Talk:RuneScape/Archive 18

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)

Info

I hear that there is a runescape project on wiki

how do i join and how do i place on my user profile that i am part of this project if it is available thanks Maverick423 22:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

goto WP:RUNESCAPE and add yourself to the list. → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKS^C_RS 22:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Great however i cant edit the part where the participants are at and add my name =( what do i do next?Maverick423 22:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

: I'll add you. You are already there. Aparently you did add yourself... or something. → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKS^C_RS 12:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep i figured it out after a while lol but thanks! =) Maverick423 15:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Player's gallery etc.

Jagex is starting to get big on these things. Are they now notable for a subsection, or still just cruft? → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKS^C_RS 22:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's not worthy of a subsection yet, just a brief mention in the article. DiscordantNote^Cntrbtns 14:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree - • The Giant Puffin • 17:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if we get into the gallery, we'll have to cover all the fan stuff outside of the actual game: God letters, stories, historical texts from Reldo, wallpapers, and everything. I don't think they're notable enough yet. Pyrospirit ^{Talk Contribs} 00:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

hey guys well

basicly i notice that we tend to chat quite a bit here depending on what the subject is. the last thing we need is someone comming in here and starting something because we are doing some POV type stuff (which i really dont understand at times since all comments are POVs) anyways if we want to be chatting we can start a group to start chatting in runescape world. if this is not possable then we can use my own website to do the chatting (even then we wont have to go directly to my website) i can place a link that when clicked on it will produce a popup chat link that can be seen and we will be able to discuss better on it. i dont know what you guys think but well if it sounds good so far tell me and i will explain it more for those intersted right now place your name here. i didnt really know how to place this anywere else but if we can put this on our project page well it would prob be better.Maverick423 17:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• name of those intrested

Maverick423 17:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

well it looks like no one is intrested in this so im ganna scratch it no probs heh. if you later do get intrested just unscratch the articleMaverick423 20:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Updated Alexa Ranks

• If you look at the Alexa Rankings you will see that Zybez.net is now around and above both Tip.it and RuneHQ. It has only just happened, however if this keeps up I think that Zybez.net should be listed as well. Maybe it should be the only one if it proves to be very popular. ETools 08:39, January 20 2007 (UTC)

You're right, but it looks to be a small fad. Let's say if it can keep this up for 2 weeks or so, we will reconsider. J.J.Sagnella 09:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it might be downhill from here for it - • The Giant Puffin • 17:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is due to a recent change in their website. Now, their forums are on the zybez.net domain name, instead of their old one at runescapecommunity.com - this would lead to the combined traffic of the two being registered under one domain name on Alexa. If you look at this Alexaholic graph, you can see runescapecommunity.com's traffic drop to almost zero when the Zybez traffic goes up. Proof that the incline is because of the forum merger. Zybez has been so low in the past because the forum and site were on separate URLs, and the forum was the more popular of the two. We failed to take this into account, so we only looked at site traffic. As an example, tip.it's forums are on the same URL I believe, so it would have both amounts of traffic to begin with. This isn't going to change soon, since the traffic will just increase to reflect what has happened. We can wait two weeks or we can do it now, there won't be much of a difference on when we add it - Zybez is popular. Only problem is, having three fansites I have a problem with. One was fine, two was borderline, but should we really use WP:IAR as an excuse for 3? I support Zybez being added, but if it means having 3 fansites, I object. Agentscott00^(talk) 18:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, probably that or the fact that theyve had advert players in lumby of many servers. → p00rleno (lvl 81) ←ROCKS^C_RS 18:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's say look at this as it stabilises over 2 weeks. If zybez stays consistently better, than perhaps removing both other fansites will be necessary. I dunno know, watch it unfold. J.J.Sagnella 20:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say three weeks, to be safe. Definitely, removing it now would be counterproductive. -Amark moo! 02:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, three weeks. After 3 weeks, we'll reacess (How do you spell that?) the situation and see what the best thing to do is. J.J.Sagnella 09:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to change the external links to reflect the top fansite at the current time. That way, we don't have to keep adding.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 15:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

