Talk:RuneScape/Archive 15

Archives
28 October 2004 – 1 May 2005 1 May 2005 – 30 October 2005 31 October 2005 – 28 January 2006 29 January 2006 – 5 March 2006 6 March 2006 – 3 April 2006 3 April 2006 – 7 May 2006 7 May 2006 – 23 May 2006 24 May 2006 – 12 June 2006 13 June 2006 – 3 July 2006 4 July 2006 - 28 July 2006

Runescape 666

Just a rumour?- Because i saw a video on YouTube and it showed people getting PKed in town after members leave there house dungeon? http://youtube.com/watch?v=FxDq_9N9iRE RyuuTaichou

We acknowledge that it did happen, but it has not yet been the subject of an intelligent edit yet. Here on Wikipedia, the glitch is not considered as serious as some players make it out to be. Hyenaste ^(tell) 08:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

General Reminders

• Spelling- RuneScape is a British Game and uses British spelling, so British Spelling must be used. This rule applies to all articles in the RuneScape Series.

• Fansites- Wikipedia policy is that the one (1) most popular fansite by site traffic may be included and no others. For this reason, only RuneHQ.com shall be allowed. Wikipedia's rules also say no more than one fansite is allowed.

(Question. Who says RuneHQ is the most popular? I see Tip.it just as often in any situation.)

It was decided by the main component-site traffic. Check out some of the archives to see previous dicussions and a more complex answer as to why runehq was chosen. J.J.Sagnella 17:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Why, may I ask, only one fansite allowed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Madman6510 (talk • contribs) .

A maximum of one fansite is dictated by Wikipedia:External links. Also, please Sign your posts! CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 03:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Who wants to work with me to make RuneScape a good article?

Having recently joined the Computer and Video Games WikiProject, and as a member of the Good articles WikiProject, I have a goal of making RuneScape a Good article.

The RuneScape article has previously failed a Featured Article nomination and failed a Good Article nomination. I sent it for Peer Review, raising several concerns, but received no significant responses.

The article needs considerable work to become a good article, and I obviously can't do it alone. After all, Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia project. I am currently seeking Wikipedians, such as J.J.Sagnella, who wish to collaborate with me to improve RuneScape to Good Article status. In addition, such Wikipedians are likely to be potential Wikifriends with a common interest in RuneScape.

If you wish to collaborate with me to make RuneScape a good article, please reply with your comments. Please read the Peer Review and the comments on the failed Featured Article and Good Article nominations. In the next few weeks, I expect us to be participating in copious discussions on this talk page, about issues with the article we need to address and how to address them. During these discussions, we are likely to learn more about each other and become Wikifriends.

While we work on improving the article to Good Article status, I hope to keep RuneScape semi-protected to prevent floods of anonymous vandalism. I wish Wikipedia did not allow anonymous editing. Once we have consensus, we will send the RuneScape article for Peer Review, and once the peer review is complete, it should be ready to be nominated for Good Article. Once we achieve our current goal of making RuneScape a good article, we may have a future goal of getting it to featured status.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

:I'll offer my services when independent copy editing and sense checking of the article is required, just drop a request at my talk page Gnangarra 07:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC) dont bother asking me Gnangarra 07:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Gnangarra, and thanks for offering to help! Perhaps you could fact-check everything - there's lots of vandalism. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Now RuneScape is Protected-and should STAY like that, we can get to work to making it better. I'll have a look and tell you if anything is wrong. J.J.Sagnella 07:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Good. Keep it semi-protected. The only people who wish for the semi-protection to be lifted are the moronic anonymous vandals. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've searched throught the article and its revisions and reverted some subtle vandalism (someone changed the price for billing out by 10 cents...) and I removed some things which are either too specific or would be considered as "gamecruft". Now I'd say the main problem is getting sources for all the criticisms. Also the "weapons" section may need a cleanup, because the metals named aren't the only ones. There's granite, blurite, wood, which technically makes the list void. J.J.Sagnella 08:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Good. I think what we should do is to identify all major concerns with the article, then work out how to address these issues, then actually work on them. We must uncover all problems that would prevent RuneScape from becoming a Good Article. That's where Peer Review would help, except that my Peer Review did not receive any significant response. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll chip in sometime. I'm a bit busy IRL at the moment, but I'll have a go at spelling, citations, and lend a hand with the subpages too. I did manage to get some information out of the last Peer Review, and I added them to the bottom of the todo list a while back. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 15:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, CaptainVindaloo! A toast to our co-operation! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ill help when I can. I am a bit busy with other projects at the minute, but Ill try to use some of my free time to improve this article - • The Giant Puffin • 16:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Good. Let's see how we can improve the article, and where you can help. --J.L.W.S. The Special One

07:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for my rather extended absence from my "duties" here on the RuneScape pages. I have been in the process of moving. I am still in flux a little, but I should be able to help more as the days pass. I have done quite a few grammar, punctuation, etc. edits this morning and will do more later. I am here to help. Xela Yrag 13:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand that real life can get stressful. My common tests just ended. I know you're also one of the regular editors of this article, and I look forward to collaborating with you. Let's discuss the issues that need to be addressed and how to address them, then actually address them. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I will try to help. I don't have a good internet connection (in fact its terrible), but I can check the info on the article. Freiberg, Let's talk!, contribs 16:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

