Talk:RuneScape/Archive 23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24


I'll elaborate a bit more on the fansite issue here. Right now, the consensus is to include the three largest fansites, which are RuneHQ,, and Zybez. This has been determined using Alexa ranks; all three are listed because their ranks are fairly close and Alexa is very rarely perfect. There are several medium-sized fansites, such as RuneVillage and Sal's Realm, but there is a difference of several thousand ranks between those and the three sites listed above.

Like I wrote in the FAQ, consensus can change, and if you would like to revive discussion on this topic, you are welcome to do so. There has already been quite a bit of discussion on this topic, however, so please try to bring something new to the table. You can see old discussion here, here, here, here, and here. Possibly more, as I haven't dug past archive 18. Comrade Tux 22:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a point to adding fansites? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to advertise fansites. Legend Talk 00:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
They are given because they provide players of the game with further information. The three sites linked are the largest according to Alexa; there would be only one, but Alexa isn't always very accurate, so it was decided to include all three. This section is here because many, many people have suggested that smaller fansites be added. Comrade Tux 09:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, don't bother with " is so much better" or "" has loads more members" arguments. Wikipedia does not make judgements of quality, and having more members than another site is irrelevant - we're not linking to the forums, we're linking to the homepages, and the number of members a site has does not affect it's Alexa rank. Simply asking for more fansites isn't a good idea either: Wikipedia is not a mere repository of external links. We keep three as a reasonable number of sites to have. Finally, Wikipedia uses nofollow, so links on here do not affect a site's PageRank. CaptainVindaloo t c e 22:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to note, that there is no need to bother around with RuneScape wikis. Those have been determined to be left in the article, mainly because those are wikis and are hosted by Wikia. If you look around in many other articles, if Wikia hosts a popular space for the subject, there is an extremely high chance there will be a link to the Wikia. ~Iceshark7 23:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I dont reccomend runehq... I ave gotten multiple viruses from that site... not to mention a keylogger that made me lose my account O_o Javascap 01:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion Wikipedia should follow a all or none policy. The traffic generated from this provides extra support for these popular fansites even though they might not offer a better service. We need a level playing field. 19:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's purpose isn't to support fansites or level the playing field between those sites. Wikipedia is not a directory of links to other sites, so only the most highly used and most useful fansites should be included. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 20:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ugly White Space

Stupid wikipedia formatting!!! For a long time now there has been a big blank space near the top of the page near the TOC. Ive tried to fix... no luck. Anyone have any ideas how to fix. → p00rleno (lvl 87) ←ROCKSCRS 02:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The whitespace seems to be there for all articles I've seen. I suspect that it's there to draw more attention to the table of contents and/or separate the lead from the body of articles. It's not much of a problem, really. Comrade Tux 09:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
We've been here before. Remember those Star Wars puns? :-) Ask at WP:VP/T. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Zybez at least is not a fansite.

Runescape has explicitly labelled any site that advertises runescape gold for sale as an enemy of the game and not comming under the category of 'fansite'

"Finally, we have noticed some 3rd party sites, which call themselves 'fansites', but then advertise black market trading sites. This will no longer be tolerated. By running such advertising these sites are directly supporting these gangs, and are thus causing the botting problems they then complain about! We don't consider sites that encourage our players to break the rules and endanger their own users to be 'fansites'. (i.e. They're advertising things to their users, which, if the advertising works, will serve to get their users banned!) We consider them cheat sites, and they will be treated accordingly. True fans of the game don’t encourage cheating!"

I know for certain zybez has such advertisements but am not sure about the others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 06:21:07, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

