Jump to content

Talk:RuneScape/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

Macroers banned

the macros banned list since the begining on rs (before it was renamed rsc) has reached a total of 78,000 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.44.106.218 (talk) 02:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

68.44.106.218 02:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC) joshua090909

sorry forgot my password to my wiki account and im getting it back in a minute.


they found some more microers in RSC? there isnt that many people playing that version anymore so 78000 seems like a lot of ppl dont you think? can you source your claim? Maverick423 15:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There used to be a lot of macroers in RSC, but they disallowed new members from joining that version to prevent them from getting in. DiscordantNoteCntrbtns 15:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There are still are alot of marcos out there my friend still uses them alot. Kinglou135 21:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

German translation now into beta testing

Just noticed this now:

http://www.runescape.com/lang/de/aff/runescape/title.ws

We should start updating the article now to accommodate the new version of RS. I'm trying it out now, but I sadly only know one word in German :( AScott00 21:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Just so you folks know, when they get around to making a Spanish translation, I'm ready. My grammar is not too good, but I can get a draft of a potential article to the point where someone who knows more than me can clean it up. DiscordantNoteCntrbtns 23:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you talking about transferring information over to the Spanish Wikipedia? If so, I would be able to help out. I speak a little bit of Spanish, but I can try my best to help in translation.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 01:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Same here once the spanish version is ready i can help out im very fluent on spanish since i live right next to the mexican boarder =)as far as understanding the language =( germain is hard but if you have the time and effort use the http://translation2.paralink.com/site to translate the words Maverick423 17:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


Acctually guys with that website i just gave you all we can all write our article in german. all we have to do is type it in english and then use the site to make it german. but the thing only allows 500 characters at a time. Wie Sie deutlich sehen können, dass diese Seite (http://translation2.paralink.com/) uns sehr helfen kann (just translated that right now =)) Maverick423 17:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that could be done (refering to the online translation, but the problems with them would occur, however i suppose a german speaker would be able to understand enough to be able to change the relevent sections. Evildoctorbluetooth 19:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Using an online translator too much wouldn't be smart, they don't have the accuracy of a human speaker. Few free online translators are able to recognize grammar & sentence structure. They may do simple sentences such as "My hair is brown," however with longer, complex sentences that we would see in an article, they would be inadequate. We can use them, sure, but we shouldn't just input a bunch of paragraphs and take what they put out; if we have a native (or experienced) speaker of the language look over them afterwards it should be fine though. I updated the link on de:RuneScape yesterday to point directly to the German site now, however I don't speak German and couldn't do much else. AScott00 19:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

yep i know what you mean the punctuation problems are common as some languages dont use some of them but if we can get close enough to create a sort of guideline we can open the door for more experianced writers to continue on from there. well either way we have to see how we can help out. links like the one you posted is a great step. maybe small sentences can help out too though.

speaking of which is there a runescape project over in the german version? Maverick423 20:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This may be off-topic, but how was teh page vandalized while it was protected? do we have a dirty admin on our hands? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.41.200.203 (talk • contribs).

The vandels name will pop up on the history tab if it was my friend check there for your awnsersMaverick423 21:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The page isn't fully protected, only semi-protected, so logged in editors with accounts older than 4 days can edit. CaptainVindaloo t c e 22:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Coming back to other languages... When french becomes available, I can help... a little. I'm in French 2, but Frenchmen have complimented me on mon Français... → p00rleno (lvl 83) ←ROCKSCRS 12:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

wtf you guys translating for. just say theres a german version available. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bakeeshbaba (talk • contribs) 01:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
Chances are they're going to stick with German and English for now, we don't need to get worked up about translating the game if other versions come out - if they do, they won't be coming for a long while yet. AScott00 02:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't really been watching RuneScape news in a while, so I think its time that we reevaluate the article again. Does the article currently represent RuneScape like it is today? Have we missed any updates? Who are the RS players here?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 02:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There have been no major changes, other than this beta testing thing. -Amarkov moo! 02:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, there are some numbers available, the update post says that 139 f2p and 140 p2p were invited to participate in the beta. We can include that when it comes time to add the German version's own section. → p00rleno (lvl 83) ←ROCKSCRS 12:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Jagex should have come out with a diffrent second language first. Something like spanish. No offense to any Germans out there but german is not exactaly a major language. Kinglou135 00:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's the second-most used language on the internet next to English, which is the most-used... AScott00 04:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Quick question

Moved to my talk page thanks for the awnser Pyro Maverick423 22:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

German Language Servers?