My Internet is pretty slow too. Thanks for offering to do fact-checking. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy to help. I used to play RuneScape myself, so I could give my insight on this. I'm not like those RuneScape vandals who like to promote the game, instead of placing in encyclopedic info.--Ed 19:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to help as much as possible, though my beady eye is fixed mainly on the sub-articles, there's plenty of opportunities to improve them. If nothing else I'll be buzzing through the main article and checking for vandalism, though by the looks of things there's a lot of progress happening here very quickly (well done to the contributors who managed to pull the article through the sheer volume of edits and bring it this far). QuagmireDog 01:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

copyedit question

I started a copy edit and have a question the use of (xxxxx) after words is for where the accronym is going to be used in its place. does that also mean that where other usage the same infrance can be applied. aka this increase their experience (train) in any of the does it mean that train is to use from here when referring to increasing experience. Gnangarra 16:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I been bold with the lead, there was six or so sentences that started with "Players", its down to one. I reduced the volume of wording used by cutting expanded repetative detail. Gnangarra 17:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

POV p2p vs f2p

I've noticed that when the article discusses the difference between p2p and f2p areas, activities and benefits that POV creaps in, this needs to addressed. Gnangarra 17:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I personally think that unless the difference is actively being told in the article, it shouldn't be mentioned at all. It's too specific. Hyenaste ^(tell) 17:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Gnangarra. Thanks for pointing this issue out. Could you provide some specific examples? Then we could decide how to work on them. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have already copy edited the two sections where this was a problem. Gnangarra 07:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Economy: Flax

Ive found some interesting topics in the RuneScape economy article, and I think flax should be part of it, as flax is used more for its money than its use: to be turned into bow strings. It just gets juggled around in the world. That could be interesting and I suggest addoing it to the RuneScape economy article.

That page is not currently protected so you're welcome to edit it, as long as you do it well. Otherwise, it will get reverted with a possible stern warning. Hyenaste ^(tell) 19:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Correction : The page has been protected once more. → p00rleno (lvl 76) ←ROCKS 02:08, Saturday January 4 2025 (UTC)

And for a good reason: to prevent anonymous vandals from destroying the article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The Graphics of 2005

In the 'Graphics' part of the main RuneScape article, an update will 'start in February 2005' !!???!!

It's been fixed, thanks. Hyenaste ^(tell) 19:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Servers - equipment

Does anyone know what or where to find out the technical details of the servers are. What OS do they use? Gnangarra 12:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I've looked and I don't think JAGEx Released that information. Note also how I wrote "Jagex" like "JAGEx". I believe that is correct because that is how it is on their logo and it actually stands for JAVA Gaming Experts. Feedback? → p00rleno (lvl 76) ←ROCKS 02:08, Saturday January 4 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if the servers were Linux or Unix. Those two are particularly geared towards servers, whereas Windows, even Server Edition, I see more often on standalone PCs, network clients and small network servers. Why doesn't one of us ask in the next Postbag from the Hedge? CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure they're a *nix OS, and the server software is their own - they created it themselves. Agentscott00^{(talk contribs)} 18:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point CaptianVindaloo, maybe we all should ask the more requests the better the chances of them responding Gnangarra 01:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that may be pestering them. Maybe mention that it is for this article? CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 01:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't, that would be OR. Server details would have to be published elsewhere (not in email, etc) for it to be verifiable. Nifboy 07:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The reply would be published in a publicly accessible page at the RuneScape.com site (for example: [1]) - not replied to in email. Besides, I thought Original Research is where people are publishing their own scientific, political or whatever theories on Wikipedia. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If we are going to change the way we do Jagex, shouldn't it be JaGEx, like they sometimes do it, rather than JAGEx?? Xela Yrag 14:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the logo says JAGeX, not JAGEx, but I think that is merely for aesthetics. I think it should stay as Jagex. Nathan M 08:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I did just check at Companies House (a UK Government department listing all registered businesses in the UK), Jagex is on there all right, but all company names are all caps on the register, so I don't think that'll tell us the legally recognised capitalisation. Still, it provides a little new information and should be an interesting and trustworthy cite. Here's the link. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops, that link doesn't work. Just run a search for 'jagex' from here. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 17:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Edits to lead section.

I have recently edited the introductory section of the RuneScape article. I spotted (and fixed) several grammatical errors that could possibly be the work of anonymous vandals. Please feel free to look through my edit, and further improve the introductory section, and to correct errors. This is in the interests of making RuneScape a good article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I did most of those edits, it wasnt vandalism, it was to remove the and this, and this, and this style of writing. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article. There were 6 sentences that started with "Players" so they were re worded to stop the repative prose. Dont ask for help with editing the article if all you do is revert when it happens. Gnangarra 07:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. I suspected it was vandalism because those edits caused several grammatical errors in the lead section. Thanks for trying to help - please feel free to improve further. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh J.L.W.S., if only comma splices were the worst vandals had to offer... And Gnangarra, don't take it so personally. The lead will probably be rewritten several times as we prepare it for WP:GA. Hyenaste ^(tell) 08:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The lead is the most dynamic section of any artcile, so it should be. I expected it be edited and altered so that's not an issue. To say it was the work of anonymous vandals when most of my edits clearly state what I did and why, just look at the history, thats different. Gnangarra 08:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not as if J.L.W.S. said "rawr gnarr is a vandle!1", and I don't think he looked at the recent page history. With all the vandalism this page is used to anything, even a typo, could be the work of a vandal. Hyenaste ^(tell) 08:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm really sorry - I didn't check the page history. And this article suffers from so much vandalism - some of the vandalism is subtle, like deliberately introducing grammatical errors into the article. And I said "possibly the work of anonymous vandals", not "definitely". I think we should discuss how to further improve the lead section. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

what I suggest this paragraph is too long winded it needs to be condensed. Gnangarra 11:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

