Jump to content

Talk:RuneScape/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:RuneScape

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xela Yrag (talk | contribs) at 19:12, 5 January 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WP MMOG

WikiProject iconVideo games B‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game
BThis page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Peer review: 1; 2; 3(current)

FA nom: failed: 1; 2

GA: failed: 1

General Reminders

  • Fansites- Wikipedia's external links guideline is that one major fansite may be included as an external link. As fan sites all offer similar information, an effective measurement must be made to decide which is the most appropriate to list. The method that contributors believe is the most effective is by Alexa ranking. However, Alexa recently has proven that the difference between two fansites is negligable. RuneHQ.com and Tip.It are the lowest-placed (most often visited) by Alexa rank and are therefore listed. For more information on this, plase click here and for information on why more fansites than one are being used, see the discussion below or in the archives.
  • RuneScape Wiki - Ok, I'm advertising the RuneScape Wiki, but it's probably a good idea.
    For those of you who get your edits reverted with such nonsense explanations like "cruft" or "linkspam" or whatever, you might want to check out the RuneScape Wiki. To put it plainly, your edits are more likely to be appreciated there. Hyenaste (tell) 02:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Semi-protection - Please do not change the {{sprotected2}} template unless the article becomes unprotected. As stated on the sprotected2 page, "This template should be used for pages that are semi-protected for longer periods." As the protection is extended, this template is more suited for the article. Please do not change it to or add the {{sprotected}} template, as the lock image on the top-right of the page (along the header bar) already displays its protection status. Agentscott00(talk) 02:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


Recent edits of dates

I've seen a couple edits of dates being "wikified" lately, and I'd like to point this out. Try not to pipe the links to appear as a certain way. The Wikimedia software automatically changes dates to appear as a user has set them in their preferences panel if they're left normally. Piping the links (eg. [[21 December|December 21]] causes them to display inconsistently unless they're all formatted that way. Here's what one paragraph from the article looks like. The first date is normal, the last two are piped:

..site started on September 26, 2005 and has since become one of the most accessed pages of the site. From 24 September 2002 through 9 December 2004, players could..

See what I mean? Either we pipe all the links, or we leave them all for the software to display. For now though I suggest we leave them unpiped, unless someone has a reason to do so (Does the "This is a British game" reason apply here?) I don't mean to point fingers here, but see this edit as an example on the first line modified - [[4 January]] is the same as [[January 4]] - there's no need to change them in that type of case, as the order in the code doesn't affect the end output to the user. I know this is a bit nitty-gritty, but we need to have consistency for FA/GA. Unless anyone objects, I'll unpipe most of the dates sometime tomorrow. Agentscott00(talk) 04:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops... That would have been me. Go ahead and change them back, I didn't know it appeared differently with user preferences. --Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 04:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Unpipe them - • The Giant Puffin • 10:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I looked through all the linked dates in the article, and I think Agentscott00 unpiped all of them. Now I'm going to try making all the linked dates consistent between each other, i.e. all [[XX Month]] [[Year]] instead of [[Month XX]] [[Year]] or [[Month XX]], [[Year]], just so they all look the same. Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 17:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

apparently is doesnt matter how they look, they look the way the user wants them to look - with so much other stuff to worry about, changing them seems to be low priority Xela Yrag 10:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Some of the nitpicky people might point them out though while looking for consistency during a GA/FA nomination though. Just for consistency, not much else. Agentscott00(talk) 19:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

poor article

It has, this article used to be good, about a year or so ago, but it's just been getting badder and badder.. Now it's garbage. It's a horrible article now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.81.190.37 (talk • contribs).

