FANDOM

Re: Item Store Prices Edit

Ugh, this is horribly complicated and the current way of showing prices doesn't help with that.

The sale price is the GP players can get from selling an item to a store. It's vague because it changes depending on how many items already exist in the store. It may change depending on the specialty of the store (whether the store sells the item by default), too. Steel Plate Mail Body, for example, explicitly states which store the price comes from. I personally just ignore the Sale Price when I'm editing. Low alchemy is a good enough hint for readers and I don't want to bother with the complexity.

See my user page for details on store prices. A base price for each item is stored in the client, so dumps exist which can be easily searched to find a value.

I think it's best to state the methods for obtaining the item in the article text. We have too many pages and too few editors to suddenly decide on a standard way to show that information.

--Stormykins (talk) 14:02, October 17, 2014 (UTC)

Re: Hey! About Rare drop table... Edit

Agreed. It's probably best that this information be contained in a template. I would consider adding herbs to the list, too. It seems like runes would be a logical addition to the table, but there seems to be big discrepancies with regards to rune drops, at least if the existing drop lists are remotely accurate. Stormy (talk) 23:02, October 28, 2014 (UTC)

Re: Considering drinks Edit

Category:Drinks is good. I'd be in favor of splitting the food nav into sub-categories, and having their sub-headings link to an all-encompassing page - drinks being one of the sub-categories. I've delayed in adding missing stuff to food because of its massiveness, honestly. Stormy (talk) 23:43, November 12, 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and categorization can be made part of the template. Use <includeonly>[[Category:Drinks]]</includeonly> Stormy (talk) 00:56, November 13, 2014 (UTC)

AdminshipEdit

Hi Mith! I was wondering if you wanted to be an administrator here. You and Stormy are obviously the two people driving the project, and you'd probably both be better off with admin rights so you don't have to wait for absentee sysops to show up (myself included). Cook Me Plox 20:44, November 26, 2014 (UTC)

That'd be an honor, great! Classic is in unique position because it's receiving no more updates. We can pretty much, at least technically, map the game in its entirety.
Cheers, RSC Mith (talk) 00:20, November 27, 2014 (UTC)

Hey,

Glad to see somebody with passion for Runescape Classic.  I maxed my character on Runescape Classic back in 2009 (99 in all 18 stats) and still logon every once in a while for nostalgia. I'd love to see some attention brought back to classic, anything I can do to help, let me know!

Mr Helmut (talk) 21:19, February 9, 2015 (UTC) 

Please review Edit

Please review this discussion and the edit histories of the two involved, and make a decission on whether the newly appointed administrator is qualified to handle himself in the best interest and purpose of this community encyclopedia. Please also reconsider the ability of his cohort to revert any such decision made therein.

Additionally, please do not blindly provide people with such abilities. With an increased number of editors, which is in no small part due to Jagex re-opening Classic for the next two months, I propose that now is the time to make use of the Maple Grove to hold public discussions concerning the user rights of editors. I acknowledge that discussions on this wiki take time, and I support it. When abuse of person and of content is at hand, such decisions should not be made on a whim. After all, such abilities should be granted to those people who have long proven themselves to handle them in accordance with established regulation and overall benefit of the wiki, granted when such a need to share such abilities is necessary, and granted to someone who will not abandon the wiki or greatly reduce its use within a few months time.

Lastly, I'm writing on your talk page directly in hopes that you will be notified of such message and read it before those involved remove it. 162.72.117.100 06:16, January 18, 2016 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.