. What is left is not informational enough to be called encyclopedic. I would sincerely like to resolve this with everyone, but if this is all the article that we are going to keep, then we might as well delete it. Xela Yrag 20:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I just tried to get rid of everything with the faintest inkling of gameguidiness to avoid deletion. I'm only level 66 in the game, so i'm not much of an authority on Barrows gear! :-) Go ahead and add stuff back, but for goodness sake, don't tell people how to get hold of stuff and how much it costs, don't make comprehensive lists of every type of glove and boot, use inline citations linking to places that do. Remember, Wikipedia is not a game guide. Sorry if this seems a bit harsh, but great care should be taken to avoid another AfD, one which this article may not survive. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 09:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not put that sort of detail at the article (or even multiple articles) on the RuneScape wiki, so that it's not completely lost but won't get deleted? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite new to editing Wikipedia, correct me if I'm wrong. Recently I added information on Infinity robes and it was deleted, as Wikipedia is not a game guide, yet we have the RuneScape weaponry article which explains a lot of aspects regarding weapons, including how to obtain them - not to mention other similar articles related to the game. I don't seem to understand the difference. It was also stated that it was a "gameguide trimming", when I wouldn't consider that trimmed armour at all. Please clarify it for me. Thank you. Banim 01:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was me, sorry about that. However, this article barely survived a recent Deletion Nomination, where the biggest complaint was that it comprehensively listed every type of armour in the game, and also included instructions of how to obtain it; a violation of the WP:NOT policy. I thought, enough is enough, and trimmed it down myself. My thinking is that we should have maybe two or three examples of the most common of each type of armour, describing their origin and appearance, but not giving any instructions of how to obtain them. Obviously, I'm not in charge here, but as the current form has so far escaped the attention of deletionists, I think we should keep it like this. RuneScape weaponry simply hasn't had such a trimming yet, although it could well need one. And by 'trimming', I mean to cut out paragraphs of text, I'm not referring to trimmed armour, sorry for the confusion! :-) CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 14:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the clarification, and sorry for my silly misunderstanding of the meaning of trimming! I have no problems with it being taken out, I was just asking because the difference between those two articles seemed strange. Banim 17:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it of paramount importance that the article dodges AFD? With this article, weapons and magic, it's either a boatloat of non-notable info. more suited to a fan site or a stub. The way I see it, it'd be good to take what each article is saying and add it to 'combat', the aim being a combat article which can be improved to the point of rising through the ratings system. The article states: 1) There are three types of armour in RS. 2) There are different armour slots on the character doll. 3). Each of the three types of armour has many different materials/qualities/prices/level of rarity etc. and a few other bits and bobs. Couldn't that all be said within a few paragraphs and just give the reader the facts instead of having all these armour types etc. bandied about? When I get a minute (after exhausting my limited abilities on the mini-game article), I'd like to try and add that info to the combat article with a view to putting this one out to pasture. Is that OK? QuagmireDog 00:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to do that myself sometime, so no objections here. I've been keeping the armour examples in this article down to three, at most. I think there should be a few examples of each. I was also going to give RuneScape weaponry the same treatment as this one, although I wasn't sure if everyone would forgive me! :-) I think that armour, weapons, monsters, and maybe magic should all be merged into combat. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 03:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one, that inspires confidence. From what I can see, the hurdle to getting concise info in the articles is the thought of good material being lost. By attacking NN/guide/cruft material, compressing articles and cutting the unnecessary articles ourselves, we're ensuring that the relevant info remains and that AFD can't be used as a sledgehammer to smash the series apart. The struggles of the editors who have already put so much work in is resulting in more regular contributors popping up and the whole thing is coming together. Huzzah! QuagmireDog 18:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revision

Okay, let me know what you think. I am not completely happy with the Barrows section, too game guidy, but short of deleting it, I do not know what else to do. I couldn't remember the "titles" of Dharok and a couple of the others, but I am sure someone will have them in there pretty quickly. I will be trying to find out how to change the title, but if someone already knows how, that would save me some time. Xela Yrag 17:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that the weapons and armour couldn't be succesfully merged into Combat from the outset? What I'd envisioned for Combat was:

Intro (expanded with all the appropriate info)
Combat levels (Pretty much as it stands)
Combat Triangle (As stands)
The three components of the triangle (as it stands, but with the magic equipment moved into armour/weapon subheadings).
Armour (description of the armours that the three classes can use, examples from each)
Weapons (same style as armour)
Barrows (The barrows items suffer degrading and have a set effect, they are such a departure that a seperate but punchy subheading would be useful)
NPC Combat (with a paragraph and links to the appropriate mini-games featuring NPC combat)
PVP Combat (as with NPC combat, contains subheadings Duel Arena, Wilderness and History of PVP).