And what do you suggest we do to improve it, o wise and all-knowing critic? J.J.Sagnella 08:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
It is a lot better than before. Mainly because vandals like you havent been able to get your hands on it as much - • The Giant Puffin • 10:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Anons make me laugh... → p00rleno (lvl 78) ←ROCKSCRS 12:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, looking at revision 32371249 (diff), which is from 16:17 22 December 2005, I see cruft, gameguidance, bad writing and an external links section the size of the Ark Royal. I'd say the latest, GA's doorstep version is much better. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It's amazing how far this article has developed in one year. What was an ugly duckling page has finally become a truly briliant page. J.J.Sagnella 16:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

If this article is garbage then keep adding banana peels and used teabags, it is now much more readable, relevant and credible as an encyclopedia article thanks to the effort of countless contributors and several who've spent many hours hammering away. You've all done bloody well, so thank you. QuagmireDog 23:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my brother writing that, He doesn't know what he's talking about, you can just go ahead and erase this useless talk. Roast Beef God 03:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
This article is getting better every day. Really, we've seen remarkable improvement over the last year. I don't see how you can honestly believe that it's gotten worse. If you think we don't have enough info, go to the RuneScape Wiki!!! --Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 05:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. We have had significant improvement since the first request for FA in June.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 05:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, The Giant Puffin, this IP's only contributions appear to be to Talk:RuneScape, so he's not a vandal as far as we know. --Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 05:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Guys, remember to at least be CIVIL to everyone on Wikipedia, even if it is some anonymous IP user. Nishkid64 21:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

To everyone helping this article being so great...

...Have A Happy Christmas and a Joyous new Year.


J.J.Sagnella 11:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, you too. Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 19:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Merry Roast-beefmas. ♂ Roast Beef God ♂ 10:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Merry Christmas! Everyone who has contributed to RuneScape deserves a Christmas present (anonymous vandals excluded)! I'll post a new section on what needs to be done before RuneScape becomes a GA. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm reducing the size of the photo. It still serves its purpose anyway. =) Happy Holidays, everyone!--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 14:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Merry Christmas, everyone. And a happy new year too. :-) CaptainVindaloo t c e 17:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


glow2:shake: (even though it dosn't work) Happy new year! → p00rleno (lvl 79) ←ROCKSCRS 01:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy New 2007 everyone. Anyone got any new years' resolutions? J.J.Sagnella 00:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

My New Years' resolution is to play Runescape more. (so I can get a skillcape) =P Flare Mage22

Andrew Gower

This guy made a request at WP:AFC, and has since created the article (actually, taken the redirect), despite the problems I had with it. I don't really feel comfortable doing anything, seeing as the AfD was a year ago, so if someone else could? -Amarkov blahedits 06:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is "this guy"? Andrew Gower himself? I doubt that Andygower is Gower himself. His contributions include vandalism to Jagex and Andrew Gower. As for the article, if Gower's notability is established, keep his article; if not, AFD it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
You can try a WP:PROD--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 04:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
By "this guy". I meant just the article creator, I wasn't associating him with anyone. -Amarkov blahedits 17:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Towards GA status

As I have previously mentioned, before aiming for GA status, we must establish consensus and make binding decisions on the following three issues:

  • The Criticism section: press reviews or player criticisms?
  • The External links section: how many, and which, fansites should be listed?
  • Should the article be permanently semi-protected?

Even if consensus already exists, it must be established, and a binding decision made based on that consensus. For example, I believe there is a consensus to permanently semi-protect the article. We should, through a straw poll or other means, establish this consensus, and then make a binding decision that this article is to be permanently semi-protected. Then means to enforce the binding decision should be implemented, such as having "Please don't unprotect" warnings on the talk page and in the article itself (in the form of hidden comments), and having several admins watch the article so that, should it be unprotected for whatever reason, an admin can immediately reprotect it.

I understand that consensus can change. For example, consensus for listing only a single fansite, RuneHQ, was previously established, and a binding decision was made, and enforced by having any violations reverted. When someone presented evidence that Tip.it was catching up, consensus changed. Therefore, after consensus is established and binding decisions made, we should introduce a process whereby consensus (and binding decisions) can be changed (or re-established). To avoid vexatious litigation, after consensus is established (or re-established after a failed attempt to change consensus), 3 months (arbitrary time limit) should pass before anyone is allowed to file another request to change consensus.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


Straw Poll per J.L.W.S request

Question: Should the RuneScape article be perminantly semi protected?
(comment deleted by me)