For an article of this length, we need a lead of about three paragraphs. Being concise is important - when shortening the lead, we must not lose information or make the sentences less comprehensible. I spotted several grammatical errors in your lead section, and that you had missed out the information on combat. Let's improve it further:

This is about the same length, yet squeezes in more information in a more concise manner.

Wikipedia is a wiki, and made to be dynamic. As I have improved on your improvement, may you and others improve on my improvement.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

two points, I see combat as a skill and therefore doesnt need to be specifically mentioned in the lead. Quests are a linear activity that while its the players choice to do, the process itself isnt. their completion is required to obtain certain weapons/armour and access areas its a necessity aka "lost city quest", "dragon slayer" Gnangarra

Current lead (3rd para)

Players, shown on the screen as customisable avatars, can see and interact with each other. They set their own goals and objectives, deciding which of the available activities to pursue; there is no linear path that must be followed. They may engage in combat with other players or with monsters, complete quests, increase their experience (train) in any of the available skills (such as runecrafting or fishing), or just hang out and chat. Players interact with each other through chatting, trading, participating in mutual missions, playing combative or co-operative mini-games, and visiting each other in their player owned houses (referred to by most players as "POHs").

Suggested, 3rd para

Players appear on the screen as customized avatars, can see and interact with each other. With no linear path to follow players set their own goals and objectives, deciding which of the available activities they wish to pursue. They can increase their experience (train) in any of the available skills. Interaction between players through chatting, trading, and other activities that are also part of the game. Alternatively they can pursue predetermined activites like Quests to obtain new weapons and skills.

Players appear on the screen as customized avatars, and can see and interact with each other. With no linear path to follow, players set their own goals and objectives, deciding which of the available activities to pursue. They may increase their experience (train) in any of the available skills, complete quests, and engage in combat with monsters and other players. Players may interact through chatting, trading and other activities.

The information in the second paragraph, about the kingdoms RuneScape takes place in, should not go into the lead section. Some information, about how players move around the map, could be merged into the current third paragraph. What do you think? If we remove the second paragraph, we may have to lengthen the current third paragraph (which will become the second) by up to a sentence. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Movement methods could be move into the gameplay section opening para, actually the whole 2nd para would be better there. -- Gnangarra 08:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Fancruft guide notice

Crossposting here and at Portal talk:RuneScape

After a final polish, and as there are no other objections, I have created this template in Portal:RuneScape/Fancruftguide, and shall be transcluding it onto subpages shortly. I won't be substing it though, so any improvements will be reflected immediately on the subpages. It is producible using: {{Portal:RuneScape/Fancruftguide}}. As Hyenaste suggested, I'll modify it into a user talk message too. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 17:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

RuneScape editors will find that when they remove the cruft, they'll have several 2-4 paragraph articles. At that point, it can probably be merged into a full gameplay article. — Deckiller 17:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what I'm hoping too. I'm going to have a go at merging a couple more articles after I finish adding these. Only trouble is, merging the lot will probably take quite a while. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Usertalk version

I've modified this template into a version for usertalk messages. As ever, feedback and any improvements are appreciated. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 20:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That is excellent work, I think the contributors who have spent so much time working on the runescape wiki and in particular those wrestling with the wikipedia entries are going to see the light at the end of the tunnel. RS articles creeping up the ratings scale and a full wiki guide to RS ahoy! QuagmireDog 14:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! :-) CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

first public beta release date

Change the wording, please. Runescape was released to the public as a beta on 4 Jan 2001. Just add the word beta. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gigei (talk • contribs) .

Done. Sign your posts! CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Monster appearance section necessary?

IMO, that's going too far, too detailed and most importantly gamecruft. J.J.Sagnella 08:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's very relevant to tell about a future update that doesn't seem to be a big change that can effect the gameplay. Banim 17:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It's editted out already, but I wanted to say hey, that's all for the good. The moment that update occurs the statement would be rendered out of date anyway, demons looking less like giant crimson bipedal cows is nice for us, but not a major issue for someone who didn't see them in the first place. QuagmireDog 01:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do we have a section for Area Appearance? It's pretty much the same subject matter.--Mr. Sparkle 04:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Hyenaste ^(tell) 09:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

How about a "Graphical Improvements" section? That would convey the fact that the graphics are always improving. And that may be significant to someone who hasn't seen the monsters before. And how about we also have some pictures of the demons/dragons/giants before and after the change?--Mr. Sparkle 22:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Be careful about going into excessive detail. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Character animations

