Talk:RuneScape/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions about RuneScape. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

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'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)

Recent Articles for Deletion - Since we're trying to improve the quality of this Wiki, we must get rid of the fancruft from the sub-categories. Remember, they have to pass the rigorous inspection of not being a game guide, being verifiable and representing all sides equally and fairly, so no weasel wording would be allowed. Makoto 00:46, 1 September 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) ←ROCKS ^C _RS 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. Nishkid 64 21:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I say this article is much better than the one from a year ago. → puppy441 (lvl 80) ←_RS

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) ←ROCKS ^C _RS 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)

Get RuneScape to FA. :-) Happy New Year everyone! CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 01:42, 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 ^blah_edits 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 ^blah_edits 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

Straw Polls are FUN. → p00rleno (lvl 80 ) ←ROCKS ^C _RS 12:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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) ←ROCKS ^C _RS 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. DiscordantNote ^Cntrbtns 16:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes But only for the main article, for the same reason as above

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. Nishkid 64 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)

Joystiq published an article on the vandalism. Surely this is enough to convince you of the severity of the vandalism? Since it "prevents us from improving and maintaining the article", do consider ignoring the semi-protection policy. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:02, 6 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)

Straw polls aren't the only way to determine consensus. Would you like to suggest a better way? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose-You cannot permanently semi-protect--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 16:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Don't permanently semi-protect. But putting semi-protection in place to stabilize the article and get it up to GA or even FA level would be fine. --DeweyQ 00:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that was what I meant by "permanent semi-protection". Once RuneScape reaches GA status, I don't mind you unprotecting it, but don't be surprised if it gets delisted shortly after unprotection. With this clarification, do consider your vote. Remember, after 3 months, you can request that consensus be re-established. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:02, 6 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) ←ROCKS ^C _RS 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) ←ROCKS ^C _RS 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. Nishkid 64 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) ←ROCKS^C_RS     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) ←ROCKS ^C _RS 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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmn (talk • contribs) 00:17, 4 January 2007

The criticism section has enough on that. Beyond that, it gets into gamecruft or ranting. Sign your posts! Pyrospirit ^{Talk Contribs} 15:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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). Nishkid 64 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)

unprotected and low vandalism!

RuneScape has been unprotected, but has only been vandalised by one IP. With this info, does it need to be permanently semiprotected?Exarion 04:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it's still protected (according to the little lock in the top right corner of the article. DiscordantNote ^Cntrbtns 06:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I managed to edit the article while logged out. Voice of All forgot to remove the protection notice when unprotecting the article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I thought that was an automatic thing (adds and removes itself when there is/isn't protection) or something like that. Shows you how much I know. -_- DiscordantNote ^Cntrbtns 19:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey you guys missed one of his vandalisms. it says "RUNESCAPE SUCKS!!!!!" I'd fix it but I wasn't impressed with this game enough to really be against his statement. {—The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnLattier (talk • contribs).

Yet it was POV, not something which should be in an encyclopedia. J.J.Sagnella 10:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's see how much damage the anonymous vandals will do before semi-protection is restored. As long as it's unprotected, I can forget about contributing to it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm completely with you. By unprotecting, we have to focus on reverting vandalism not improving the article, so admins unprotecting this article is just shooting wikipedia in it's foot. J.J.Sagnella 16:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism is now here. to WP:RFPP!Exarion 17:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverting doesn't take a long time. If you have an edit you want to make and you're afraid you'll get conflicted, write it in a word document, and then paste it quickly to get through. With the undo feature and the watchlisting, I would expect you guys to not give up so easily. Nishkid 64 22:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