Agree

Yes. The article stays good when sprotected, and only bad comes when this is removed. → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKSCRS 12:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. RuneScape is among the top 10 most vandalised articles in the English Wikipedia. In July, it was in 6th place. Wikipedia's reputation was slightly tarnished when, in September, Joystiq published an article about the vandalism. As long as RuneScape's not semi-protected, it will continue to receive lots of vandalism. Such vandalism affects contributors' ability to improve the article, and subtle vandalism (sucb as fact-changing) occasionally slips through the cracks. Very little vandalism has occured since RuneScape received de facto long-term semi-protection, and the article has slipped to 10th place as of 3 January 2007, so semi-protection has been proven to be effective. Consensus should not be ignored by a few admins valuing freedom over quality. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree It has been shown to improve the article. When it is unprotested, a whole shedload of vandalism appears, and just slows us down from getting GA status for this article. If people want to edit this article properly, then they can just make an account and wait a bit - • The Giant Puffin • 14:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly for the main article, and I think that the other articles in the RS cateory should be semi-protected as well. I think it would kind of defeat the purpose to protect the main article and not the category as a whole (with vandals targetting the category as a whole, not just this article.). --SuperLuigi31 18:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Agree for the main article only. The other ones really aren't vandalized nearly as much, but the main one instantly becomes a mass of vandalism and revertion when it's unprotected. Every time. Pyrospirit Talk Contribs 16:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree It would certainly help. True, everyone is supposed to be able to edit Wikipedia...but if they're only going to try to mess it up, why let them? I agree that we only need to protect the main article. DiscordantNoteCntrbtns 16:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree

You're not allowing IP votes to count? That's very thoughtful. Having a one-sided straw poll to promote response bias was a great idea. I am one of the few admins who patrols this article, and I feel that semi-protection on an article should never be permanently implemented. As per WP:SEMI policy, Semi-protection should not be used: To prohibit anonymous editing in general. By the way, what the community wants is not always what's best for the article in general. We're at Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia anyone can edit. If a page is being vandalized by many people, just revert to an unvandalized version. Nishkid64 01:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Surely the degree to which the article has improved since the protection speaks for itself? Before everyone was too busy reverting to actually improve the article. Now we dont have to worry about vandalism, and progress has sped up substancially. We were also in the top 6 edited articles on Wikipedia because of the vandalism - • The Giant Puffin • 17:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

OpposeChanged my vote to disagree. See below for my original reasons. We can get the point accross to admins that semi-protection should stay, for an extended period at least, by other means. I do not disagree with the idea of protection, but I oppose to permanent protection, and to the way this is being carried out. If need be we can set up a bot to monitor the series, and only that. We shouldn't use permanent protection as an easy way out. Agentscott00(talk) 04:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Netural

You cannot have straw polls, nor can you discriminate against anonymous editors just because they don't have an account.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 18:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I really doubt we can have straw polls on this matter, it's the administrator's decision on whether it keeps semi-protection or whether they unprotect it (only to re-protect it a few days/hours later). Straw polls being "fun" shouldn't apply as a reason to use them :\ Agentscott00(talk) 19:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

1st -- Sorry to the IPs, that can go away, totaly my bad.
2nd -- This straw poll is simply to show any admins who commonly view this page what the situatuion is, and what we the Wikipedian Community think should be done, sorta like writing to your Congressman.
3rd -- This was not simply for fun, it is fun, but it is mainly useful, and i'm rambling now, so I'm just going to type 4 tildes and sign off. → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKSCRS 19:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Three things:

  • Note my quote "through a straw poll or other means". Straw polls are the quickest and easiest method of determining consensus, feel free to use alternative methods of determining consensus.
  • Besides determining consensus on permanent semi-protection, we have to determine consensus on the fansites and criticism sections. Perhaps an RFC is in order?
  • I am neutral on the fansites and criticism sections. All that matters is that a decision is made o ensure the stability of the article. However, if we don't have consensus for permanent semi-protection, the stability of the article will decrease once the anonymous vandals attack the article, so I will stop working on the article, and find other articles to work on. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism/Misinformation

This article has recently been edited by Subatomicguy. The information about the system requirements has been altered. The old information was true but the new information was false. I dont know how to revert and I don't think i'm allowed to edit s-protected articles. Would an established user please revert this change. Joshua1995 04:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Done--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 04:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

GA?