Is this section necessary? It's uncited and no sources probably exist, and the animations are such a minor part of the game that the article could still be considered complete without it. Hyenaste ^(tell) 17:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally I'd say no. The first sentence states what (IMHO) even those unfamiliar with games would already know - most modern games involve animations, it'd be more notable if the game did not (IE it was a text-based MUD or a turn-based strategy game with static graphics). Emotes in general are not widely used in-game (hiding them in a seperate window means players just cycle through them occasionally or repeat the more angry ones instead of typing their displeasure), and they could just be mentioned along with the chat interface, they're another form of communication after all. The time-limited availability of some emotes is something Jagex likes to 'big up', but discussing individual emotes that are now unavailable anyway doesn't seem relevant in a 'pedia article. I'd also question the detail level sentence - one's the full Monty and the other's a graphical cut-down without music - not exactly a significant impact on RS players, let alone anyone who doesn't. That's my tuppence worth anyway. QuagmireDog 01:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The Fansites Debate

It has been decided that only one website - RuneHQ - be included under "External links" in the RuneScape article. RuneHQ was selected based on having the highest traffic as per its Alexa ranking.

However, this controversial decision has been repeatedly disputed. Other users frequently add links to other popular fansites - Tip.it, Sal's Realm and Zybez. Such edits are usually reverted quickly. However, this is generally done in good faith, and I do not consider it vandalism or spamming, as Tip.it, Zybez and Sal's Realm are also popular fan sites.

Wikipedia is a wiki, and is designed to be dynamic. This is one reason why many dispute this decision. Therefore, if you wish to comment on or dispute this decision, please do so only in this section, and please cite reasons why other fansites should or should not be included in the External Links section. Where possible, back up your arguments with hard-and-fast evidence.

My opinion is that there should be links to several other fansites. This is to give players more places to look for information (particularly as we wish to avoid fancruft). For example, RuneHQ's price guide is considerably inferior to Zybez's. However, the list should be limited to the most popular and notable fansites to reduce the risk of spamming. RuneHQ, Tip.it, Sal's Realm and Zybez should be sufficient. Some argue that several other sites sell RuneScape gold. This is false, and the fault lies with Google AdSense. In addition, Neopets has 4 fansites listed.

Nevertheless, if having multiple fansites will decrease RuneScape's chances of becoming a good article, or having a single fansite will greatly increase RuneScape's chances of becoming a good article, I will support having only a single fansite. Several administrators have cited that having only a single fansite in the External Links section is in accordance with Wikipedia policy.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

There is another alternative, during the recent AfD I utilised Star Wars as an example of the size and content of some fan based articles. One of the categories I highlighted was fansites, they have about 12 articles on the major fan sites. I'm not saying that each site needs an article but maybe its possible to have one article about all the major fan sites. Gnangarra 11:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think fansites should have their own articles - they'll just get deleted. If we structure the article as I suggested, and RuneScape community has a main article, we could include a section about fansites, as they are relevant to RuneScape's community. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, It is best to leave it how it is. The article gets vansalism all the time but now it is protected it is safe. My main problem, is hwy have you decided those four? Choosing four is going to cuase problems and questions like "Why four? Why not none? Why not five?" will arise. Not only that, but at five,just one more, an adminstartor demanded they got removed. Whatever decision we chose would be unstable, but I think it is more stable now than any other decision.

(Oh,and to clarify on Neopets, It is now three not four and we are trying to get it down further, but as there is no clear top fansite we are looking for a toplist.) J.J.Sagnella 11:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Please ensure it stays semi-protected, if not permanently, at least until we get RuneScape to Good Article status. Thanks for informing me about the past debates about how many fansites there should be when there were multiple fansites. As for Neopets, I think no one disputes that PinkPT is the number 1 fansite. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

But It has had its fair share of security scares. J.J.Sagnella 08:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, an article about all of the major fansites would be inappropriate. The fansites are not nearly notable enough to deserve their own article. It would immediately be deleted for that reason, and as fancruft. We can barely have an article about a monster without it getting deleted. Second of all, the external links style guide states that we should have only one fansite at max. However, a directory or toplist would be better. I am in support of linking to a directory. Dtm142 17:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Zybez and Tip.it have lower Alexia rankings due to the fact that their forums are seperate from the main pages. Since RuneHQ has integrated message boards, they have a bigger traffic rating. To have one's link on Wikipedia is an incredible benifit to a site and that gives RuneHQ an unfair advantage despite the fact that in many regards, their features are inferior to Tip.it or Zybez. 24.84.50.181 21:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Separate forums do not mean anything; a sites Alexa ranking does not depend on forum usage, it simply depends on the number of visits to a site. We cannot choose a fansite to link to based upon any percieved 'quality'. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 21:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

If you don't mind my asking, then... what do we base it on? Honestly, it's probably best to take them all off, given that there's no definitive "power gap" between the "good sites" and... everything else. --Boss1000 21:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC) (Coming from a person from Zybez)

CPT Vindaloo, forums make a difference. Since people go to discuss the content of the parent pages, on RSC they go to an entirely different page. Whereas on RuneHQ, the forums are all contained within. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.84.50.181 (talk • contribs) .

If anything, separate forums give Zybez, Tip.It et al an advantage over RuneHQ, as they have two sites with the potential for a high Alexa rank. However, RuneHQ recieves more hits than any other fansite, hence the higher ranking. We can only link to one fansite at any one time; this is dictated by Wikipedia policy. It is hardly Wikipedia's fault if more people visit RuneHQ than Zybez or Tip.It. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 21:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought that this issue was already resolved, but that would be mighty naïve of me. In truth, I'd support the last decision that was made based on this straw poll, which was to remove them all. Or, if you wanted to avoid fancruft, generate a list of the ten most popular fansites in RS. That is all. Makoto 23:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Although the issue is resolved, this section is here in case anyone presents new evidence that could overturn the decision, as well as to inform others why RuneHQ is the only site listed. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It is resolved. That last decision lasted barely months.