All the fansites have these advertisements, and all have attempted to have them taken down, with little success. Google AdSense (et al) place RuneScape-related adverts on RuneScape-related sites, such as the major fansites, and the adverts are hard to get rid of. In addition, even if there were fansite(s) listed who willingly promoted the sale of gold, it wouldn't be a reason to remove them from the list; while I certainly wouldn't be visiting such a site, Wikipedia isn't censored. Comrade Tux 09:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
This simply isn't true. Zybez at least does not use google adsense but a permanant banner ad. Even if the advertisements were from randomized google ads it makes no difference; Jagex has officially stated that any website with advertisements for real world item exchange are not fansites. Not only do they say they are not fansites, but they go on to explain how they are essentially an enemy of the game.
"In addition, even if there were fansite(s) listed who willingly promoted the sale of gold, it wouldn't be a reason to remove them from the list."
It most certainly would. These websites are technically not fansites, and so should not be under the heading "fansites" and as they are enemies of runescape they should not be on the page at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 19:06:28, August 19, 2007 (UTC)
OK, you got me on the adsense point, admittedly I didn't know because I block all the fansites' adverts. However, on your point "these websites are technically not fansites"... since when does Jagex control what a "fansite" is? It is irrelevant what Jagex describes Zybez as, they are still a top fansite. Wikipedia isn't meant as a tool that the subjects of articles can bend to their will. (Side note: old discussion on this topic can be found here.) Comrade Tux 23:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Jagex are referring to sites which may have banner ads for gold sales. In that case, it's the responsibility of the advertising agency, Google adsense or otherwise, and the host site has limited control over the content of ads (I often see adverts for other MMORPGs at I think Jagex are referring to sites that actually conduct and promote real world item trading themselves, not just have banner ads. CaptainVindaloo t c e 23:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
"Finally, we have noticed some 3rd party sites, which call themselves 'fansites', but then advertise black market trading sites. This will no longer be tolerated."
it is quite clear they do not consider any site that advertises trading items for real world benefits a fansite.
I think it is the object of fandom's right to determine what is and what isn't a fansite —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 00:49, August 20, 2007 (UTC)
Jagex did not make the fansites that relate to their game; the game community did. If the community judges Zybez to no longer be a true fansite, then they will leave and their traffic will fall. That doesn't appear to have happened, and so the link will remain. The inclusion or exclusion of a fansite is not a statement of quality, adherence to the game rules, recognition by Jagex, or anything similar. Comrade Tux 02:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The site is more likely to cause players to be banned from RuneScape if we link to it. Many players seem to be banned (in my experience watching forums) simply because they did not know of the rules. Granted, that may be their responsibility, but it is best not to encourage them. Zybez, having directly added a permanent link to a gold-selling site instead of *sometimes* coming up in random advertisements, is actively encouraging it. Basically, I wouldn't want my children, or any of the great numbers of players, to purchase gold because they saw the link there after following it through here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)
Erm, I'm not seeing any permanent gold selling links on Zybez, just banner ads that change/reset every time I hit F5, and you get those bloody things everywhere. True, I can't find an official line on gold selling ads in the Zybez news archives, but Zybez only seem to address content updates in the game and on their own site, not matters related to game rules. In fact, I just remembered that Zybez's W13 edits here as Zybez (talk · contribs). Take a look at this edit addressing the issue. But really, WP:NPOV prevents us making this kind of judgement (see #Fansites above). CaptainVindaloo t c e 21:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
That advert for (and it's affiliates) has been there for AAAAAAAAGES, and never changes as far as I know. I've not seen any adverts aside from gold selling ones. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 22:22, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with having a neutral point of view or whatever, the company does not consider them part of the game community so they should not be there. The website is funded by ads paid for by people ruining the game. To justify the ads as covering server costs you'd have to ask what is the point of the website as it's making the game worse. Any justification is moot anyway, JaGeX does not consider them representative of the runescape community so they should not be under the heading 'fansites.' This is also not an issue of freedom of speech as W13 is located in Canada, Jagex in Britain and the Zybez servers in America, who all have different laws on GOVERNMENT censorship and encouraging others to break laws, including copyright. I am a bit iffy about fansites being linked to on wikipedia, it is an encyclopedia for information about rather than advertising space. I object to them being labelled fansites, but maybe if they just linked to the main site under "unsupported runescape gameplay guides" or something similiar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 11:19, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

First, it is very difficult for us to take any comment/criticism/advice seriously if you repeatedly refuse to sign your posts by using 4 tildes.

Second, concensus is that the top three fansites as ranked by Alexa will be listed. If any of the three top rated sites were to suddenly be infested with malware or the like, that would be a reason to address their deletion from the list. All the fansites are having an issue with those advertisements for illegal gold selling sites; this is not limited to Zybez.

Third, it is the player's responsibility to know the rules of any game they play. Compare this to football (British or American - pick your preference) - if a player did not know and follow the rules, they would have very little benefit to their team. It is the player's responsibility to know the rules and follow them.

Fourth, as far as I have seen, all of the articles on games list at least one fansite (if such exists for that game). RuneScape is following procedure by listing the Alexa-ranked sites rather than using some subjective method.

Short disclaimer - I have no relationship with any fansite other than as an occasional user for game guides. My decision of which site to use is based solely on its value to me for a particular purpose, and I use several different ones when I need assistance. Xela Yrag 16:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