I believe this qualifies as a good article, but I'm not sure. Does anyone agree with me?Exarion 04:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It's nearly there, and we're working towards it. As it has a long history of instability, we are in the process of coming to a consensus on several controversial issues. Once that is done, all we need is a copy-edit and peer review, before I submit a nomination for GA status. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
It wont succeed at GA while RuneScape#Membership has a stub tag on it. The article is in need of a copy edit. Gnangarra 12:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I say nix the stub tag, its new and that section was made smaller previously. If any1 has a problem with this executive descision, they can put it back. → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKSCRS 13:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
It's an important aspect of the game; Gnangarra is right, the GA nomination would not succeed with the current status of certain sections in the article. Nishkid64 01:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, it is close to being ready. We need some work on the Membership section, if we even need the section at all. I think someone suggested a map, showing the free areas versus the member areas. Is this an option? Sounds good to me, but so much copywritten information. I'm not up on all that "legal" stuff. Xela Yrag 19:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


Place for Cruft!

Put all your anything not good for the article here, i dont care. RS ANYTHING GOES PAGE Note, this is off my User Page.

 → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKSCRS     13:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
OK? - • The Giant Puffin • 14:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
It was on impulse... but i'll see what it does. → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKSCRS 19:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Scams and real money involved?

Add things on the scams surrounding runescape and involvement of ebay and real money

An Outside Evaluation

It's been nearly six months since I quit RuneScape, and came to Wikipedia, but I thought it would be appropriate for me to give you guys a GA-to-be evaluation of the article.

  • Good introduction, maybe needs a few more references. It's a pretty large section, but it has only four references.
  • History and development desperately needs copyediting. Some phrasing issues can definitely be fixed here.
  • For DeviousMUD, do you think a possible commentary or review of the game could be added? If you can't find one, that's fine. It just seems awkward when you don't provide a reason as to why the project had been dropped so suddenly. As for Gower, possibly include when he was an undergraduate at Cambridge? I'm assuming it's in chronological order.
  • There's a membership section in the history section of the article; maybe we should shorten that particular section in the history, and add it to the membership to meet necessary expansion requirements.
  • Gameplay is very well written in my opinion, minor copyediting probably needed. A possible expansion of Random Events, though (and fixing {{fact}} problems)?
  • Membership needs to be expanded significantly. Maybe include a map of the free vs. member world, to show the differences.
  • Criticism and response-press reviews and player criticisms would both be good, I think.

I'll add more things if I can think of them. By the way, you may have noticed that I copyedited some parts of the article while doing my review (couldn't help myself :P). Nishkid64 02:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, thats useful. I guess these will some of the first things we will work on to get this article to GA status - • The Giant Puffin • 17:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

UK English

Top note on this page indicates that UK English should be used throughout. Collective nouns are treated like plurals in the UK. Please take note of this. Chris Cunningham 17:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Collective nouns may be, but the word "Jagex" is not a collective noun. It is the name, albeit proper name, of a company. A collective noun is collection of persons or things regarded as a unit. If Jagex was a group of people who loosely gathered together to accomplish something, I could, maybe, see where you are going. But a specific company name is not a collective noun, in American or British usage. Xela Yrag 17:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Companies' names, when used to refer directly to the company's actions, are collective nouns in the UK (as are sports teams and bands, for instance). Have a look at a random sample of UK English articles on here and take a look at consensus. As a Brit I find myself grinding my teeth when I see a company referred to with a plural pronoun ("they") and yet be referred to directly in the singular ("is"). Chris Cunningham 18:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This has never been an issue before, and we have many British editors of this series of articles. I did the changes needed to make sure there were no other references, such as the "their"s you mentioned, but you reverted them as well. If this is such an issue, why is it just coming up now? I have looked at many articles, British and otherwise, and I have not seen instances of a specific, singular company name being followed by a plural verb. We need more input. In the meantime, I am trying to fix it so that this is not an issue. Xela Yrag 18:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

See American and British English differences#Singular and plural for nouns. Or Google for "* are a company". The singular makes this Brit very uncomfortable. Thanks for rewriting things to avoid the issue, that's definitely the best course of action. Chris Cunningham 18:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you - I thought so too. I think I got it all, but they can be sneaky. LOL Xela Yrag 15:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:RuneScape/Archive_17&oldid=98697606"