Having none is a decision not supported anywhere by Wikipedia. This idea is the most stable and Is in accordance to Wikipedia's rules. Also, we can't say one fansite is betetr than the other, because that would be POV. J.J.Sagnella 08:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Again?!?!? How often do we have to do this? Is it going to keep coming up until someone gets his or her way? Even then, will it keep coming up because someone else is not getting his or her way? I believe the hard and fast reason for only one is that one is Wikipedia policy. If other articles are breaking that policy, that does not mean that the RuneScape article should also break the policy, no matter how many other links those other articles may or may not have. Two (or six or twelve) wrongs do not make a right even if three lefts do. RuneHQ is inarguably the site with the most hits. Is it my favorite? No. Do I use if for anything? Only occasionally. Am I happy that RuneHQ is the only site we link to? Not particularly. But I do believe in following policy as much as possible and policy dictates RuneHQ at this time. If you aren't happy with that, go out there are get whatever other site you want on there higher on hits. It's as simple as that. Now, can we stop the foolishness and get these articles up to professional quality standards, or must we continually debate the same issue over and over and over ad nauseum until we all just want to throw up our hands and say it's just not worth it? Xela Yrag 16:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't put it better myself. J.J.Sagnella 18:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently I'm not versed on Wikipedia's policy on fansites (and I doubt many are, either). Perdóname. With that said, I agree with leaving it at RuneHQ. --Boss1000 22:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Why even link fansites in there if your not going to give other fansites a even chance at getting some traffic off of Wikipedia? I say remove the fansite section in a whole. Would be better, and would stop debates

Will having more than one fansite harm RuneScape's Good Article hopes? Conversely, will having a single fansite increase its chances of RuneScape's Good Article nomination? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Though RuneHq gains more traffic purely from the fact it's message boards are attached to its site, compare the breadth of its userbase to Zybez and you'll see Zybez has more users, more frequently in a similar vein to Tip.It. If RuneHq moved it's message boards to a seperate domain it'd surely lose it's "highest traffick" rating. Whther a "good article" or not Wiki is surely about giving users the most knowledge available and RuneHq, as sole Runescape fansite, doesn't provide all the info on the subject of Runescape. Only a combination of perhaps RuneHq, Zybez and Tip.It does. --Maitias 14:23, 8 August 2006 (GMT)

I'd say leave well enough alone or delete the link to put an end to it. As it stands, readers of the article have a link to all the game-guide material they can eat, whilst contributors have a bulwark against the links section becoming a one-upmanship spamfest. All of the mentioned sites are much of a muchness in terms of information offered, despite varying strengths and weaknesses. Adding the four 'main' sites wouldn't stop people charging in here and adding yet more links to smaller and considerably less useful sites, and we'd get even more "well if that's here then why isn't *insert cookie cutter RS help site here*?". Whilst I'm not sure (even now) that adding to the links would affect the GA attempt, I'm pretty sure it will destabilise the page further and remove regular contributors' ability to keep the links in check. QuagmireDog 15:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite frankly I see no reason why RuneHQ should be the only fansite linked to, other than that silly policy that gets in the way. Why does that policy even exist anyway? I think that links to multiple fansites should be allowed, or no links to fansites at all. --Nanosauromo 1:57, 9 August 2006

Structure and organization of the article

The structure and organization of this article is very important if we wish to make RuneScape a good article. Having good structure and organization will also reduce fancruft and prevent the article from becoming too long.

Here's how I think the article should be structured:

• Lead section
• "History and Development" section. Merge "RuneScape servers" section into "History and Development section" as it's related to game development (or see suggestion at end).
• A long "Gameplay" section, similar to that of the Neopets article, which will be divided into subsections for each aspect of gameplay:
  • "Skills" subsection comes first as skills are most important in RuneScape.
  • "Combat" subsection, as combat is also very important.
  • "Quests" subsection.
  • "Random events" and "Mini-games" are considered less important, and should probably be included in an "Other" subsection.
• "Community" section. Currently, the forums and postbag are not in-game. However, we could also include information about in-game interaction between players - such as the chat and trading features (such information may belong in the Gameplay section in a "Player interaction" subsection).
• "Graphics" section. Graphics are not directly related to gameplay. However, this section needs to be trimmed down (though the same can be said for some other sections).
• "Membership" section. This should give information about membership and some of its benefits. The "Players" section seems to have too much information about membership and could be merged in this section instead.
• "Criticisms" section. If possible, note both player criticisms and criticisms from "reliable sources".
• External links/references, etc.

I think the "Economy" section is fancruft, and should be removed.

We could also consider merging the "RuneScape servers" and "Graphics" section into a section about technical aspects of the game.

