Talk:RuneScape/Archive 15

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

Archive 1 (October 28 2004 to May 1 2005):
Archive 2 (May 1 2005 to October 30 2005):
Archive 3 (next to start):

Swifswitch?

Um, Swiftswitch is debated over wether it's actually legal or not. --OSborn

Jagex have confirmed it's illegal. Vimescarrot 12:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Apparently Swiftswitch is actually legal, despite some disagreements among Jagex ranks. Proof from Jagex can be found here:

If there's any evidence stating the contrary, then it should be given here. The Adventurer 09:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I vote we remove it, if there's a controversy over if it's legal. It *could* be considered breaking rule number 7. --OSborn 11:54, 24 December 2005 (CDT)

Previous Talk Page was massive

So i archived it so like anything new we wanna talk about do it here. --Super Quinn 00:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Dragon Hatchet.

I thinks it really cool that Runescape finally introduced a Dragon Hatchet to the game, but I was very dissapointed that they didn't create a quest in order to get this hatchet. Having a monster drop it is a pretty lame and lazy way to introduce it. I think RS should pay more attention to what the players are suggesting. There is a lot of fantastic ideas for quests, weapons and what not in the RS forums.

I agree just this page is not for talking about the game,it's for talking about the article an questions/disputes you have. J.J.Sagnella 19:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Edits for 14:27, 14 November 2005 Someone42

"Java script (uses applet)" to just "Java applet": using "Java script" is ambiguous because it can refer to Javascript, which is not the same as Java.
"written" to "implemented": Java isn't fully "interpreted" (as in, source is compiled to bytecode prior to execution), and since programmers don't write in bytecode I think it's wrong to refer to a Java applet as being "written in Java".
removal of "without having to download and install any programs to their computer": technically, you still have to download the applet, which is a program.

I also removed the "In game banner advertisements" section, as it advocates the potential interference with one of Jagex' revenue streams. The ethics of it has nothing to do with the removal, however Wikipedia doesn't have articles describing how to build a Macrovision killer, or how to rip DVDs, so it shouldn't have instructions on "how to block banners". Those who want to, can look somewhere else. If whoever is adding it really wants to add instructions, make a site and link to it in external links. Someone42 14:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Any relation to Runescape the tabletop role-playing game?

They seem very similar with the use of runes instead of "regular" magic etc. Unfortunately I only own the "bad" edition, set in pseudo-Europe and not any of the good books with its own world. Information about the ttrpg is hard to come by on the net, it's all about the java-version. So, is there a connection or have the mmorpg nicked the trademarks of/been inspired by a tabletop game I used to play in the early nineties? Anyway, it doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere on the RuneScape-pages so a little disambig-note somewhere would be fine. --Kaleissin 21:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Things to change after the Protected status expires

In the introduction, the sentence "Being a free player on Runescape is one of the worst things possible." should probably be removed, or be changed to a NPOV version. Also, the opening sentence claims RuneScape has over 100,000 players - I assume this should be over 1,000,000 players, since under Overview it claims over 160,000 can be online at peak hours. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 18:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

There are 2,8 Million players in RuneScape, according to the Jagex Corporate Site. Also, this should be fixed: "Membership for RuneSCape is US $5.00". But that's just a minor notice. --Aliensvortex

Im just removing some of the edits made by somebody who obviously does not like the game such as 'fagex' and 'Low IQ, Non-Existant Frontal Lobe Functions, Fused Cerebellam ,' from the information box. Somebody must have had a bad experiance with the game.

Copyright Picture?

Is this pictue copyrighted? (image deleted) The tip.it website says that nothing on it can be repoduced without consent.

Yah, looks like it is a copyright vio. I'll go ping the uploader. --Syrthiss 19:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Its a screenshot i took, its not a copyfight vio, becasue the subject isnt a picture, its something you enter text in! Bourbons3 11:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

"High traffic" sites

if the site even fails to provide the latest quest guide within a certain period, it just seems that the traffic isn't really high Gspbeetle 04:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

King Black Dragon

The above article was nominated for deletion (the result was to merge it here). I did so, creating a new section called "Monsters", which contains text from the KBD article, as well as from other monsters who have articles. Feel free to edit it at will, or fix any mistakes I may have made (I don't play RuneScape, so...) Ral315 (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Status Related to Tip.IT

I am going to modify the www.tip.it comment as itsn't NPOV in nature.

