Talk:RuneScape

RPP

Should we think about RPP, seeing how many extremely happy people are quite possibly gonna have a lot of extra time on their hands tomorrow? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Scratch that, we already are. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe full-protection is necessary, if that is what you intended to ask. →Στc. 01:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope. I was just thinking semi until I remembered that this article is almost always semi'd. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 05:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, aside from the Pending Changes trial and one other brief period of full-protection, this article has been under semi-protection for several years now, which keeps vandalism minimal. Going to full-protection would do a lot more harm than good. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Knowledge Base conversion

As many of you might have noticed, Jagex has converted its knowledge base into a community-editable wiki. Not only does this mean that many of our references no longer function, but we can't use the wiki as a reliable source since there's no guarantee of accuracy in their information. News posts have not been affected so they are still useful.

I'm bringing this topic up because, while fansites are possibly the most suitable replacement for these pages, I'm not entirely sure how we should proceed and I'm uncomfortable with introducing lots of fansite links; those have caused enough problems in the past with "Fansite X gives viruses" or "Fansite Y is more popular" or "Fansite Z is inaccurate". Do we stick to one fansite, or use several? And if so, which ones? Or do we try and find another solution? 1ForTheMoney (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

So correct me if I'm wrong, but the entire (former) knowledge base/new RS wiki is now useless as far as we're concerned, and with it goes many of our primary sources? If so, then I don't see how fansites will solve the problem. Some, like the old RS wiki, are community edited and proud of it; others are basically the same but from a select number of editors (note how articles on many other fansites will have small text at the bottom of a page saying "Thanks to users A, B and C for writing/developing this article). What other options do we have? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 15:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

You see the problem, as both fansites and open wikis are usually links to avoid (see numbers 10 and 11), and it's difficult to justify having those in place of the ~35 current KB links. If the new wiki had a high "entry barrier" for editing it would be easier to use, but it doesn't (membership plus some other fairly low requirements). Fansites are less likely to change and demand a degree of accuracy (any fansite worth its salt doesn't want a reputation for inaccuracy), but I still prefer the "official" pages whenever possible. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Has Jagex ever recognized certain fansites as being more accurate/official/your-word-of-choice then others? I know they've done different cross-site collaborations and promotions with certain ones, but does that count as their "seal of approval" so to speak? If so, then I would feel a bit better about arbitrarily deciding to only use those. Not the best situation, but we don't seem to have many choices. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 18:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Jagex has done plenty with fansites in the last couple of years; it even assigns ratings to different fansites based on content/user-base/safety and offers different levels of support. Currently, RuneHQ, Sal's Realm and Tip.It are English fansites that have received platinum status, so they are probably the ones we would go for (although the final decision is ours and not anyone else's.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, those were the three I was thinking of, and the ratings that Jagex has assigned them makes for a much easier cutoff/minimal site creep. Still not ideal, but that's about all we can do for now. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 19:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright then, I guess we can go ahead with converting the "dead" links, unless we choose to give others the chance to register an opinion. (My purely personal preference is to use the latter two sites, but if the content verifies the text it doesn't really matter. Plus having multiple sites avoids accusations of favouritism.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ For the moment, I'm going to mark all the KB links as "deadurl=yes" until they are converted. Of course, once that's done we might want to archive the new links just in case of emergencies. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

As the "Jagex Approved" are only edited by Jagex Mods could they be counted as reliable?FlashNerdX (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting question. There's no guarantee that pages will always be Jagex Approved or remain the same, of course, but vital pages such as the rules are unlikely ever to be "unlocked" or changed that often. Basically: I don't know. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

WebCites for the Knowledge base

For what it's worth, the knowledge base has been mostly archived at Talk:RuneScape/Knowledge base. →Στc. 23:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Most of our references were also archived a couple of months ago, so for the moment I've just switched the dead links over to their archived counterparts until suitable replacements are found. (I haven't verified whether all the links are dead, but the KB links certainly are and others might have gone as well.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Outdated information and can't edit.

The last section, "player reception" regards an outdated update. The "old" PvP system was put back on February 1, 2011 after a referendum was made by Jagex, the majority voting for its return. Would be great if somebody could edit this. Source: http://services.runescape.com/m=news/k=3/newsitem.ws?id=3927 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9001-gon (talk • contribs) 21:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Already done . Check the end of paragraph 3, under "Rules and cheating". 1ForTheMoney (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

G&S

In Graphics and sound section information about voice acting is outdated. I'm unable to edit it. King Vivil (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything in particular that you've noticed is outdated? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 17:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected to keep away vandals. To edit it your account needs to be autoconfirmed - it needs to have existed for 4 days and make 10 edits, which you haven't got yet. Now on your request, I agree with you that the line is outdated but we're limited by the source currently in use. I could change it to a general statement that "voice acting is incorporated in various areas of the game", but I don't know if that works for everyone else. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be good enough for me. I've searched for sources about voice acting in RuneScape but found only interviews with Jagex employees on YouTube. King Vivil (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Which, needless to say, aren't much good as sources (videos aren't banned as links, but they should not be used as sources.) Very well, I'll go ahead and use the blanket statement. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

And Y Done. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)