Feedback from everyone is welcome. In particular, the decision to make the Skills, Combat, Quests, etc. sections become subsections of a long Gameplay section may prove controversial.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a shorter "Gameplay" section with a heavier reliance on daughter articles, makes them harder targets for AfD hunters. Subsection of Community about fan sites, with a daughter article to support where more of the fan sites can get an external link - this should alievate some of the pressure off editors wanting more of them linked from the main. Gnangarra 13:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but then we must ensure the quality of the sub-articles. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I have thought for a long time that the Skills, Combat, Quests, etc sections should be part of a Gameplay section, but was hesitant to do it due to the controversy it might cause. Some of the other suggestions, I am not so sure about. We would have to see what happens in the edit process. I do not think we need to lose much of the content of this article, even if there is a small amount of game guidey type info that can be cut. Xela Yrag 16:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Now you know someone else supports this idea. Let's try and seek consensus. We won't lose any info except gamecruft. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

suggest maybe we create the new article in RuneScape/new article or similar and leave this current article in place until its ready. That way we can work without the hassel of vandalism, or losing current infomation as we chop and change the article creating the new format. Editors will be able to follow the link from here and work. With this article we just revert vandaism until the new article is ready. -- Gnangarra 08:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd warmly welcome a large gameplay section containing most of the current subsections. I think the prose would be a lot easier on the eye (and the leading section shows that contributors are more than capable of implementing this). With "History and Development", I'd also agree with the server info being merged with it, but I think that the resultant information should then be moved towards the back of the article underneath the gameplay section. We start with a nice lead and then get told what RS -was- as opposed to what it -is-. In a lot of articles the history section will be important to those gathering information, but since anyone reading the article can only sign up to the latest version of RS, is it correct that the average reader will be more interested in what they cannot access than the concise details of what they can?

Could I also suggest that the weapons, armour and magic pages would be far better suited to the RS wiki (as they are nicely presented and contain info that would be great there). The Combat article is currently quite short but the three aformentioned read like lists containing incomplete information (if looked at as guide material) or non-notable info in the 'pedia article (the information contained IE about weapons having different speeds, types, strengths and weaknesses could be written in prose within mere paragraphs) - adding prose from these articles into Combat could give it enough bulk to raise it up the ladder. I also agree that the economy article is hanging on by the skin of its teeth in terms of relevance - transwikiing articles like this and scooping the concise info out would give us a far smaller area to stave off AFD attempts from when it comes to relevant info, and allow more sweeps of the fewer articles in order to remove vandalism. Sorry for the long text, but with all the ruckus surrounding the RS family of articles I don't want to cause more work by messing with articles before discussing it with you all. QuagmireDog 12:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Gielinor/Gielenor

In reference to these two edits: [2] [3]. I found a few instances of Gielinor on runescape.com so I reverted it, but I went back and checked quite a few other places on the RuneScape website after my edit and noticed that it is spelled (a tense of the word "spell" misspelt was annoying me~~ Poorleno) with the two E's in the odd place, but also with one E and one I, mostly recently. Should we use the recent or original spelling of the name in the article? Agentscott00^{(talk contribs)} 22:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

goto knowledgebase in the guides on "gods and areas" the first paragraph opens with "The world's true name is Gielinor, although..." Gnangarra 11:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Recent If Jagex wanted the old spelling they would not have changed it. → p00rleno (lvl 76) ←ROCKS 02:08, Saturday January 4 2025 (UTC)
2. What if Jagex made a typo? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Choose the version which occurs the most? Nathan M 10:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Gielinor Gnangarra 11:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Correct me If i'm wrong- but The name of the world appears in a quest book. J.J.Sagnella 11:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Finding references for this article

Although I personally dislike the Verifiability policy, if we wish to make RuneScape a good article, we'll need more references. I know finding references is difficult, and therefore I am starting this section so we can discuss how to find references and post any references we find.

For information regarding gameplay, RuneScape players can easily log in to verify information in-game. However, the best references we can provide to non-players are the RuneScape Knowledge Base and fansites. Unfortunately, the Knowledge Base is considered a self-published source while fansites are not considered reliable.

The Criticisms section will be one of the hardest to reference. We will need references for external coverage of RuneScape, as well as references for player criticisms of the game. Several Wikipedians have found references for external reviews of RuneScape. For player criticisms, finding references is more difficult. Perhaps we should try linking to some of the polls issued by Jagex (although the fact that only members can vote creates systemic bias).

On IRC, Eagle_101 sent me links for 3 sources. Please check whether they meet the criteria for reliable sources, and if they do, find ways to add them as references to the article.

http://www.gamespot.com/webonly/rpg/runescape/review.html

http://reviews.gamez.com/sage/view.x?s=reviews&&entry=61248

http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/games/review.jsp?id=707

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Gamespot and Channel 4 are certainly reputable sources, although I don't know about the Gamez site. Also, don't worry about using Knowledge Base and Fansite citations; Half-Life 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) uses official and fansite citations, and that's a Featured Article. Besides, what possible reason would those sites have for lying? Its not like there are many other reliable sources. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 17:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could help me check the reliability of the Gamez site, which someone told me about on IRC. We can use the Knowledge Base, although we should avoid overusing it, and find external references where possible. I wonder how reliable fansite citations are considered according to the policy; but we should only cite from fan sites which RuneScape players consider reputable: RuneHQ, Tip.it, Zybez and Sal's Realm.