Is it known for sure whether the German language servers are actually in Germany? In the English news update, they're called "German servers/worlds", but it doesn't specify whether with this it means German language and location, or just German language. Also, on the German world select page, it gives a title of Sprache (language), rather than something such as Platz (place/location) or similar, which would correspond better with the English language version. And, maybe unrelated, World 84 (a UK 2 server) was recently taken offline, and looking through the list, there are also gaps at 38-41, and 45, 46, any two of which could have become 139 and 140.
The only place I would otherwise expect a definitive confirmation would be the German news update, but as my German language skills don't extend as far as being able to read that, I wouldn't know. Thanks. --81.129.213.167 22:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree. There is no indication that the servers are actually in Germany, so any statement that they are in Germany is unverifiable. I'll switch back the server map/locations until we have more information. CaptainVindaloo t c e 15:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

archived

I moved everything without new messages for a week to /Archive18.--Exarion 21:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Good - • The Giant Puffin • 10:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
There's a much better way to do it. Move the page to the new archive and then bring back the things you want. I'll try to do it now. J.J.Sagnella 11:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok done. J.J.Sagnella 11:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, it was getting ridiculously long. Pyrospirit Flames Fire 00:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

We have a problem. I moved the 18 talk page archives for naming consistancy to [[Talk:RuneScape/Archive #]], but I just found a problem. /Archive 17 and /archive17 are completely separate archives! We need to figure out what happened and fix it. I'll work on it right now, too. Pyrospirit Flames Fire 14:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Simple as a wrong number. Move the incorrect 17 to 18. J.J.Sagnella 16:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I figured out that /Archive 18 is a duplicate archive. /Archive 17 should be moved to /Archive 18 and /archive17 should be moved to /Archive 17 after the redirect is deleted. I've put it on WP:RM so that an admin can delete /Archive 18, move /Archive 17 to /Archive 18, and delete the redirect at /Archive 17 so I can move /archive17 to /Archive 17. Confused? Same here, but I think I've got it figured out. Pyrospirit Flames Fire 18:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Everything's good now. Just have to finish checking for double redirects and I'll be done. Pyrospirit Flames Fire 22:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
There are no double redirects on any of the archives and we have the proper template on all of them. Looks like this is all done now. Pyrospirit Flames Fire 22:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Posted

Posted a question here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RuneScape_combat#Melee_section your feed back is much appreciated =) and sorry for not making it sound professional =( Maverick423 18:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Page about NPC races

  • I think we should have a page on the fictional races, such as the giant spiders, goblins, ghosts, hobgoblins etc. Mr. Garrison (talk · contribs)
It'd be deleted within a day. It'd be pointless to have a page on that.--24.109.218.172 21:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, completely useless, even for people who play RuneScape - • The Giant Puffin • 22:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The races are right there in the knowledge base, and we link to that. Remember, we are NOT a game guide. -gamerfreak

The article is currently up for prod. I may change to afd though so if it reappeared it can speedied. J.J.Sagnella 10:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I placed a note on the article's talk page explaining why it should be deleted as well. I'd say no need for an AfD for this one. Pyrospirit Flames Fire 20:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Runescape Forum Link -- Why?

Why do we have a link to the official Runescape forums? It should be removed for two reasons:

  • 1) That section is already swamped with links.
  • 2) As said many times, the encyclopedia is directed towards non-players, correct? The forums are easily accessible from the homepage to any new visitor, AND its not going to do them any more good than the knowledge base considering its a Members-Only feature of the site.

-Gamerfreak

You got a good point there. Perhaps we may need to reconsider this. J.J.Sagnella 10:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it should stay. After all, the link is a bit difficult to see. Also, it tells a lot about the RuneScape community. Pyrospirit Flames Fire 20:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Refs before punctuation

Aren't we supposed to put references before punctuation? IE: 

this is the text of the article<ref>reference on wheels</ref>.

as opposed to: 

this is the text of the article.<ref>reference on wheels</ref>

Currently, just about all the citations in the article have reference after punctuation. CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was after, but I could be mistaken - • The Giant Puffin • 12:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:REF#Footnotes_come_after_punctuation :) Ed ¿Cómo estás? 04:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
K. I could have sworn it was refs before punctuation. Ah well. >_< CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Hm, never knew that. I'll try to fix any instances of that when I see them. Pyrospirit Flames Fire 19:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of RuneScape