The alternative being armour/weapons/barrows being here, with an introduction. What worries me is the temptation for folks to drop in and splurge more info about on the individual armour/weapons types (weapons actually featured subheadings on pickaxes and FLOWERS, my god). That said, both this and the combat articles can be consolidated seperately and both be considered works in progress - preventing AFD, and a merge of them both could be completed at a later date. I or someone else can consolidate the barrows info here at some point, if nothing else reading it from the knowledgebase page, so don't worry over that. QuagmireDog 20:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At one point, I had combat in here too, but it got cumbersome and too long. I am not an expert on Barrows armour or weapons, as you can tell, so I know that section needs major work. Basically, all I did was take the lists and "prose" them up, with a little more information and a little less strategy. I can see all three being one article eventually, but I hope we don't lose any of the information in the process. And, I mentioned that pickaxes and hatchets can be used as weapons, but there was way too much game guide information in the weaponry article as it stood (still stands, I guess, unless someone deleted it today). This, like all the others, is still a work in progress. I hope everyone agrees that it is a step in the right direction. Xela Yrag 20:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. With this underway there is no reason for AFD to come into the equation until this particular article is fully merged, and no reason for an admin to allow it. We will take our own sweet time in presenting the info for WP visitors, no more running. QuagmireDog 20:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Fancruft

this article is pure fancruft. It should be cutdown and merged with combat. Koolsen0 21:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a lot of talk, mainly at Talk:RuneScape on that matter recently. Personally, I couldn't agree more. Most other MMO articles make do with one or two subpages about arms, armour and fighting. Take EVE Online's subpages, Weapons of Eve Online and Spaceships of EVE Online for example. Three is bordering excessive. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 23:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The aim here is to make this one the main one, in case you didn't read what we were talking about up there. This is the first step in a series that will get us to one combat/armour/weapons article that is not fancruft, which this article is not. There is no strategy, advice, or any other game guide information in this article. There may be in 5 seconds as excited people edit there favorites in, but right now there is not. Please try to be constructive rather then destructive when talking here. We need less negativity and more help. Xela Yrag 06:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Ok, I take that back - the Barrows section has a little bit of game guide info, but, as I said, it is a work in progress. If there is a problem with a section, fix it. Don't just complain about it. Xela Yrag 06:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested change in layout

Can I suggest that instead of having all these subsections, we have a section on armour, a section on weaponry, a section on misc. equipment (capes, jewellery and the like), then three further sections for range, melee and and magic? Looking at the headings, the difference between the three equals and the four equals headings is difficult to guage with so many of both in such close proximity.

Forgive me for being forward, but I'm going to start that now. What with all the bedlam with more and more AFDs at the minute, having half-completed merges is just going to cost us. If what I do is an issue -please- revert and discuss here. QuagmireDog 03:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how this makes it any less cumbersome. Before the change, there was Armour with its listings for melee, mage, and range, followed by Weaponry with its lisings for melee, mage, and range, which is a total of six subheadings. Now the article has Melee with its listings for armour and weaponry, then Mage with its listings for armour and weaponry, and then Range with its listings for armour and weaponry, which is still a total of six. We have gone from two main headings to three main headings.

The direction we want to go needs to be decided. Do we want to talk about armour and weaponry as topics and then break them down between the various classes? Do we want to talk first about the class (styles) of combat and then break them down between armour and weapons? My thought was, obviously, the first choice, while QuagmireDog seems to think it should be the second. I do not think that either is more correct than the other. They are just different ways of thinking about it or looking at it. Which will give our readers more useful information without delving into that pit of fancruft our critics are lightning-fast to jump on? Remember that we still need to bring the rest of the general combat information into this at some point - things like the combat triangle, player versus player combat, etc. Xela Yrag 17:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Xela, this really has flown off in the wrong direction at speed. I came to this article after seeing that the RS Gods article had been put up for AFD in something of a panic. The reasoning for doing those edits wasn't "I think this is better" but "This is how I can rearrange the article in a format I can get my head around so that it doesn't get stamped with AFD". Before going too far it was 5am here and I needed to sleep. Coming back with a fresh head, what I've done doesn't even reflect my own wishes let alone anyone else's. What stuck in my mind was the 'attack type' sub-headings and.. another one, there just seemed to be so many and it didn't look 'right' (not that it should have to at this stage, but the AFDs are going beyond reasonable). If I'd have just lifted those combat-specific bits for now and rearranged within the format you've already embarked upon, it would have achieved both. Since I was pleased that you've undertaken this merge yourself and that I didn't want to meddle beyond tweaking here and there, it makes it all the worse. To say I feel foolish is putting it politely. I would be grateful if you or another would revert those changes I made and would allow me to lift those couple of paragraphs for combat, I've already cost enough time. QuagmireDog 21:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted my edits. QuagmireDog 18:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Merge