Philip

Is it me, or are the fansites blowing up again?

I think we are starting to push the bounds of the external links guidelines. I know User:Someone42 and I had discussed privately before the establishment of an OpenDirectory portal...and I see there is a link to one in that section. Not knowing whats involved to be able to edit there, can I get a consensus reading on whether the list should stay or be pared down significantly. It just seems that we are on a slippery slope, and allowing even one dynamic signature or runescape quest info site leads to a huge list in just a week or two. Thoughts? --Syrthiss 19:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Some of them have to go. Maybe some of the not so good signature makers, world switchers,clans and very low-active websites should go. J.J.Sagnella 22:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
And who are you to decide which sites are worthly of inclusion and which are not? As long as they are relevent to RuneScape and aren't cheating/scam websites, who cares?Mike 22:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I care. Wikipedia is not an online portal. Wikipedia is not a place to shove anything and everything relevant to a topic in an article. But instead of falling back onto rules and policy, let's look at some examples of other MMORPG pages:

World of Warcraft - 10 non-official sites
Everquest - 25 non-official sites (a lot of them are actually humour sites)
Final Fantasy XI - 4 non-official sites
Anarchy Online - 6 non-official sites

At time of writing, RuneScape has 41 non-official links. In my opinion, that's a little excessive. What makes a fansite "recommended" or "other" or "high traffic"? If there are seperate sub-headings for fansites, suddenly the burden of being a "portal editor" falls on the editors of Wikipedia (which is everyone). The number of links has steadily been increasing, so when will it be too many for you? By the examples above, in my opinion 25 is enough.

A while ago, I scrapped the entire list of fansites. This was the only way to shorten the list in a non-biased way. That didn't go down very well. So, how about we discuss a method of determining which sites are worthy of inclusion or not. How about we start with: No sub-domain links. No "http://www.example.com/~username" links. The justification here, is that priority should be given to those who have enough commitment to rent a domain name. What do others think?

(Note: I am not a RuneScape player, and I certainly do not maintain a RuneScape fansite.)

Someone42 08:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

- Totally agree with someone42.Way too many,but to choose on website name is sooooo bias. What basically we need to do is consider which websites are useful to a standard player.Useful: very fast on publishing high-quality guides eg.Tip.it

Useful: high traffic sites eg.runehq Useless: World Changer programs Useless: Websites which are clans Useless: Websites which have copied guides What do you think of that suggestion?J.J.Sagnella 11:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

- Why not get rid of all un-official links alltogether? to simply say that un-official links have the potential to be dangerous to runescape players as they are run by a thrid-party that can pretty much do anything with their site's pages that they please.--203.55.231.107 04:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

- if you say potential, even the offical sites are potentially dangerous.

note that some fansite (ie:high traffic) provide reference information with greater details, which some are limited by the wiki formating... Gspbeetle 09:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Members quests

Created a members quests page, so its no longer red on the links box at the start of the article. check it out - Bourbons3 12:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

where has it gone?? - Bourbons3 14:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. Apparently too large to put in an encyclopedia, not needed. I personally disagree. J.J.Sagnella 14:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

I think we'd better place the infobox 1 step higher, and the first image more below. I feel kind a like annoyed when i see the top of this article.

SidewinderXP2 _{Talk to Me!_{14 dec 2005 4:41 PM (CEST)}}

Member Quests

I think they should be added to the free quests page. I was looking up info on them and they werent there anymore =(
Note: i added this page useing the code i saw above it, so if its a little messed up sry i hope to fix it soon

Stoutn 16 Dec 2005 2:55 PM (Central Time Zone)

Agree, a page called Runescape Quests should be created, with a list of both free and members quests.

Disagree: Any idea how large that would be? J.J.Sagnella 18:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Take a look, i created it here - Bourbons3 19:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yesterday i edited a part of the text, it currently says there are 105 servers, but i changed it to 106. I play runescape everyday, i know there are 106 worlds, but someone changed it back to 105.