I am creating a "Criticism of RuneScape" article at my sandbox. Please feel free to edit it as it develops; I am in desperate need of some good sources. And please, don't add a bunch of pro-RuneScape junk to the article until the main points of criticism have been established, it makes it much easier to write. Thanks, --Hojimachongtalk 02:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Um... why would we want a seperate article? "Criticism of" articles should be avoided like the plague, unless absolutely necessary to reduce page size. We don't really have a problem with page size. -Amarkov moo! 03:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it merits an article as much as Criticism of World of Warcraft does, as RS has even more active players, and a notorious reputation for being a less-than-perfect "starting point" for MMORPG players. --Hojimachongtalk 04:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
But WoW is a lot larger, and thus has a lot more criticism. Creating a seperate article woul just lead to another AfD and perhaps another wave of scrutiny towards the RS series. Just extend the current section. If it ever becomes too big, then maybe look into making it a seperate article - • The Giant Puffin • 12:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
WoW has 8 million players, while RS has 9 million players (according to the article). It doesn't merit an article (yet, mwahaha), but I'll be building an updated criticism section in my sandbox. thanks for the input by the way, --Hojimachongtalk 04:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
About that... WoW has 8 million players, because having one account lets you create as many characters as you want from that account. Since each account is $15 per month, almost no one has multiple accounts. RuneScape, however, has 9 million characters, but many people have more than one character. (I myself have about 6, and my cousin has around 40.) Pyrospirit Flames Fire 23:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Runescape contains bad graphics, bad gameplay and is an all round bad game - why, given that people crticise the game, can we not mention that in the article? Waffle247 15:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Who criticises it? Care to provide a link or two? And no, Gamespot-style player reviews aren't good enough because they ain't reliable sources, and half of them admit they've just been banned for rulebreaking. CaptainVindaloo t c e 17:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Have you even read the wiki rules of conduct? Note the bit about not using inflamatory terms. I wasn't going to and have never sited anything but good sources and please do not suggest that I am one of those ignoranous cretins who entertains philosophical convictions about something as petty and insignificant as a computer game based on pre-concieved assumptions, bias or peer driven ideology. Anyone can see that the Runescape MMORPG has substantially lower quality graphics than MMORPG such as World of Warcraft. Since wikipedia is an encyclopedic web site, in that it reports facts with opinions expressed in a neutral POV, I would expect that in order for this article to belong to the wikipedia it would require a criticism section that reflects the wide range of differing opinions. Some sources: Big List of Links to Reviews Common Sense Media As we can see there are many differing opinions of Runescape, even if the advocats of this game don't wish to accept it. As a side to this I do now feel that there is an inherent agenda amongst the more fundamentalist Runescape fanatics to destroy and purge all those infadels in western society that wish to be able to express their opinions about the wonky, pixelated world of Runescape. As it is obvious that those advocating Runescapes brilliance are extremely biased and seem unable to disconnect their emotions from this issue, I am withdrawing from all further discussion and no response after this in this section will be made by me. The sources are there, they exist, you can either let them be included in the article for it's improvement or censor the information you disagree with. Your decision will simply speak for itself. Waffle247 13:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm very sorry if i'm using inflammatory language. There are very specific, policy based reasons why we do not use reviews from sites like GameFAQs; because anyone can comment on a game, there is no way of citing the author, and any comments made on the game do not have any kind of peer reviewing. Wikipedia:Verifiability clearly states that every statement must be cited to a reliable, peer reviewed source, and not to those with "[poor] fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight". Any freshly-banned troll can create umpteen sockpuppets and flood GameFAQs with unjustly poor reviews (you'll find a surprising number of this kind of review at Gamespot; the best is from someone who admits he has just been banned for item scamming). That is why we avoid using GameFAQs et al. Reliable sources that we have found simply do not comment on the game's graphics, which, yes, are clearly inferior to the likes of World of Warcraft. Why worry about it? Graphics are not everything. Gun Metal is a demonstration game for the GeForce FX graphics cards so looks fantastic, but its plot is paper thin and has the most annoying narration ever. This article includes screenshots of DevMUD, RSC and RS2, so we can safely let readers make their own judgement of the graphics. CaptainVindaloo t c e 15:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Your argument is only valid if you remove all references to graphics from all games articles on the wikipedia. Graphics are an extremely important and integral part of any gaming experience, even board and card game manufacturers spend a lot of time on design and colour - to suggest that it is in some way not appropriate to take the look of the game into account when reviewing it is ludicrous. One may as well suggest we review a band without mentioning the sound, or food without mentioning the taste. Graphics are just as important to the game player as anything else. Now I am not, really I am not, suggesting that we phrase this as "Runescape is a really good game but the graphics are a bit dodgy" or "Runescape, would be great apart from the graphics" but this article is clearly too POV. How can you talk about reviewing Runescape and not talking about the graphics? How can you review Runescape if you can't compare it to it's contemparies? Once again, this is exactly the type of instant dismisal of criticism that the sterotypical 12 year old Runescape fanatic would come out with. Why is it so bad to state in the article that the graphics engine for Runescape is out dated and is very much less sophisticated than contempary MMORPG solutions? You can even balance the line out with "but this is greatly compensated by the interesting and intricate plot and game play"? Waffle247 14:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Other game articles have remarks on the graphics because a reliable source (such as a games magazine) has commented upon them. We don't make the reviews ourselves; that would be original research. So far, we haven't found any reliable sources commenting on RS's graphics, so we leave it out. I don't see how graphical quality is the most important aspect of a video game, to be honest. See my Gun Metal example. If you have NPOV concerns, bring it up on the current talk page. CaptainVindaloo t c e 17:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Bored - not contributing to Runescape, found somewhere more flexible. Waffle247 12:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Given you keep deleting my responses what is the point in this discussion? Waffle247 10:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, the page was reverted to the archived version (see history). This should really be taking place at Talk:RuneScape. CaptainVindaloo t c e 17:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