1]how does signing or not signing affect how seriously you take me? Just because I don't know wikipedia standards doesn't make the points I raise any less serious
2]All of the sites have had their ads up for years now. Even if they did have any grounds for justification, they should still be removed as they encourage users to break the rules.
The argument from these websites that they 'really don't want the ads but have to to pay bandwidth costs' is ridiculous as a) how did sites start? b) Since when has needing money been justification for breaking laws etc? If they were fansites they would not compromise the game in order to keep themselves running.
3]In football, coaches should not encourage people to cheat.
4]Oh, other articles do it so its ok? Google receives far more hits than and of these sites put together, as ranked by Alexa. It should really be on the top; except it's not a fansite either. 02:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this user's worries about arguments. Could we keep discussions related to the topic at hand, and not those discussing it? Thank you.
Regardless of what you may think, a fansite does not exist to serve every pity whim of the game it supports: it exists to help the players by providing them with information and tools. If they don't know the rules, that is not our fault. Zybez chose the lesser of three evils with regards to advertising and as such should not be treated any differently to the other two sites; regardless of what Jagex say, Zybez is still a fansite. In response to what Comrade Tux said earlier: less than 0.0004% of Zybez users actually care that Jagex told them to Boycott websites who have gold selling ads (based on emails received and topics from the forum-cannot base it on traffic, our traffic actually went up afterward). 13:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Ben_Goten78


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It is 'Rune Scape' or 'Run Escape'? I'm not sure if this is mentioned in the article but i think it is a valid thing to include.--Coin945 09:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

OMG... any one who playes the game knows it is pronouced Rune Scape. If you look at the logo you would know that because the word "Rune" is higher up than the word "Scape" probably done like this by Jagex so people don't think it is Run Escape. 15:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
It's RuneScape. In-game it's RuneScape, everywhere it's RuneScape. It's even written "RuneScape" everywhere on the site.
Look at the logo! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 15:42, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's definitely pronounced Rune-Scape. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 17:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
This is why I thought this thread was trolling, beyond WP:AGF. I'm sorry if I'm wrong, but there's no reasonable dispute on how to pronounce the name, and I've only ever seen "run escape" either as a joke or from people complaining on web forums. CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The e in front of the scape is just a mere coincidence -(never realised it spelled escape). Obviously of you played the game you would realise its Rune-scape. Have you ever seen a word with a e preceeded by a n pronunced ###n - e### anon124.168.115.172 12:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

omg how dumb can u get?? its rune scape and why would a frekin mmorpg just b about running and escaping?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, that's enough. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Communication with newer editors

We need someone else in the WikiProject to help with welcoming and informing new users who edit RuneScape pages. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Massively multiplayer online games/RuneScape#Communicating with new contributors who edit RuneScape pages. (cross-posted here so more people see it) Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 15:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


the images squish the information together, the page looks horrible in low resolutions. gifs slow my browsers. plz fix this the first gif shouldnt be there it looks horrible plz remove it.--Takendone 02:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Just had one person whose sole contribution was removing that exact image you want removed. And now your sole contribution was this comment. Both had pretty mediocre grammar. And seeing as how you didn't attempt to edit that article yourself, it seems as if this account is new. Are you sure you're not that same person? Tarikochi 02:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarikochi (talkcontribs)
Personally I agree that the Magic tablet's image is in totally the wrong place. Also please don't use ad hominem attacks when a person is clearly trying to improve the page. Whether their grammar is wrong or not has nothing to do with the justification for the image being located wrong. Please don't further claim that I am a new account - I have many edits both here and on different wikipedia topics Philipwhiuk 06:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, if this person really wants to improve the page, why does he only want the first image remove after claiming that "gifs slow my browsers"? It isn't the only GIF animation there, and certainly not the largest (largest is that Castle Wars one). Also, this person would have done it himself, except for my assumption that he can't because the account is brand new and the page is protected.
My mention of this person's grammar isn't in regards to the person's argument; it's in regards of the person being a virtual copy of another person who went after the exact same thing. In other words, I'm saying this person is using sock puppets to attempt to attack that specific image.
The only thing that keeps me from agreeing is that both have only one contribution, and it in itself seems like an attack only to get rid of an image that may cause an actual influence in the RuneScape game itself alongside the article.
P.S.: The Magic Tablet image has been moved back and forth to its current location. Tarikochi 15:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
In fairness, the article has got a lot of images (14, excluding sprotection padlock vs. 50k Wikicode size). Maybe some would be better off in the subpages, for example the teleporter moved to Gielinor (transport, geography - that old chestnut), one of the armours moved to combat? Retain the best here as a sort of 'taster' of the subpages. WP:SIZE asks for article size to be kept down (preferably below 32-35k) for ease of access. That's what subpages are for. I've no real opinion myself, since I've never had an access problem. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

??? whats a sockpuppet. i want that image removed because what do magic tablets have to do with the beginning of the section the img is like there to get attention or something. and whats with the gifs??? too many!! plz just remove the first img.Takendone 17:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

