Forum:Boostable vs Unboostable requirements

From Old School RuneScape Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Redwood Grove > Boostable vs Unboostable requirements
Replacement filing cabinet.svg
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 23 May 2020 by Legaia2Pla.


Hello! I'd like to formally, by consensus, decide what to do in regards to boostable vs unboostable skill requirements on quests, diaries, etc.

Currently, there seems to be a mix of pages with both, with some new editors adding boostable and some regulars/admins removing them. Also, as a note, we currently mostly seem to use "not boostable" and not "unboostable", I prefer "unboostable" myself, as it's still clear what it means and makes it easier to search for uses of either word lol.

I'd like to get opinions on which we should use, or if we should even use both and neither being stated being "unknown". I'd also like for this to be formally added to the style guide if we can find consensus on a decision. Here's the options I've come up with:

  1. Only explicitly state if a requirement is "boostable".
  2. Only explicitly state if a requirement is "unboostable".
  3. Explicitly state if a requirement is "boostable" or "unboostable".
  4. Explicitly state if a requirement is "boostable", "unboostable", or "unknown".

Let me know what you think, or if I forgot any options, although I think those 4 are fairly robust and probably cover every situation! zTUG5mD.png Crow 653  01:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Support 4 - I feel like option 4 is the most useful for players and editors together, but... if a vast majority of requirements are boostable, then it's kind of just repeating information. At the same time though, "the vast majority are boostable" might not be known to players reading our articles, so there's not really a good way to tell them "assume all requirements are boostable unless stated otherwise" until we undo their edits, which imo isn't ideal. zTUG5mD.png Crow 653  01:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Support/prefer 3, support 4 - I think 4 is an okay option, however having (unknown) next to the list of skills doesn't provide instant understanding of the boostable/non-boostable/unknown especially so if it there are no other skills listed that have boost/non-boost marked. Having to explain it in a ref also seems unwieldy, I would rather have only knowns listed. Besides 3/4 I think it is kind of important to have explicitly stated information. I was making Module:Sandbox/User:Choppe/Diary calculator/Quests, I spent a ridiculous amount of time trying to find out what is/isnt boostable because some are listed and others arent, and some of them I just had to guess, so I expect to need to change them at some point. Also, I think it is moderately unhelpful to just not say them. Even if WE know that 1 or 2 are the style we use, that does not mean the average user will understand whether we only use unboostable or only use boostable. Choppe|T 01:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Reply - Do you think we could come up with better wording for an acceptable param than "unknown" then? I'm not great at wording things, so I'm definitely open to any discussion on different wording for these too. Perhaps "needs confirmation" or something? zTUG5mD.png Crow 653  01:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Reply - I can't come up with anything that is succinct, unless someone else can come up with a decent one. Hard ask I think. Maybe if we were able to get an osfw task or something to get the boost-ability of diary/quests we are unsure of, if we were to go with 4, I wouldn't want it to be placed everywhere without having something to explain. The best solution I can offer is having (unknown) with a ref tag popup that says we do not know whether it is boostable or not.Choppe|T 03:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Support 4+Some - Only issue I see with 4 is that there are some "requirements" that aren't really requirements. Zogre flesh eaters fletching req is an example of this, and might require an additional state of "unnecessary" or something like that. Otherwise 4 removes ambiguity. If it turns out that too many are boostable (to the point where it does become a problem) it can just be hidden from view if boostable. Option 3 could cause issues when defaults are chosen which leads to incorrect values (see item weights and alchability). 1 and 2 leave us in the current state of confusion. Andmcadams (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

So my personal take on this is if we find this to be the case, we take it upon our discretion to just move those over to optional requirements instead of in the main requirements (regardless of what the quest text says). Jakesterwars (talk) 01:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
That's a good idea, I'm on board with it. Keeps the current problem simpler too. Andmcadams (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Prefer 3, support 4 - Having two defined states versus unknown is better. At the same time, having unknown leads to someone possibly adding the correct value too. Either way works, but I prefer 3. Jakesterwars (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Support 4 - Agree with most of the points made already, as previously stated it's far more likely that people will add information to the wiki if it's clear when it's an unknown value. My aside is I think one possible idea to make this suggestion work without too much page presence is appending something with a tooltip like (Unknown) which would be helpful to communicate what's going on (with or without the superscript) without janky references or too much page bloat, and allowing accompanying text like "Boostable with garden pie at level 46" to be shoved into a tooltip. Possibly shortened to (B) (N) (U) sub/superscripts if people think the design language is intuitive enough for people to pick up on hovering over it. MxFox (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit: To clarify this suggestion would almost certainly be using a basic template for its function. MxFox (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Question - Are you able to provide an example of each possibility? I'm having a slight problem envisioning how they're all different or what they are. - Legaia2Pla · ʟ · 23:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Here's some examples:
  1. The 56 Agility requirement on Regicide would have (boostable) appended to it. The requirements on Song of the Elves would not have anything appended to them.
  2. All requirements on Song of the Elves would have (unboostable) appended to them. The 56 Agility requirement on Regicide would not have anything appended.
  3. All requirements would explicitly state if (boostable) or (unboostable), so Song of the Elves would all have (unboostable) and Regicide would have (boostable).
  4. Same as number 3 but also have an (unknown) appended to requirements that states we do not know if they're boostable or unboostable yet. As an example of one I personally don't know if they're boostable or not and was mentioned earlier: Zogre Flesh Eaters

I do think if we decide to go for #4 then we need better wording than just "unknown" or we need a sup like what MxFox suggested, since it's not clear that the "unknown" is referring to boostability. zTUG5mD.png Crow 653  08:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! - Legaia2Pla · ʟ · 15:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Support 1 - This option is simple and effective. I think there's an understanding that the default would be unboostable and the exception that would need to be made apparent is when you can boost a skill. - Legaia2Pla · ʟ · 15:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I feel like there's not any understanding to our users that unboostable is a default, as evidenced by the cases where people have added unboostable (or variations of saying unboostable). Ingame, I think the default is boostable rather than unboostable, which furthers confusion. zTUG5mD.png Crow 653  16:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
With Crow on this one. I've seen both ways where people put that information in when they find it can or can't (even if it's implied). This would make it explicit in the information someone may be looking for. Jakesterwars (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Support 3, prefer 4 - "unkown"s will be replaced and thus removed when all quests have been specified, is a good start to get users to add more info. Best to specify, otherwise the general reader might understand it as either unkown/unboostable/boostable, and there cannot be a consistent understanding amongst readers so to give as much information as possible is best. Beach1 (talk) 10:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Closure - Consensus has been determined to implement suggestion #4: Explicitly state if a requirement is "boostable", "unboostable", or "unknown". Additionally, the unknown parameter should include something to remove ambiguity, especially if it's the only parameter shown on a page. Legaia2Pla · ʟ · 22:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)