RS copyleft images

There is/used to be a link on the JaGEx website for a set of images released into the public domain. I'm not sure if its still there but... it would be a nice touch... → p00rleno (lvl 84) ←ROCKSCRS 12:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It's still there, I downloaded it but none of the images really look useful--JCGracik talk c 19:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Runescape Market

The Runescape market is a very complex market. It is like a modern market with prices rising and falling depending on quantity and sometimes quality. Also, there are jobs and other things that can teach you about a middle man and many other marketing details. this is an EXTREMELY brief description of this gigantic online gaming community's market. --Purplethief1 21:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point...the market fluctuates several times in a certain period of time, depending on the location of the trading (such as which world you're in and which city/kingdom/area you're located in), availability of the item (rune armor as opposed to bronze armor), inflation, competition, etc. The problem with that is that if there are no reliable sources, this becomes original research.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 02:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, if you can avoid the "mob" (scammers, noobs, etc.) which seems to be bigger than the actual market. Make sure it's neutral. --Hojimachongtalk 02:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

sometimes the prices go up or down depending on what's in it. They sometimes try and cheat you for more money. You can sometimes make better agreements. This will also save your money.--Brail4 17:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

runescape is very addicting but you have to work hard to do well--Xunick34 17:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

i AGREE runescape is difficult, hey purplethief, what level you on?

Not a forum, guys. --Hojimachongtalk 22:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

hi ~~peanutbutter'njelly135Peanutbutter'njelly135

Servers

Around 140 RuneScape servers, numbered and referred to as worlds by players, are located throughout the world. The servers are Unix, Debian GNU/Linux, and Cisco IOS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Serpentes (talk • contribs) 02:08, 28 February 2007.

Cisco IOS? for real? I can't find any supporting evidence for that... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Serpentes (talk • contribs) 02:08, 28 February 2007.
I did the research for that, I even provided the reference...apparently some editor who was moving some stuff around forgot to move the reference I provided for that as well. We might have to remove that information now, unless we can recover it through history.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 02:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


That purple kid has no clue what he is talking about, i'm selling full rune for 15k, my account name is Bkraus25. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ohiostatefan88 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 6 March 2007.

IMO, I think that I would prefer Image:RSlogo3.jpg over Image:Rslogo2007.jpg. Why? Because the former looks more attractive then the latter, and the former's licensing might give more leeway than a fair use rationale. Any thoughts?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 03:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. I'd rather we use the free-ish image from the fansite kit than this new one under fairuse. CaptainVindaloo t c e 15:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, a free one would be better to use. I wouldn't choose Image:RSlogo3.jpg however, because of the white background. I think that RSlogo1 from the free image kit is better because it has a black background that looks more like the current runescape logo--JCGracik talk c 20:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Alright, i'm going to switch back to RSlogo3, since there's no objections. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Random Event Error

Under the random event section it states "Also, the mysterious box given to players by the Mysterious Old Man has been taken out of the game." This is completely false. What they may have meant was it was updated to accommodate color blind players by requesting numbers and shapes rather than colors and shapes.

Are you sure?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 05:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Notice how the header says "Colored strange boxes". -Amarkov moo! 05:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, it mentions the numbered ones further up. -Amarkov moo! 05:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh...I see what you mean. That statement should already be removed.

On a related note, I would like to comment on the following paragraph:

Two random events have been removed from the game by Jagex. The tangle vine was removed almost immediately after being introduced as it was deemed too dangerous to players, but was reintroduced as part of the construction skill for POH's. The Dr. Ford event was removed for causing graphical problems within the game program.