Just thought i would point it out.

maddog 01:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

RuneScape Quests

I have created a RuneScape Quests article which purely lists the quests for both free and p2p players, describes what a quest is and how difficulty is decided. It is not a game guide. The Free RuneScape quests page is also up for deletion, becasue it acts as a game guide (which Wikipedia is not) and is being replaced with the RuneScape Quests page. Becasue of this, the These articles are part of the RuneScape series box needs to have the Free RuneScape quests page changed to RuneScape Quests - Bourbons3 16:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Be Bold and change the template Template:RuneScapeVertical yourself (just make sure you move runescape quests to the right alphabetical order). :) --Syrthiss 17:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

i tried to edit it but i couldn't figure out where it is ΨΨΨ --cattrain 19:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Categories?

Where did the categories all go?... Mike 23:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

jagex

should jagex be under the runescape series box?

sms safe?

that make it sound like it is %100 safe... nothing online is that safe... inface nothing is that safe at all... i dont see any reason that the word safe shouldn't be changed to "safer than" under the pricing section... --cattrain 19:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Frequently Vandalised

I would like to nominate this article be on the Counter Vandalism Unit's "watch" page - this article suffers from several vandalism attacks per day it seems. Opinions? Mike 01:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

No. The CVU thing is a joke, and tagging it as "watched by the CVU" will just encourage more vandalism. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Can a Wikipedia admin weigh in on this? Preferably one who doesn't think the CVU is a joke... Mike 05:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
You may want to create a more generic one for non WikipediA:/User: pages that just says "watched moreso then others" or words to that effect. 68.39.174.238 05:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Seconded The page's been vandalised twice since I've checked last night... --RBlowes 22:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

- What do you mean a "more generic one"? Mike 22:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
This page should be marked. So we can keep a watch on it and limit the vandals and change it back so nothing is disturbed. --Act o wn ^e 00:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, a proper summary (other than "CVU is a joke"). Vandalism to this article is reverted reasonably quickly (when it's noticed), and unleashing the combined — and no doubt well-meaning — forces of the CVU is unlikely to cause any improvement over current RC patrolling. So, the only real difference would be a dirty great "WATCHED BY THE CVU" tag on the article ... and that would do nothing to scare off vandals, but could quite plausibly attract more ("hello! We're getting a reaction!"). There is no way in Hell that tag gets put on any real articles on Wikipedia.

The best solution here would be semi-protection, where new users and people without an account cannot edit the article. It's doing wonders for George W. Bush. Unfortunately, this also means that people who just happen to want to read/write about RuneScape are unable to edit at all, and (unlike George W. Bush) new users and people without accounts add a great deal of the non-vandalistic edits to this article. We're faced with a simple choice: semi-protection, and the benefits (and drawbacks) it brings, or open slather, and the benefits (and drawbacks) there. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 00:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Tagging this will be a violation of WP:BEANS and will attract more vandals. In short, it hurts more than it helps. Also, recognise that the WP:CVU has no official status within Wikipedia and does not have permission to slap tags all over the place. Any such will likely be removed in mere moments. Rob Church ^Talk 00:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that semi-protection would be best for this article but I already requested this and was pretty much flat-out denied since the vandalism isn't severe enough. I think we'll just have to keep reverting the vandalism ourselves to be honest. Kevin 00:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Discuss links here

Editors regularly clean out undiscussed links from this article. Please discuss here if you want a link not to be cleaned out regularly. (You can help!)

This Article = Vandalism Magnet

This article cannot seem to go 2 hours without being vandalised by someone.

I hereby propose that it be protected from vandalism, or protected from anonymous edits.

Comments, please. Mike 23:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I already nominated it for semi-protection. It seems that isn't necessary for this article. Check the submission out. Kevin 23:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the people who commented don't monitor this article too closely. Mike 00:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to resubmit. I'll back you up on it if you like. Kevin 00:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It is frequently vandalized, and as a very popular wikipedia article, the rs article needs all the help it can get to remain good.

If they didn't listen to you, why would they listen to me? Mike 02:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

If you resubmitted and other people backed you up your petition would carry more weight. But then, Wikipedia is not a democracy so I don't know... Kevin 02:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)