We don't. But it's not nice to see our article/work being destroyed, thanks to one admin opening the gateway to damage, when they know the risks. J.J.Sagnella 22:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. We can't have articles permanently protected just because you guys don't want to see your work get destroyed. Just go back to a previous version. It's not that hard. There's an article history for a reason, you know. Also, the admin in question wasn't me, but what VoA did was right. Anyway, have you guys even contacted VoA? I think he's oblivious to the RuneScape vandalism, as he just unprotects articles listed at WP:PP. Nishkid 64 00:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Some articles, such as George W. Bush and Wikipedia, do receive de facto permanent semi-protection. RuneScape is among the top 10 most vandalised articles in Wikipedia, to the extent that Joystiq published an article on the vandalism. Since semi-protection has been proven to be effective, why not make it permanent? Having to revert vandalism affects our ability to improve the articles, and sneaky vandalism (such as fact-changing) often slips through the cracks. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:RUNESCAPE

If you had not noticed yet, the Wikiproject was moved here. → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKS ^C _RS 12:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The project was not moved to this talk page. It was moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games/RuneScape Task Force. It is now a task force of its former parent project WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games. Although I am not part of that specific task force personally, I am sure that they could probably use some help from other RuneScape players. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think he means "here" as in the link the title points to, which is just a redirect to the project/task force. Agentscott00^(talk) 23:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I was going for. → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKS ^C _RS 03:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Restore the Runescape Wiki article

I havnt looked up runescape un wiki for a very long time, but today I did. And when i got there I was shocked to see what I had seen. The article was striped of its knowlage. This article used to be oozing with every thing I needed to know, and was not blocked by any school. Now the article is barren and lifeless. I dont know about some of you, but theres NEVER to much information. This is wikipedia after all. So dont you think the article deserves contents back? And even then dont stop puting in new info about new things?Lys4764 20:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, there IS such a thing as too much information. You must remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a strategy guide. There are people who are unfamiliar with the game who need to know what it's about, and too much information could confuse them. If they wanted more information, they'd go to one of the fansites linked at the bottom of the page. Same with players wanting a bit of help...everything you need to know is on Tip.It or RuneHQ. DiscordantNote ^Cntrbtns 20:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you'v got to work out where to draw the line. I mean consider this info: "Pineappleas are on sale in the Gnome Stronghold". Is that really helpful? No. There is a thing as too much information and we're trying to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for a good encyclopedia article and not a fansite's overview page. If you really want info, go to either the RuneScape main page, RuneScape Wiki (not Wiki Page), or either of the two fansites. J.J.Sagnella 22:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If information displayed is only useful to those that play the game, it is generally considered useless and should therefore be removed. This includes game guidence, fancruft, etc - • The Giant Puffin • 15:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to put this kind of thing, put it at my RSag Page. But Wikipedia is not a Game Guide. → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKS ^C _RS 01:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the article should provide useful information for those unfamiliar with the game. Information about RuneScape's history, a basic description of gameplay, and links to reviews are useful for those unfamiliar with the game. Game guides, price guides, etc. are only useful to those familiar with the game. We call such information fancruft, and try to exclude it from Wikipedia.

You are welcome to contribute to the article, as long as you don't vandalise or add fancruft. For game guides, check out fansites such as RuneHQ, Tip.it or Zybez. In addition, check out the RuneScape Wiki, which you can contribute fancruft to. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Autos

Anyone knows how to get auto woodcutters or anything like that for runescape?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.178.86 (talk)

Since Autoers violate the Rules, We wouldn't tell you anyway if we did know. But, you should not expect to find things like that here, they would be at the RuneScape wiki. Sign Your Posts!! → p00rleno (lvl 86) ←ROCKS ^C _RS 23:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I highly doubt the RuneScape wiki would have them either, for the same reasons. Why not play fairly like everyone else? DiscordantNote ^Cntrbtns 07:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no way I'm going to help you cheat. Play the game honestly, it's more fun. Current status: Resisting using WP:IAR as an excuse to violate WP:CIVIL. Pyrospirit ^{Talk Contribs} 18:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sprotection of Talk Page