Is this particular paragraph significant in this article? This is a general topic about RS; we don't want too much detail on the main article. Can we move it to a subpage?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 15:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Critisim section seems to be missing a few views

Just seems to be missing something... 205.155.216.42 18:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

We've spent hours looking for reliable critical review (and no, GameFAQs et al is not reliable). There's not much we can do if most of them are positive or negative, although we've tried to balance out the numbers of positive and negative comments. Can you find any more? CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


wat do you mean bye vandilismn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.144.158 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 4 March 2007

I'm not quite sure what you're refering to, but here's a link to the page explaining Vandalism. Pyrospirit Flames Fire 04:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Notable Players

A list was recently added that contained the names of Notable Runescape Players, but it was deleted(the list included Zezima, Xanatos Xev, Andyawz and Leki91) And i think they should re-add it.Tubyboulin 19:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wayyyy to crufty. This isn't a game guide. There were no references, and they aren't notable. Really, the only notable player might be Zezima. Maybe, because he's a household name amongst 10 million-ish players. --Hojimachongtalk 19:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Much too crufty. I've played RS for almost 3 years and only heard of Zezima. And including him wouldn't add much to the article. Pontificake 19:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
As i've been explaining at Talk:Zezima#On Notability, players, even Zezima, are not notable enough for a mention here. I've never heard of the other three either. CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
We dont want more excuses for people to go nominating this for deletion - • The Giant Puffin • 23:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, to know about the last three players, you would have to have been playing for a long time, but beleive me there are famous among older players.Tubyboulin 23:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The only player notable enough for Wikipedia is Andrew Gower. :) Pyrospirit Flames Fire 00:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the only player "notable" enough for such mention is Zezima, being the first player ever to have 99 in every skill. Everyone else might have high skills (and even 99 in every one), but they've achieved no such milestone as Zezima did. That's under the assumption, of course, that such a mention belongs on Wikipedia, which is doubtful. Wikipedia just doesn't seem like the place for this. On a sidenote, I've not heard of "Andyawz, Leki91, Xanatos, and Xev" either, and I've been playing RuneScape on-and-off since May of 2001. If any such section existed (hypothetically), those players wouldn't be on it anyway. The likes of Bluerose13x and other milestone-achieving players far surpass that of whoever these guys are. I think this is part [a fraction] of the problem in the first place; people's opinions on who's "notable" enough to be mentioned. EctoplasmOnToast 00:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

first off lol its Xanatos Xev, not Xanatos and Xev, he was the leader of a big time clan in the early times of RS and he is held in high regard by most players, and Zeziam is just an ass, hes probobly 40 and lives in his moms basement, Xanatos Xev is much more worthy than him. User:Tubyboulin 01:55, 6 March 2007

"First off", don't correct me. Like I mentioned, I've never so much as heard of this "Xanatos Xev", so don't get snippy at me for not getting his name right. These "early times of RuneScape" must not've been very early — your definition of "early" is probably the dawn of RuneScape 2 — because "early RuneScape" was back when there was only one continent, when even Karamja didn't exist yet.
Secondly, that's the exact reason I mentioned about people's opinions about who's "notable" enough to be mentioned in such a section. Your opinion of someone "notable" enough is someone I've never so much as heard of. This wouldn't be an isolated incident, either. People's opinions on "notable" players varies vastly. Also, your opinion on Zezima being an "ass, who's probably 40 and lives in his mom's basement" is hardly relevant. For one, Zezima is a college student, and this is common knowledge to everyone, even retired players such as myself. Even if such a section existed (again, hypothetically), it would never be governed by your (or anyone else's) opinion on the personal life and personality of "notable" players. Mentioned "notable" players would be players with milestone-achieving accomplishments, not just a leader of some clan. Even N0valyfe wouldn't be "notable" enough, as all he did was accomplish what Zezima did but much later.
Thirdly, if you're going to contribute to the Talk page, sign your name after your contribution using four tildes [~~~~]. EctoplasmOnToast 02:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Get an reputable external newspaper or magazine to write an article about the achievements of Zezima, N0valyfe, and other "notable" RuneScape players. We'll then discuss this issue further. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Can someone point to me where it says in WP:EL that only one fansite link is allowed in the article? I couldn't find this while I was perusing the guidelines. Nishkid64 00:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I know it was there, but it isn't anymore. I'll do some archive-digging. -Amarkov moo! 02:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
It's actually in another policy, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. I'm not sure why, since only having one fansite is totally not the point of the thing. -Amarkov moo! 02:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks Amarkov. Nishkid64 00:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Verifiable?

I'm trying to find a source for the information on the first paragraph onRuneScape#Interaction. Can this particular piece of information be verified?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 15:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Try some of the fansite monster guides. I think the official kbase has a monster guide now, too, though I could be mistaken. That area of the site is down at the moment, so I can't check and see. CaptainVindaloo t c e 15:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I practically checked all of the bestiaries. I might have searched for the wrong keywords, so I'd like to know who added this info and where s/he obtained it.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 00:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw a comment in the article that I should go here before changing any fansite links, so here I am! I brought up a valid point here about the current fansite links in the article, and I feel that we should act on this. The 1 fansite link was just a guideline, and we can be flexible with that, if necessary. I personally would like to see a 3rd fansite EL (Zybez) because Tip.it, RuneHQ and Zybez would definitely round out the top 3 most useful, and largest RuneScape fansites out there. Zybez has been consistently doing equally as well as Tip.it and RuneHQ week after week, and I feel that the site's performance should be taken into account.