Now for more references. You mentioned about the December 2003 issue of PC Gamer magazine. How can we reference that? An old discussion in the archives reveals several references:

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,1103882,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4774534.stm

http://www.just-rpg.com/default.asp?pid=1209

http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/9096/the-rundown-on-runescape

That's a good start. In the section below, I stated my intention to rename the "Criticisms" section "Criticisms and reviews". I'll work out how to include the information and I'll add it within the next couple of days. Any more references you can find? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Fancruft usertalk template

As there are no problems, I have gone ahead and made the usertalk version of the fancruft template. It resides in Portal:RuneScape/Fancruftguide-user. Add it to a usertalk with the shortcut {{subst:rsfancruft-user|name of article}}. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 17:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

RuneScape Reviews

I will be adding a new section called RuneScape Reviews. This section's purpose is to encompass reliable personal opinion, such as newspaper articles. I found an article on RuneScape from BBC News. I'll be putting that up soon.--Ed 19:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that would be beneficial? Apart from that one and the one already linked to on the article, I don't think there are nay on any major websites. J.J.Sagnella 20:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If it appears that I cannot find anymore on any major news service, I will delete the statements on that section.--Ed 21:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This came up before on here, see here. RS2 did have a short article in PC Gamer UK, issue 129, December 2003. I have a copy of that issue right here, if anyone wants a few quotes. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 21:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That's great, but I'm kinda on a Wikibreak right now, so could you put it up?--Ed 22:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This could go into the Criticisms section. It could be renamed "Reviews and criticisms". --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Aggreed, criticism bascially is a kind of review anywayGSPbeetle ^{complains Vandalisms} 07:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Since you agreed, I will work out the best way to present the information about RuneScape's press coverage. Once I've figured it out, I'll be bold and add it! As I don't know how to do proper referencing, I will just place inline links, and you'll have to format them properly for me. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok...someone just deleted the news reviews section. What happened there?? And I can put refs.--Ed 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I already added a few sentences about the main idea of each reviews source. Can someone help me elaborate on them?--Ed 14:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about deleting it... To be honest I thought that section was a joke - or a type of vandalism. No offense to anyone of course, but obviously I am against the section. There's an extremely small amount of professional news organizations that have anything relalted to RuneScape. But most importantly, how is this benefial to people who read this article on Wikipedia? There's obviously going to be people who like and don't like RuneScape. Where are the bad reviews of RuneScape? The section is biased already. Look at other MMORPGs. I didn't see any review sections on the random 10 or so I looked at. Audacious One 15:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If you have read the concerns raised on the featured-article, good article, and peer review discussions, it said that the criticisms on RuneScape was placed without references, or if there were references, they were unreliable. The purpose of placing these statements from newsgroups are to display criticisms that were made by reliable sources. In addition, I'm planning to elaborate more on what the news reporters said, trying to maintain a biased and neutral point of view. However, I'm nervous that if I put too much of what the critics said about RuneScape, that section would slightly turn away from this article's main purpose.--Ed 15:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. This was what people asked for when the Featured Article and Good Article nominations failed. They wanted some professional reviews of the game. We need to show that RuneScape has received press coverage and is thus notable. So we'll provide links to reviews in a subsection of the "Criticisms and Reviews" section. However, I don't think the current presentation was correct. I'd prefer a presentation like "In April 2005, Newspaper X reviewed RuneScape and gave it a rating of 8 out of 10. In November 2005, RuneScape was listed as one of the best online games by Magazine Y". Of course, we need to reference them. For player criticisms, I'll see if we can dig up some of official polls issued by Jagex. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 16:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Putting in the results of ratings and polls might be a great idea. Other than Jagex's official polls, I wouldn't know where to find them. I'm still going for the news coverage for now, until we can find other information on criticisms.--Ed 16:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Go to http://runescape.com and click View Previous Polls. However, getting the exact URL of a poll will be difficult because Jagex uses some technology to mask the URL, so you'll only see http://runescape.com in the address bar. In Opera, I can click "Bookmark this page" and I'll get the URL in the "Address" field of the dialog box that pops up. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

PC Gamer UK article

And I quote:

Runescape 2
Browser-based Goblin basher goes 3D.
Dungeoneering through your web browser is about to be taken to new levels with the release of Runescape 2. Based on the highly successful Runescape model, currently boasting over 600,000 active accounts worldwide, the sequel, featuring a new 3D engine, will be unfeasibly compressed into a tiny 2Mb download.
Published by Jagex, Runescape is an RPG based on the traditional values of questing, slaying monsters and developing your character in a familiar medieval setting. Derivative stuff that isn't likely to have the big boys trembling in their +2 Boots of Subscriber Gathering, but sceptics should consider Runescape's enviable accessibility. Available via your browser, the game can be fired up on a narrowband connection, in just a few minutes. Easy access is compounded by a version of the game that allows free adventuring before players upgrade to a members account (for a monthly fee of £3.80), complete with three times the map area and double the quests.
An unsurprising success then, but as Constant Tedder, Jagex's MD explains, when it came to the sequel it was clear theat a mere revamp of the existing engine was not enough.
"We decided the Runescape engine could do with replacing. The graphics were starting to look very dated and we also had loads more ideas of things we wanted to add to the game which the older engine simply couldn't do."
The new aesthetic includes over 2,000 high-detail 3D models and a huge world made up of over 4 million tiles, all crammed into a hobbit sized download. The reinforced feature list includes multi-player combat and player-owned housing.
A beta for existing members is scheduled for December 1st, with an open beta following soon after, and you can ready your browsers for the full client by January 2004.