I've noticed unusualy high levels of vandalism in the variety of "RuneScape Sucks so (insert fowl phrase here) Should we appeal for a short, like 5 day, sprotecion? → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKS ^C _RS 23:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Guess the vandals have caught on to the fact they can hurl abuse at us here if they can't in the article. We could wait and see if it doesn't get any better; it might just be a short coordinated attack. I remember a while ago someone posted a link to a forum thread somewhere where they were coordinating a mass attack that hit us over a few hours. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 00:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I dunno...it's not nearly as much of a problem as it is in the main article. Just a bit annoying now and then. If it gets to the point where it messes with the discussions we currently have going on here, go for it, but I don't think we need protection yet. DiscordantNote ^Cntrbtns 02:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If anything, a talk page should remain unprotected, so that users can suggest changes to the main article if they're blocked from doing so by an article's protection status. It's not that hard to revert vandalism, protection isn't the answer to everything. Personally, I think that there would be too many cons in protecting the talk, and no real benefit. Looking briefly through the history, I see vandalism from two IPs, and it died off fairly quickly. It's not an "unusually high level" of vandalism, just petty edits from people who are looking for something to do. Not something warranting protection, even if it's just semi. Agentscott00^(talk) 04:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If, in the past, anonymous users have posted constructive comments, pointed out errors or suggested improvements, we should keep the talk page open, to allow them to continue to do so.

However, I doubt they have. (Prove me wrong.) All I have seen from anonymous users, on this talk page, so far has been vandalism, trolling, and suggesting deprovements (such as adding fancruft, or changing the listed fansites against consensus).

My conclusion: Would semi-protection be useful? Yes. Is it neccesary? No.

I think it is more important to secure permanent semi-protection for the RuneScape article. Suggesting semi-protection of this talk page is a bad idea, because it will give admins the impression that we hate anons. While I do, I suspect most of you don't - you simply want semi-protection to be able to work in peace. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Its not really on the same level we saw on the main article. Until it escalates, just leave it - • The Giant Puffin • 12:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I am against semi-protecting this page. Although there is some anon trolling/vandalism (scroll up a bit), a new user who couldn't edit the article told us about vandalism here. Exarion 04:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

According to his contribs, Joshua1995's first edit was on 14 May 2006. Semi-protection would not have affected him. He just didn't know how to revert. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

RuneScape gods

RuneScape gods is up for AfD for the fifth time. Problems include the usual cruft and game guide allegations, as well as a lack of references - • The Giant Puffin • 12:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying us. However, please don't leave comments about articles here. This talk page focuses on RuneScape. We now have a central task force for this.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 18:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Update

Hey guys well the runescape we know and love has changed massivavly lately

i can put some updates myself but well first i want to make sure its ok with you all and second i want to request that other players make updates as well

we need to put info on like the new graphics that are being used and everything Maverick423 20:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then. Looks like I'll have to comb through all recent news, since I haven't played RS in a really long time. I'll get to work right now.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 21:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

sounds great =) see if you can find out what kind of new tech they are using because the graphics are lots better and still have the same low load time and minimum lag when loaded.

i'll see if i can place some valuable informaton about the map resizingMaverick423 21:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Great! Just make sure that when you add new information, the writing style remains consistent throughout the entire article. I'll start off with all RS news from August.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 21:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

well according to what i read in the updates it appears the game map was resized 3 times last year and the graphics were juiced up 5 times. It doesnt however tell me if they are using new tech. I am certain that with all those updates they have to improve their tech if not the game will be laggy. hmmmm im stumpped im going to see if i can find it on the Jagex website itself Maverick423 14:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I recall reading something about them changing the game engine a couple months back. I'll sift through the news and try to find it after I get back from my class (actually, a meeting, but what it is doesn't matter). I don't remember it saying much about the specs though, but it would be useful anyway since it would say what it would have changed/fixed. DiscordantNote ^Cntrbtns 00:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I didn't find a whole lot, besides a few brief mentions of a coding language they call 'RuneScript'. Probably not what you were looking for, huh? DiscordantNote ^Cntrbtns 01:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Not at all it appears that the update was just script based. perhaps more compressed codeing that allows for more textured look with the same or maybe less information usage. well in anyways Thanks much! Maverick423 22:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A Question about an image