Also, note that the traffic rank compiles data from the last three months, and Zybez had the domain change for its forums less than two months ago.

I think we definitely can handle the number of external links if we add just one more, and I see no foreseeable problems with doing so. Nishkid64 22:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


Also, an admin at runescape community borught up a good point. "Also, on the subject of Wikipedia only linking to the allegedly 'high traffic' fan sites ("Fan sites with most traffic") : the stats are flawed! Those stats are based off Alexa ranking. And Alexa ranking is VERY FLAWED. Alexa ranks Yahoo.com higher than Google.com!

The reason we put RSC under the same domain as Zybez was to gain Alexa rank (which we did). Also, Alexa rank can be easily faked. I can put up lots of 'Alexa Toolbar' adverts on Zybez and RSC; get people to download it- and our Alexa rank will skyrocket.

I feel Wikipedia shouldn't bias fansites depending on who has the highest Alexa rating. It is NOT a representation of traffic. Just how many Alexa toolbar users a site gets.

And don't even get me started on all the Alexa-fake-ranking sites (*cough* http://www.alexasurf.com/ )" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.190.32.83 (talk • contribs).

A short while back (try the last archive), we had a few ideas about a new system (since the one fansite rule, and the two-fansites-per-WP:IAR-to-avoid-edit-warring rule have both gone wrong), such as introducing a rotation system, or removing fansites altogether. However, since WP:EL no longer specifically forbids it, we might as well link to the major fansites. I have a couple of concerns though: firstly, we don't need every tiny, freewebs hosted, 3-member forum site linked to. That was the situation before the one fansite rule, where this article was fast approaching the spam event horizon. Secondly, i'm sure that the number of fansite links has been brought up and criticised in past PR/GA reviews. CaptainVindaloo t c e 23:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think we can limit to these three fansites alone. They are the top 3 RuneScape fansites, and there really appears to be no others really close in contention (Sal's RuneScape Realm is pretty far off). Also, this should not be an issue to be brought up at PR/GA, because the 1-fansite statement is only a guideline, not a rule. In fact, it's been moved from WP:EL to WP:NOT, which was a bit odd to me at first, but it makes sense, since the main point of that 1-fansite rule is to prevent people from adding whatever fansite link they please. I think using these three alone would be fine, and would keep us conflict-free. Nishkid64 00:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, many of the people had previously objected because were using WP:IAR when we kept the 2nd link in. No one really seemed to mind my request at WP:NOT talk page, so I'm taking it as a good sign that this is a general guideline, and in certain cases, such as RuneScape, we can make exceptions. Nishkid64 00:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
For now, I have added the Zybez link. I think I made some perfectly valid points at WP:NOT and here, and so I think adding the Zybez link is appropriate. Reply here if there are any questions/comments/complaints. Nishkid64 01:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Tomorrow i'll update the fansite linkspam templates to reflect this new arrangement. They've been needing an upgrade anyway, being based on year-old versions of the standard {{spam}} warnings. CaptainVindaloo t c e 03:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Upgrade complete. CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Support adding Zybez to the list of fansites. With the move of RuneScape Community to the Zybez domain, Zybez's Alexa ranking has been shooting up, and will soon catch up with Tip.it and RuneHQ. I found their skill guides more useful than those of RuneHQ and Tip.it, and their price guides are the most accurate. This article attracts many readers and vandals, so the fansites we link to will enjoy a boost in Alexa ranking - hence, linking to only one fansite is a bad idea. As each website has its own strengths and weaknesses (for example, despite its awesome price guide, Zybez doesn't have a beastiary), linking to three or four fansites helps the reader who is looking for additional information. While we must prevent the fansites section from turning into a spam directory, RuneHQ, Tip.it and Zybez are too reputable and well-known among the RuneScape community to be considered "spam". --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Support retention of the 3 sites now listed, suggest letting it sink in a little longer then altering the fansite warning, inclusion of a small section in the reminders to replace the current bits and bobs etc and calling that 'it' bar major shifts in the future. The Alexa rank is hardly perfect, but contributors here were stuck between a rock ("one major fansite") and a hard place ("so do we spin a bottle or try and do this properly?"). Since nobody came up with a more suitable tool for the job, that's the one that was used. It's the same system that will ensure Zybez's link, if this proposal is accepted. The problem was the single fansite edict, which no longer seems to be an issue, in which case previous discussion and monitoring mean that the issue can be closed. QuagmireDog 22:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

moderators

i'm going to be adding mod info, i am a actual mod so i have alot of info just waiting to be added


go mod marvin!!(a jmod) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eatbetter (talk • contribs) 20:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

As a fellow player-mod, I removed your comments! Please don't sign the actual page with your details. In addition, submit sections that are both essential and already looked at. This is a semi-protected and long page, so please discuss with the community such sections. Instead I have added 1 line to the previous article giving information on player moderators.
Thanks
Philipwhiuk 20:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
k, kinda new to wiki,just seentohave very little on mods —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eatbetter (talk • contribs).