PCGamer UK, issue 129 (December 2003), page 145.

CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you just copy down an entire mag article???Your dedication to this article is strong. Anyway, thanks alot!--Ed 17:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thats what I did. In hindsight, I suppose I could have used a scanner. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 17:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I just don't know where this should go. Should we put it in the main body of the article, or should we put it in Press Reviews?--Ed 17:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd take some choice quotes from it and cite that issue of PCG as the source. By the way, I believe the author is Technical Editor Mark Sutherns. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 17:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to cite a magazine.--Ed 18:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Just cite it in the same way as a website, although obviously, you can't include a link. See the citations guide. Wikilink to PC Gamer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The ISBN of the issue in question is 9771470169009. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I already put as much press reviews as I could find. I even started the Advertisements section with those articles!! So now, we just have to clean up Criticisms and Advertisements, right??--Ed 18:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Although it's important to offer references to press coverage of RuneScape, we must not forget that other sections need referencing as well. In another section of this talk page, I suggested RuneScape have a "Technical" section covering the history and development of the game, the servers, and the graphics. I think information about advertisements could also go there. We must add references to advertisements section (and other sections). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks so, it might even be ready for another GA attempt soon (or a Peer Review, at least). Pay a visit to some of the fansites. Im sure some of the more obscure articles, such as those in the 'Special Reports' section at RuneHQ has some suitable citations for the criticisms. I'll check the RS news releases, I think something like this was referenced in one of them. If all else fails, Google has never failed me. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

We'll work up the ladder. First, peer, then GA, then FA. I'll go check Rune HQ.
By the way, what's your opinion on the Ads section?--Ed 18:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Good find with the Ads, I never knew that. It looked a bit prominently placed for a moment though. I've tried checking the RuneScape.com news releases for any possible citations, but i've found nothing so far. I do know that there is a 'Guide to Lag' sticky in the tech support section of the Forums, but we can't cite forum posts. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 19:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't rush. Rushing will ruin its chances. References are not the only issue here. We have issues such as POV and fancruft. We should improve the article bit by bit. I think it should be nominated for Good Article in September, at the earliest, and only after we have completed a Peer Review. It will be several months after that before we consider it for Featured Article status. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the Advertising section is too prominently placed. Does it need its own main heading? I'm think part of history or community???? I did wiki it up some, and tried to make it sound not so much like a press release. Xela Yrag 19:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't belong in community, because it has nothing to do with the RuneScape community. I'm putting it in History and Development.--Ed 19:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not a "Technical" section covering history and development, servers, graphics and advertisements? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I just check [runehq.com] Special Reports, but came up with nothing. RuneHQ is a game guide, and we certainly can't have that in a Wikipedia article.--Ed 19:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that we are allowed to use fansites for some citations. Wikipedia has to be NPOV, but the sites we link to do not. If we had to link to neutral sites, it would be impossibly hard to cite anything. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 19:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm having a citation error in section "Advertising". Whenever I try to use multiple footnotes, it says: "Cite error 3; Invalid call; invalid keys, e.g. too many or wrong key specified". Can someone help me??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leroyencyclopediabrown (talk • contribs) .

I think i've fixed it, if your intention was to combine the duplicate citations into one. Don't forget to sign.

Looking at some of the uncited entries in the criticism section, all of them are just player rants and are completely uncitable. I think it would be better to remove them altogether and let the professional reviews do the job. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 19:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Player opinions are very important. However, we should only include a particular criticism if there is consensus among the RuneScape community (i.e. don't include one player's peeves). We may not be able to reference all of them, but we should be able to reference some of them. The polls from Jagex could be used as references if they are relevant. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Citations

While I continued to lood for game reviews, I found the citation for most of the entries in Criticisms, including: Graphics, gameplay, and free play limitations. If you look at this page], you would see that most of the criticisms come from this page. What should we do now? Should we add this site in as a citation, or delete the content since the site looks unreliable?--Ed 19:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

GameFAQs? I can't think of a much more reliable source. That would do nicely as a citation, although it seems to apply to RuneScape Classic (see the date). As that is not a professional review, it may not carry the same weight. I still think the uncited claims in the criticisms section should go, as they are just player rants. Urgh, i've just looked through the Gamespot player reviews, the first one I read was someone ranting about being banned. Read the rules, people! CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 19:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

So maybe we should just try to deleted those criticisms (the ones without citations). Is that what your saying??--Ed 20:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are uncited and uncitable rants by players, based upon their opinion. Wait for some more editor opinions before you do delete them, though. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 20:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I swapped the press reviews to the top of the section, moved and titled the uncited as Player cirticism. Agree that each needs a cite, it also needs balance if player opinions are used they should be balanced between positive and negative. Gnangarra 01:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

More Info

I found plenty of useful imformation here. I don't know if all of this info is already on the article. I just want to make sure. --Ed 14:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

More info here about an advertisement deal with WildTangent. I don't know if we should cover advertisement deals on this article, though.--Ed 14:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Advertising supports the F2P world, its part of the sites structure so i'd say it should have some mention either a para or full subsection dependent on the information available Gnangarra 14:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I already added the section. Now I just have to elaborate more.--Ed 15:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)