Talk:Jagex

New Motto / Meaning Of Name

According to their corporate site and latest press release Jagex now stands for "Just About the Gaming EXperience", will start changing to reflect it. Should the old names be added into the history?Wolhound (talk) 12:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a good question. For now, since we're not writing the complete company history, I guess the names can be left out. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Jagex Games Studio

Jaged are now no longer known as Jagex Ltd. All of their websites (Jagex.com, RuneScape.com, FunOrb.com, and even Twitter.com/OfficialJagex) refer to them as Jagex Games Studio, and their logos and documentation reflect this. As such, could somebody please make the according changes to this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.32.16.18 (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Y Done, although the article will still refer to the company as Jagex wherever it appears. It isn't worth changing every single instance in the article. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 10:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Geoff Iddison

I notice that Geoff Iddison redirects here, which I guess is because he's not considered noteworthy enough to have his own article right now. Although he has worked with other well-known organisations (including PayPal), his name is probably best known amongst the mainstream community for his involvement with Jagex, so I think it is a fair redirect. However, people here may be interested to know that he does have his own article at the RuneScape wiki. I have not added the Jagex article under external links here, but interested visitors may also find it useful.  :-) leevclarke (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

MechScape/Stellar Dawn

There have been a few official statement by Jagex as to the state of their second MMO. It's pretty sad that all this article talks about is how it it set to be released in early 2009. Those looking for information should take a gander at MechScape World, a recognized fansite, on which Jagex moderators have discussed the news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.133.129.157 (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

We did have an article on MechScape, but when it was apparently cancelled the article's creator requested its deletion. Until something solid comes up, more information might be seen as speculation. 1ForTheMoney (talk)

Irrelevant info

"A graphical and engine rewrite was completed in 2004, which was named RuneScape 2 in development and is now simply called RuneScape.[11] The original version of RuneScape is now known as RuneScape Classic or RSC. In July 2008 RuneScape was updated to use more textures, thus creating RuneScape HD. Jagex had collected information on users' computer specifications in order to develop RuneScape HD. Runescape was stated to have the largest number of subscribers of all free MMORPGs in the Guinness Book of World Records in 2008.[12]"

Surely this really belongs in the RuneScape article, not the Jagex article. The article should be about Jagex, not bits and bobs from RuneScape.. just really wondering what the rationale was regarding it.. and if it should be removed. Calvin (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Ummm...I can't find that piece of text anywhere in the article. Perhaps you were looking at a previous version of the article? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

They probably removed it and just used this post in the discussion page since what they had to say wouldn't fit in the edit summary; I know I've had to do that before. And I agree, the article on a developer should contain information about the corporation rather than about their first commercially successful product. 98.27.162.44 (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

POV Dispute

"...as Jagex's popularity grew..."

That term is very POV in my opinion, it should be changed to "influence", or "profile" or something simmilar. Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 07:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Y Done Since I've got a moment, I've changed the offending sentence to "As RuneScape gained more users, Jagex grew its employee base." Not perfect, but these phrases are more factual and verifiable. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Games Domain

Does anyone happen to remember gamesdomain.com (before it was acquired by Yahoo) and their "castle" of games that were coded with Jagex? ... it's how I happened to stumble upon/recall the name... ) --- AHEM: --- http://jagex.wikia.com/wiki/Games_Domain_Castle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.219.133.89 (talk) 05:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this related to the article? If not, it shouldn't be here. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 07:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Improvements (hopefully)

I've organized the article a bit by adding several more subsections. I've also checked the references, which should hopefully now be more up-to-date. Please let me know if I've done anything incorrectly. Pliigi (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Nothing that some editing won't fix, since the article was in real need of reorganising. There are some very general points to make, and they're mostly nitpicks rather than massive errors.

• The "See Also" section should only have links which don't appear in the article but are related, and they should also use bullet points rather than line breaks (which I hate seeing outside of infoboxes). At the moment, all of the links it contains are in the article, so for the moment I'll probably take that out.
• Words like RuneScape and FunOrb should be in italics whenever they are used in the article.
• Internal links don't need underscores. Underscores_in_internal_links_are_bad.
• References come after punctuation, and in a few cases you've used the same reference more than once. It's more efficient to do this using named references and saves needless typing. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Key People

I put an updated version of the 'Key People' listing, based on the Jagex credits page. It covers the 4 "chief's" mentioned there, along with Andrew Gower as he's listed as "Principal Architect"/is the guy that started the company. Pliigi put in " a version that took out 3 of the people from that list and included a lot of other names along with people from the original list. Template:Infobox_company suggests "Up to four key individuals closely associated with the company... Generally list prominent, current executives within the company holding key positions such as Chairman of the Board of Directors, the Chief Executive Officer, President, Head of Design, etc." which covers my edit but it also says "For existing companies, it may be appropriate to list past executives who played an especially prominent role in the company's history." which covers some of the names mentioned by Pliigi (so we're both right, yeah!). To try and gel these two together I'm thinking that we put current members of staff into the infobox and put past members into the history section, however to know which of the ones listed count as high enough we need some references on them to weigh them up. Sound a plan or should we stick with the latest edit/work on a third way?FlashNerdX (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Jagex's credit list is a good start (it's already used under reference 12.) The first 5 names in the infobox are good, but I've never heard of the others - ideally only people who played a really noteworthy role and made a big impact on the company as a whole should be included. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

No objections posted so reverting back to the list mentioned above FlashNerdX (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that 1ForTheMoney raised objections. I agree. Key people shouldn't be based entirely on their position within the company when barely anyone has ever heard of them and their contribution to the overall company is negligible. Pliigi (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

My objection was more about having lots of names, rather than which names to include. I'm not best qualified to decide who should and shouldn't be on the list, but I think those that receive plenty of coverage should be included - Andrew Gower and Mark Gerhard, for example. Other individuals will have to be decided case-by-case. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Task forces

In what event can a Jagex Task Force be created? --Σ ^talk_contribs 03:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Basically, they're smaller versions of WikiProjects: a group of editors that choose to collaborate on sub-sets of articles. Of course, for a task force to exist, it must have enough members to maintain activity and be willing to maintain itself - I have no interest in such things. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 10:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Locked

Shouldn't this article be locked? I'm surprised it's not... tons of 12 year olds would be abusing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.202.71 (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at the page history as of today's date; you can see that vandalism is very occasional and quickly reverted. Despite the odd bit of vandalism, it's nothing editors can't handle, so protecting the article would be overkill. (The article on RuneScape, on the other hand, would be a different story...) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)