Also remember that we, as player moderators, are not allowed to reveal 99.9% of the stuff that goes on behind the scenes, so you really can't add much more than is already said without compromising our security. You also have to consider fancruft issues...exactly how much do most Wikipedia users really need to know? Please sign your posts! DiscordantNoteCntrbtns 20:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You're all player mods??? *sigh* I've played for so long and I've never even been chosen by Jagex to be one. I quit already, so I guess it doesn't matter anymore.
In response to DiscordantNote, what is the player mod policy? Is it true that you can't reveal what's going on behind the scenes? We're really desperate for information that can be added here.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 00:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe its a worldwide conspiracy - • The Giant Puffin • 11:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Shhh! They'll be after us! :-P CaptainVindaloo t c e 11:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Player mod doings were certainly taboo when I was one several months ago, can't see it changing now. No point Jagex being too open about the roles, responsibilities and (lack of) benefits of p-modhood:

  • Anything bar full exclosure would mean they're 'hiding something'.
  • Any hint of the way p-mods operate would give the slime ideas.
  • Full exclosure wouldn't stop stupid rumours "well yeah, they say that, but they still get free membership and a party hat", pshaw.
  • Many RS players don't even need an excuse to scream themselves hoarse - why give them some?

Perhaps I'm missing the point, but why is more than a passing mention of the mods necessary in the first place? They have a job to do, they do it, the end. It's not like there's a list of game-rules or anything else of the like, which is what they apply, surely the RS page on them has all that could ever be needed? QuagmireDog 21:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Server location

Does anyone still have the list of the server location (not just country, but exactly city)? OhanaUnited 16:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need it?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 00:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps not in the article, but it'd be useful just for reference. Pyrospirit Flames Fire 02:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Just personal reference, not intending to put it on the wiki page. Personally I oppose the name changes. It is much less confusing with city names than just an area (east, central, west). It's too generalized. OhanaUnited 05:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It's still possible to determine it through mousing over the server URLs.
New Location Old Location
US East 1 New York
US East 2 Atlanta
US East 3 Miami
US Central 1 Chicago
US Central 2 St. Louis
US West 1 San Francisco (UL)
US West 2 San Jose (PO)
US West 3 San Jose (AB)
US West 4 Seattle
US West 5 San Francisco (NL)
Canada East Toronto
Canada West Vancouver
UK 1 London (DS)
UK 2 London (JO)
Netherlands Amsterdam
Sweden Stockholm
Finland Helsinki
Australia Sydney
Wouldn't be possible to use any of this in the article though, no sources to give this. Comrade Tux 22:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the list. But what do you mean by determining its actual location by mousing over the server URL? OhanaUnited 04:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant mousing over the link to look at the URL, heh. All of the URLs are in a format similar to "va6.runescape.com". The "va" indicates the location (Vancouver), and the "6" is the server number at that location. Most of the location codes are straightforward, "at" being Atlanta, "hel" being Helsinki, etc. Some of them show the hosting provider though, and you would have to guess that "jolt" meant "London (JO)" from before. Picked all of that up while attempting to make a PHP world switcher some time ago. Comrade Tux 05:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Really smart. Really good observation. I didn't see that until you pointed it out. OhanaUnited 20:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

GA fail

I have noticed multiple problems with the sources. Some of these sources do not seem reliable. Some may not even support the claim made! The main problems come from citations 2, 8, 16, 24, 25, and 26. Citation 2 "supports" the claim that Runescape is one of the most popular online games in the world. It comes from 2004! Wonderful, 2.5 years ago. Claims like that should probably have recent sources. Citation 8 comes from a fansite that does not seem reliable enough to support the statement it goes with. Please tell me where in the heck citation 16 tells us the capacity of Runescape Classic servers. Citation 24 is a review on GameFaqs made by some user. If it belongs as a citation ANYWHERE, it is in reception. The same problem applies to citation 25. In 26 it does not say we can turn off each sound if we feel like it.

Now that citations are out of the way it is time for a section that just seems to be horrible.

Criticism and response

To combat cheating and the use of macros, Jagex has taken measures such as introducing random events that require immediate human response and providing safety warnings in the player trading system. In response to automated scripts, Jagex has banned over 20,000 accounts through a macro detection system.[55] RuneScape chat filters have the ability to censor words and letter combinations that may be offensive to players. Players are often able to use intentional misspellings, also known as leet, or symbols to bypass the filter. To combat this, changes are continually being made by Jagex to the filters to block offensive language and to prevent non-offensive words from being accidentally blocked.[56]. In addition a number of Player Moderator's have been appointed by Jagex to assist the Jagex staff in reporting rule-breakers.