But the top fansite changes every day. -Amark moo! 06:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• At the moment the Zybez Help Site is down for server issues. It should be back up soon, but the alexa rankings have dipped a lot because of this. ETools 00:07, January 22 2007 (UTC)
  • Aargh. Unless it shoots up immediately after coming back online, we can't really say that it's unambiguous, so we'll have to start waiting again. -Amark moo! 06:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I objected at two being added. Three is too much. I think we need a way to monitor and a schedule, so we arent changing this every time it changes a bit. Xela Yrag 18:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Where does it state Wikipedia policy on fan sites? - • The Giant Puffin • 12:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

List

ok guys

Basicly Runescape has Tons of weapons right

well i checked out Weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series and it had a whole list of all the weapons. I know that it might just be exssesive information but seeing as how that one article still exsist maybe we can start one up ourselvs. a list of Runescape weapons. its just a suggestion cause i know that once we start doing this everyone else is ganna want to do this for the other games. but like i said its a suggestion. it would be pretty darn cool.

although i know we more then likely wont be able to do it.Maverick423 18:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

well after checking the article again I see that it is more then likely going to be deleted so this will not be a good idea anymore sorry guys.

Sorry for posting too much guys but well i reviewed the articles deletion and it seems that it will be kept. like i said it might open a new door for us. and someone suggested a new Wiki area just for such information so a list of weapons might be forseeable. Maverick423 18:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

We did once have a pair of articles like that: RuneScape weaponry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and RuneScape armour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (review the histories) - they were merged and redirected to RuneScape combat last November, after six or so AfDs. A lot of articles like these have been deleted for being 'fancruft': information only a fan of a certain franchise will have any use for. It's best left to fansites and specialist wikis (like the RuneScape Wiki), really. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow so we already got this stuff up thats awsome =) I take it with the recent improvements and new weapons and armor available its getting bigger by the day eh. (its me maverick423 i just didnt sign in)

Erm, not really. The articles effectively don't exist, since searching for them or following a link will just give you the RuneScape combat article. See Wikipedia:Redirect. The problem with them is that a massive list of fictional weapons isn't really what Wikipedia is for. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 19:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Vague term

On RuneScape#Critical_review, the term "boot" is used. I checked the disambig article for boot, but there are so many computer-related terms. Can someone please clarify this?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 02:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a slang term. I'll just remove it. (For reference, the phrase was 'and it's fun to boot'.) DiscordantNote^Cntrbtns 03:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 03:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What about the following sentence?

The Yahoo Buzz Log states that "while it may not be as easy on the eyes as some other popular online RPG games, like World of Warcraft, City of Heroes, or EverQuest, RuneScape is still a lot better way to kill time than pushing around cells in a spreadsheet."

I'm wavering on the decision whether to remove this statement or not. To me, it's a little POV (read WP:NPOV), since it only compares 4 RPGs without a more in-depth review. The reference provided cannot be used to justify our message, since it doesn't provide much detail into its arguements.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 03:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It is POV, and not enough detail to warrent such an opinion. Removing it, or replacing it with a more NPOV sentence is a good course of action - • The Giant Puffin • 15:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The boot thing was originally part of a direct quote from a review. What happened to the quotation marks? I thought quoting a third party with a citation was OK anyway...? Also, the EverQuest/"half again" bit with the Guardian review could need rephrasing. It means that RS has 50% more players, IE: EQ has 500,000, RS has 750,000. But take out the 'again' and it means RS has half as many players as EQ. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I may be late on posting a comment on this so sorry for that. ok basicly if we post a sentence like that sooner or later some fan boy will come here and vandalize the page. then more and more fanboys will do the same so i think its just better to remove that comment or reword it. Maverick423 19:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

People come in and vandalize it anyway... But about the 'boot' thing...when I got rid of it, it had no quotations around it. Sorry if that causes any problems; it can be re-added, right? DiscordantNote^Cntrbtns 19:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That's OK, it looks fine as it is. No harm done. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 19:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)