It's been on the cards for a little while, but I think it's time we considered merging RuneScape weaponry into RuneScape armour to create an article covering both types of equipment. I had (wrongly) assumed that it would be OK to just merge them one piece at a time and it'd be all great, but looking at the merge article seems to say otherwise, so my apologies. Everyone can speak for themselves so I'll just give you my own reasons to start:

Both the armour and weaponry articles are extremely prone to fancruft, since up till recently they have been almost complete lists of their respective equipment types. Once this excessive information is removed, there is not enough material to fill an article (but plenty of room for fancruft, come on in the water's fine).
Once merged the resulting article can focus on the types of armour and weapons, what kind of materials are used, an idea of how these items are obtained etc. etc. It'd have an intro and two subsections and could potentially be broken down into flowing prose without cruft.
Removing fancruft and shoring articles this way lets those acting in good faith know that concise information is what's wanted - not meaningless numbers, POV, the inclusion of the most obscure and ignored items, lists of every kind of ammunition. The longer an article in this series remains 'open', the more contributors will waste their time adding information which will be eventually culled.
Weaponry is an AFD waiting to happen, Armour has had non-notable information cut already, but is too small to be of value on its own.

So there you have it. Sorry about the to-ing and fro-ing, I'd just like to do this right so we can all move forward improving all articles. QuagmireDog 13:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have already done this in effect. The only thing left to do in order to complete the merge is to get rid of the Weaponry article. The information from it is already here. Oh, and the article needs to be renamed. I just haven't had time to research how to change the title of an article. To the best of my knowledge, we are now ready for Weaponry to be deleted. Aren't we? Xela Yrag 13:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pfft, there I was trying to think of what to put on your talk page and here you are already. The info for renaming pages is on WP:MM, which is where I got the merge tags. I was wondering about the process of merging so I looked it up, only to find that little lot. "Oh good, something for someone to kick a fuss up about", thought I. Figured if nothing else it would repeat what's already been said and be here in black and white. However, it turns out the 'discuss' just brings you here onto the talk page - thought it would be in a seperate discussion area and preserved for.. stuff. Call it a QD lesson. ~~I'll try and get all the barrows info in the right place.~~ QuagmireDog 13:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC) NM The barrows, any additional info's better off being written from scratch. If I'd have realised that this was all that was being kept I wouldn't have bothered trying to tame the weaponry article, ugh. Still, it's one less thing to contend with :) QuagmireDog 14:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be OK if I removed the merge tags and listed Weaponry for AFD? Assuming I can figure it out >.> QuagmireDog 14:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just redirect it? AFD is for articles beyond repair whose deletion is contested, nobody is going to argue with a simple merge and redirect. Be bold! CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 17:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, just don't want to mess around with things without at least having a feel for what others are thinking. As soon as this page has been moved to its new home (RuneScape equipment? Combat items (RuneScape) or whatever), I'll redirect the weaponry article. Bye-bye fantastical fancruft. QuagmireDog 14:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the weapons and armor section have way too much fancruft and should both be merged into a new section, maybe called equipment. Seriously, most of the weapons section is listing every single kind of weapon used in the game, and a good chunk of the armor section is about weapons! The new section should include information on all major items that can be equipped, but only general information, not details on each individual item. For example, it might tell about amulets in general, but not list every amulet and what it does. Maybe just one paragraph for each armor space on the equipment menu, plus a decent few paragraphs on weaponry? If people wanted the kind of detail we have here, they can go to the RuneScape manual or RuneHQ. Pyrospirit 16:56, 06 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're about to nuke all this garbage for good, provided nobody objects. See here for the discussion. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 17:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of American-English Spellings

I've changed the American-English spellings to British-English ones, and changed all instances of "melee" to "mêlée".

This is concerning a British game, after all. ;) --87.254.65.134 01:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. This is what should be done, as you quite rightly said, RuneScape is A British Game.(based on:Designers nationality and In-game spelling) J.J.Sagnella 09:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

87.254.65.134 is me, I had forgotten about my Wikipedia account. --Damuna 13:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging This Article

This article should be a subpage of the combat article. please move this page.

--[[User:Storkian|Storkian] 15:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)