Business aspects of the RuneScape organization have fallen under criticism. RuneScape has been criticised for not having enough free content or not updating the free content often enough. While RuneScape does have a considerable amount of free content, most updates and features for high-level players are limited to paying members.[22] Jagex increased the size of the customer support team and expanded the online Knowledge Base to alleviate customer service problems.[57]

As with many similar games, RuneScape has been criticised for its repetitive nature, particularly in regards to building experience points.[58] Jagex has since introduced random events to help combat this.

The first paragraph is just how Jagex handles rule breakers. Paragraph 2 descries the business aspects of Runescape and that they have been criticized. My problem is that there are PRIMARY sources just describing the business aspects. Neither of those sources indicate that Runescape's business aspects have been criticized. Nothing seems wrong with paragraph 3...other than the fact that the sourced site is down right now so I can't check if it is appropriate.

Also if you think I was a bit harsh in this review it would most likely be because of this from the GA crtieria:

Length

For articles longer than about 25 kB, rigorous reviewing of the Wikipedia peer review and featured article candidates guidelines is often more appropriate than the process here.

Here is the checklist:

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

This article has failed to get promoted to GA. Funpika 01:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the section you cited is horrible, and have removed it (I have contemplated doing so for some time). Ed has removed some of the dubious references you mentioned. Since the article passes all other GA criteria, perhaps a GA review is in order? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Passing article now. Funpika 14:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
YAAAAY! :-D CaptainVindaloo t c e 17:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Finally! The mission I started last July has been accomplished! Good work, everyone! (I can finally boast that I have significantly contributed to a GA.) --J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Did I miss the party already??? Well, I was busy...now on to FA!--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 16:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm with Ed. → p00rleno (lvl 84) ←ROCKSCRS 11:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Shouldn't there be a section on the criticism that MMORPGs [not just Runescape] hinder teenagers social development in the outside world, and that such games can cause teens to 'have no life', or be so wrapped up in their online lives that they fail to notice their family. ><Lubadoo 12:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You'll find all that elsewhere, such as in the MMORPG article. There's no point repeating it here. This article is about one individual MMO, not all of them. CaptainVindaloo t c e 17:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. It wouldnt be completely relavent - • The Giant Puffin • 21:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Random Events?

Hey should some one (perhaps me because i dont mind) put some or all examples of them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scrat55 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

There have been pages on random events, but they were deemed Crufty and deleted. → p00rleno (lvl 85) ←ROCKSCRS 12:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Private servers

Shouldnt runescape private servers at least be acknowledged of its existance?--Henry 21:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph about them needs a reliable, independent source (IE, not from the private server's own website), ASAP. I don't think anyone would want this article to be delisted so soon after getting GA status, so we need to get rid of that {{fact}} tag, urgently. CaptainVindaloo t c e 14:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I recently put a Navframe around the citations, open by default, that can be hidden by a viewer. This way, if a reader dosn't want to see all 60 citations, they can collapse them down to 1 line. Any arguments? → p00rleno (lvl 85) ←ROCKSCRS 12:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

German Servers no longer beta... I think...

My friends tell me they're on the German servers, true or b-a-n-a-n-a-s? → p00rleno (lvl 85) ←ROCKSCRS 12:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's an open beta now; it's still in beta state, but anyone can sign up as long as they report any bugs (I guess). Windows Vista spent the last year or so in open beta, so anyone could download it for free, but there was no guarantee it wouldn't crash spectacularly. Linus's Law says that "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow". This means that the more testers you have, the easier and faster it is to iron out the bugs in a program. And what better way to get loads of testers than open beta-ing it? CaptainVindaloo t c e 15:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

stuff that could be added

i think a list of rules should be added to inform people that runescape is not a game deviod of law.

pures are not mentioned as i saw and maybe worth a word or two(i'm not a pure, just lame to me, i am a pmod though=) )Eatbetter 18:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Nah, a list of rules wouldn't have any meaning to people who don't play RuneScape, and it would just be a random list. The article references rules already, anyway. As for pures, they're discussed in either Wilderness (RuneScape) or RuneScape combat, maybe both. Pyrospirit Flames Fire 00:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

clean up on aisle 1!!!

this talk page is crowded with old talk —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eatbetter (talk • contribs) 19:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

I'll archive the page now. In the future, you can simply add {{archiveme}} to the top of the page, and it'll display a note saying that someone needs to archive it. Or, just archive it yourself! (see WP:ARCHIVE) Pyrospirit Flames Fire 00:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:RuneScape/Archive_19&oldid=1088806481"