Talk:RuneScape

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the RuneScape article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find video game sources: "RuneScape" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34: 40 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about RuneScape. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about RuneScape at the Reference desk.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Q: What kind of English should be used in the article? American? British?

A: British English should always be used as RuneScape is originally a British game.

Q: Why can't I edit the article?

A: Because of vandalism, the article is indefinitely semi-protected, so only established users can edit it. If you cannot edit the article but wish to make an edit, put a request on the talk page using the {{editsemiprotected}} template and someone will respond to it as soon as possible.

Q: Should I be putting information into the article that only RuneScape players would be interested in?

A: No. No matter how many RuneScape players actually visit this article, this is still an encyclopedia, not a game guide. Information on the article should be useful to a worldwide audience. The RuneScape Wiki would welcome information of this sort; however, Wikipedia is not the place for it.

Q: I am a RuneScape player and want to add interesting RuneScape details, why are my edits always reverted?

A: It is likely the content you added is not suitable for an encyclopedia, but remember to be bold too. The RuneScape Wiki and StrategyWiki cover RuneScape in detail.

Q: May I put my opinion into the article?

A: No. As this is an encyclopedia, everything is to be written in a neutral point of view and thus do not push your opinion.

Q: Why aren't there any fansites?

A: Editors on this page have established a consensus that no fansites should be included, and Wikipedia's guidelines discourage their use anyway. Instead, we link to the Open Directory Project which provides a list of useful resources related to RuneScape. Consensus can change, however, and you are free to revive discussion on this topic if you wish.

Q: Why are there so many dead/archived links?

A: In November 2011 the official Knowledge Base, which we relied on heavily as a source of information, was converted to a wiki. As wikis are not reliable sources we cannot update the links and must rely on old archived versions. If you can suggest suitable replacement sources, please make a request on the talk page.

RuneScape was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 4, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
June 14, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
June 19, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
August 10, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
July 20, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
October 15, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
March 9, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
March 29, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
July 22, 2008	Good article reassessment	Delisted
April 16, 2009	Peer review	Reviewed
May 30, 2009	Good article nominee	Not listed
June 12, 2010	Peer review	Reviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Video games B‑class Mid‑importance

This article 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 articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Plants vs. Zombies (disambiguation) (12 participants)
Covet Fashion (3 participants)
Vector TDx (2 participants)
Fred Haslam (game designer) (2 participants)
Gravonaut (3 participants)
David Scott (video game developer) (2 participants)
SureAI (8 participants; relisted)
Mighty Rabbit Studios (1 participant; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The word "recognized" is incorrectly spelled in the first introductory paragraph, as "recognised." 24.112.149.76 (talk) 03:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: "Recognised" is a valid alternate spelling, chiefly British. As the developer (Jagex) is based in England, then British English spelling is preferred. See the policy on English variations. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on removal of the section titled "Official Wiki"

After some thought, I propose the removal of the section titled Official wiki.

I think its a distraction at best and somewhat unhelpful overall. Here is my breakdown of the thoughts.

1) The paragraph is very critical of Wiki. It is written in a way that is more of a lashing out against the host Wikia. It is not neutrally worded and essentially wants to divert the amount of traffic to that one particular wiki.

2) The section is borderline spammish and promotional, and goes along with point 1.

3) I read through the place and their forum that "voted" on the move, as well as related stuff. The decision for the community to move to a different host and say its the "official wiki" doesn't mean it has to be the official one to everyone's eyes, as implied by whats written.

4) Readers, a good portion if not all, are general readers overall. Not many are gamers nor play Runescape specifically. Hence, it is practically worthless to even have it distract them with a few clicks. They just read and move on.

With those in mind, I want to hear from others about the removal. However, I did try but was quickly reverted. Declaration, the person who reverted me (Jaydenkieran) is one of 2 system admins and receives a small fee, directly from the company Jagex, to maintain the infrastructure new wiki. This is a conflict of interest for him. (link to mentioned payment of $$)

My reasoning is for the removal of the section titled Official wiki on the page. Now, I invite others to share thoughts on whether the section should be removed.

Hayholt (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC) -- edited on 13:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support all points. It's really not that notable that a wiki of the game got moved to another site. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Dissident93. If this wiki was on the list of online encyclopedias, I'd keep this section, but it's not. I also think we should remove the official wiki link in the external links section of the OSRS article. I removed the link before, but it was reverted because "The wiki is an official Jagex-funded resource for their game, and is just as public-facing as the main website. It should be present, and can have sources if needed." --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 07:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC); edited 07:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Reading through it quickly, half that section isn't even about the site in question. I also note that not every topic with a dedicated wiki links to it (the Doom article, for example, does not have a dedicated link to the community-recognised Doom Wiki, which incidentially also forked away from Wikia. So the RuneScape Wiki certainly isn't unique in this regard.) 1ForTheMoney (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There is a single reliable, third-party source (Kotaku), which doesn't justify an entire section. Our articles should be based on reliable sources with non-self-serving claims cited to primary sources, not the other way around. The entire paragraph also a WP:SYNTH violation as it is written to reach a conclusion that the sources themselves do not make. In addition, User:Jaydenkieran should strongly consider their own WP:COI in this situation. If they're being paid, they should not be editing the article directly and instead suggest changes here at Talk. Woodroar (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Lordtobi (✉) 14:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support and done. Needs sufficient coverage. This isn't Wookieepedia. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I added to the article as I thought the information would be relevant, as per other articles about previous Wikia forks. I'd also like to clarify, I'm not paid by Jagex, but I am a contractor for the sake of system administration for the company (not Jagex) hosting the wiki. With regards to the points, I believe there is a way to briefly mention the site outside of its own section (given that it is almost a direct replacement of the previous Knowledge Base, mentioned on the article already), while being neutral of course. Apologies if I violated WP:COI here. Jayden (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeology

CommentRuneFest 2019 confirms a new skill will be released called archaeology. Number of skills needs to be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quota8Star (talk • contribs) 17:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone will, once it's released. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please correct the spelling of recognize in paragraph one of the article, it's currently spelled "recognised" 68.225.174.98 (talk) 05:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - That spelling is consistent with WP:ENGVAR for this article, as the game originated in England. (Jagex is a videogame developer from that part of the world.) MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add more references to the line It was announced that mobile ports of both versions of RuneScape would be released for Android and iOS devices in 2018. In both sources cited there is little mention of a mobile port of RuneScape 3. I found mention of the mobile port on the official RuneScape website here and here either of which could be used as another source. 45.27.58.77 (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, both sources used are about OSRS and I would support replacing the Engadget article with a secondary source that is specifically about RS3. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done I decided to replace the Engadget article with a news post from Jagex for now, which covers RS3. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@1ForTheMoney: It would seem that there are now more sources about Runescape on mobile, including this article from Polygon, that can replace the primary source currently in the article. 45.27.58.77 (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]