File:Leodude10screenshot.png

The image in question

I was wondering if we could somehow fit this image into RuneScape skills (I put it here since this is the page that gets the most traffic). It would show the variety of skills that are availible. I'm not sure what we can do with it, so that why I'm asking :) •The RSJ• Talk | Sign Here 04:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless it is cropped to show *only* the stats screen, I can't really see where we can use it, unless it's just used as a multi-purpose screenshot for depicting the game. The image contains too much to be focused onto one subject, the skills article in the case you mentioned. I'm fairly sure that one of the (Category:RuneScape_Images) other RuneScape images would be able to replace it instead of using/upladoing a brand new image(s). Agentscott00^(talk) 04:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a cropped version. Exarion 05:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The cropped version is too far cropped in my opinion. I think it should be put such that the various interface symbols are shown. This would be easier to look at, in my opinion. → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKS ^C _RS 12:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Cropped version 2 looks fine - • The Giant Puffin • 13:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yay! That's my version! → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKS ^C _RS 18:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

4th version, showing p2p levels added. better or worse? → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKS ^C _RS 20:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the version 2 the one without the green squares. if anything i think this one will benifit the most Maverick423 21:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Version 2 definitely. puppy441 - (lvl 80)^On_RS 01:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I like version 3 the most because it'll help expand the membership section a bit more. I don't think we need an image of just the skills. DiscordantNote ^Cntrbtns 05:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

you know now that you mention it yea thats a great idea that way people can tell the diff between member and non member skills. however the color is too bright it kinda makes some of the skills a little hard to see how bout a light red or a light blue instead?Maverick423 18:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah go for version 4. It can be used in the membership section as well - • The Giant Puffin • 18:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure here, but should we really be putting in the skill menu? It is one person's skill menu and would cause publicity for that set of skills with people trying to reach them. The people judging whether this will be a good article or not might pick up on this and say the skill menu does nothing more than show icons of member skills. And there is reasoning behind it as in text form, would you be happy to accept a description of each skill's logo. J.J.Sagnella 19:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

i get what you mean. Ok i tell ya what i will do ok i have a sepreate account with only lvl 1 on it for all the skilles except HP (as we know it comes with lvl 10 preset) the name needs not to be displayed but i wont be able to crop it or anything so i can upload it and you guys can crop it and add the squares and then place it. since the lvls are all lvl 1 noone will care about whos account it is and it will serve the pourpuse of showing the variaty of all the skills available. if that doesnt work then why doesnt someone make a small account for the same pourpuse. Maverick423 21:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, good idea. Why didn't I think of that.... J.J.Sagnella 21:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You are free to do it if you would like JJ i dont get out of work for about 2 hours and then the drive home is another hour and i got to take care of things at home (like children) and make them happy before i get on to play the game. Maverick423 21:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok then. No probs. J.J.Sagnella 21:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Done

J.J.Sagnella 21:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Do we want green boxes? I can do that, if we decide it is beneficial. → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKS ^C _RS 22:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not green it makes the colors a bit hard to see more of a light blue or a red but thats my sayingMaverick423 22:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Heres a vesrion with blue boxes. → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKS ^C _RS 12:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That one looks good the colors dont take away too much from the original colors. if you got teh one with the red then display it too that way we can choose.

I like the blue. Go for it - • The Giant Puffin • 17:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll make a red one after I get out of school. → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKS ^C _RS 18:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey yall

i did a small edit on the quest part that states that there are (well over)100 quest in the member world you know just fixing it up where ever i can hope thats ok Maverick423 21:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's just fine. Actually, I was planning on editing that myself, so I might still make a few changes to it. In general, you don't need to check with other editors on the talk page for small things like that, though. Pyrospirit ^{Talk Contribs} 21:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool just making sure though Maverick423 21:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)