Forum:Some article style clarification

From Old School RuneScape Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Redwood Grove > Some article style clarification
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 11 July 2017 by KnazO.

Okay so recently I've noticed some inconsistencies between articles that I'd like to iron out here. This is mainly to stop potential edit warring and to make articles have a more consistent style altogether. I'm going to number each point to make it easier to refer to them when deliberating.

1:"Rare" vs "Very rare" clarification

I vaguely remember somewhere that drop rates above 1/512 are considered "Very rare" (may be RS3 Wiki). Recently I changed the drop rate word for Torstol seed for aberrant spectres and their superior variant to Very rare since it was confirmed 1/750, but someone changed it back. Instead of reverting it back, it brings the thought - is this considered Rare or Very rare? I think we should make it clear-cut as to what is considered Very rare and then amend the style guide accordingly. I propose that drop rates above 1/512 should be considered Very rare.

2: Adding a drop rate - raritynotes or namenotes?

As I was adding the drop rate for mysterious emblem to Wilderness monsters such as Fire giants a few days ago, I noticed some articles already had a drop rate added for looting bag but used the namenotes parameter instead of raritynotes. As far as I'm aware there isn't a stated one to always use, could we have deliberation on what would be best? Like drop rate, an amendment to the style guide would be the preferable option to clarify things. I propose that we use raritynotes instead of namenotes since it makes logical sense to have the rarity near the rarity section than the name.

3: Further drop rate hierarchy

By this I don't mean the already adopted method of order of rarity from Common to Very rare, this is fine. What I mean by this is for example if a drop is confirmed more common than others (a good example would be mithril dragon chewed bones vs ancient page). As you can see chewed bones are 1/42 and ancient page 1/64, where the more common item is above the less common one. Should this be adopted everywhere if the exact drop rate is confirmed? I propose that we have it akin to unnamed drop rates, where the more common items are above the rarer ones.


1 Support for drop rates above 1/512 being considered Very rare.
2 Support for using raritynotes instead of namenotes. This is because the drop rate of an item would be more suited at the rarity section, it makes sense rather than having it at the name section.
3 Support for having specific drop rates in order from common to rare. This is consistent with items without specific drop rates and looks nicer overall IMO. — KnazO 21:05, June 29, 2017 (UTC)

In regards to 1 I now support what Spine said about the currently unwritten rule for drop rate words. — KnazO 15:31, July 1, 2017 (UTC)

Comment -

1. I was actually the person who changed that:P. I did so because I read on Spineweilder's page that "Always" was 1/1, "Common" was 1/2-1/10, "Uncommon" was 1/11-1/99, "Rare" was 1/100-1/999, and "Very rare" was 1/1,000+. Torstol seeds were confirmed to be 1/750 for those, hence why I changed it back. I don't know if 1/512 should be considered Very Rare though. I mean, there are SO many 1/512 drops. If we did this, I feel almost every item would be considered Very rare. I consider Very rare to be stuff like pets that literally take thousands of kills. So yeah, I think we should adopt the numbers on Spineweilder's page. That's just my opinion though.

2. I really don't know the difference, I have only ever used raritynotes. That said though, I like consistency and think everybody should just use raritynotes.

3. I agree with this. As this I try to sort them by rarity from Common-Very rare. I do think for known rates though that we sort from most common to least common.

~l)~/\/~/-\~ (talk) 21:25, June 29, 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah in case I wasn't clear, 1/512 would still be considered Rare for the amendment I propose, but 1/513 and above would be very rare. — KnazO 21:29, June 29, 2017 (UTC)
Oh okay, that sounds more reasonable! I support that now:). ~l)~/\/~/-\~ (talk) 21:31, June 29, 2017 (UTC)

Comment - 1. We already follow some unwritten drop rate rule:

  • Always: 100% drop rate
  • Common: 1/2 to 1/10
  • Uncommon: 1/11 to 1/99
  • Rare: 1/100 to 1/999
  • Very rare: 1/1000 and beyond

2. Don't we already use raritynotes only? Can't remember an instance where I've used namenotes.

3. Support, if that's something we're already not doing. -- Recent uploads SpineTalkContribs 23:33, June 29, 2017 (UTC)

Comment - I second Spineweilder verbatim. I've always used the rarity guide on his profile for reference. I also support 3.
JohnSixxScott (talk) 20:44, July 3, 2017 (UTC)

Closed - no comment for a week. Formal amendment to the style guide will be made regarding drop rates. The current unwritten ones Spine mentioned seem to be the consensus, so they will be used verbatim, as well as to use raritynotes instead of namenotes regarding drop rates. Drop rates of the same worded rarity will also be ordered in order of frequency, where more frequent items will take precedence (e.g. "Uncommon" 1/60 drop being above "Uncommon" 1/70 drop). — KnazO 20:23, July 11, 2017 (UTC)