To be exactly honest, I had the same thought. The image in the lead is a bit too much - I'd delete it. ~Iceshark7 19:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm expressing my concerns with the number of fair-use images used in the article. According to non-free content policy point #3a, fair use images should be used as little as possible. I felt that Image:Runescape equipment armours decorativearmour-gold.gif and Image:Runescape equipment armours dragon-chikoritapro.gif are eventually displaying the same idea that Runescape has different types of outfit, but that's reductant because every online game has this feature. One of the image mentioned should be removed in accordance to the policy. I noticed that other Runescape-related articles (ie RuneScape combat and RuneScape skills) contain the same problem. The animated images look nice, but you don't need 2 pictures each to demonstrate melee attack, magic attack, and range attack nor animated images for nearly half the skills. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was kind of worried about the same thing. We could probably lose the older ones, from before Jagex started updating all the graphics. We can always restore them through DRV if the new ones don't work out. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree on that the 2 "rotating statues" are too much, and should be reduced to one. The main point of the article is to tell about the game in overall, and not to tell what different kinds of items are there in game. Or should we display every set of armours possible in Runescape? ~Iceshark7 19:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
The animated images look nice, but you don't need 2 pictures each to demonstrate melee attack, magic attack, and range attack nor animated images for nearly half the skills.
I was under the impression that the RuneScape skills page was about - gasp - RuneScape skills? There isn't a single skill in RuneScape that doesn't show some sort of action/emote/animation (whatever you want to call it), so why shouldn't there be animations of the skills on the skills page? Clv309 17:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Activity

What happened to all the activity in the RuneScape Wikipedia articles? It seemed to have suddenly vanished.

About a year ago, it was very active with vandalism spotted at an instant. Now vandalism can be left alone for hours without notice, as if no one cares about the RuneScape articles anymore, let alone attempts to actually improve it.

I remember back when people still cared about editing the articles to be active in it, but what happened to it now that my watchlist stopped running at rapid-fire speed? Tarikochi 23:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, my activity has been down for a while because I've had a lot of work to do. I couldn't log on at all for most of last month because something important on my PC's motherboard burned out. IE7 on Vista still doesn't run userscripts properly. Time to think about getting Firefox again... I don't know if it even works properly on Vista yet...
Ed's left, its probably best I let his userpage explain. :-\ CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, what about Sagnella, Cilencia, and those in their group? Most of the people I remember were when the RuneScape articles actually still have individual articles like "Cooking" and "RuneScape Weapons". Tarikochi 20:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarikochi (talkcontribs)
Pass. I saw Hyenaste the other day though, on WP:RD/C. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Since RuneScape has achieved GA status, there is little incentive to improve the article further. FA status is nearly impossible to achieve - and who would want to endure endless nitpicking, or to be told to "cite your sources or go f*** yourself"? (CaptainVindaloo, check out Opera.)
Vandalism decreased considerably once the article received permanent semi-protection. By the way, I gave up editing articles on online games, because anonymous vandalism and insertion of fancruft is rampant on such articles, and admins are usually unwilling to do anything about this. Instead, I wrote a GA on a Singaporean movie - I Not Stupid. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll have a look at Opera. Never would have thought of that. Thanks, JLWS. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I believe the true reason of the really low activity in these articles was due to the extreme obsession of fancruft, fair use killing, and the attack on anyone that makes an insertion of any of such or a mistake, not because of the good article status. With that obsession, the interest to edit something that just gets insta-reverted seems gone.

And apparently, there was a clear vandalism that lasted nine hours. That's how well the activity is going. Tarikochi 22:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Images 2

There are too many free fair use images in this article. Because they are free fair use, we are not supposed to use many. There are 10, 11 with the one I just removed because it was in the lead and glaringly unnatractive. A few should suffice. I don't know which ones illustrate the subject the best. But I think it should be cut down. i said 07:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't you mean "too many fair use images"? Since Wikipedia is a supporter of the American free software movement, an article can never have too many free use images. Assuming you meant "fair use" - yes, we should avoid indiscrminate use of screenshots and other fair use images, lest the anti-fair use brigade come and delete all of them. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
o.O It was late. But yes, that is what I meant. i said 19:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what we can do to address this to be honest, all screenshots are fair use and you can't identify a game without screenshots. Meanwhile we need to use images to make the page more accessible. Anybody got a suggestion to resolve this? Philipwhiuk 19:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Are the image assets from the Jagex Corporate site press pack provided for "review purposes" better or worse than fair use? --Joshtek 17:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Although under our policies, they are technically equivalent to fair use (as non-free media), I'd prefer to use them over fair use whenever possible. We still should avoid an excess, though. -Amarkov moo! 23:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
As pointed out on September 2 by me, there're image problems not only in this article, but also in RuneScape combat and RuneScape skills. Fair use problems mainly lies in Runescape combat, you don't need 2 fair use images for each attack type. We get the idea with just 1 fair use image. This problem is less on Runescape skills, but there're areas for improvements to reduce fair use images used in all 3 articles. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
SMirC-goggle.svg That is a lot of fair use images. They need to be seriously cut down. And not just because they're fair use. Also because that many images is overkill. i said 04:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Then let's give the old ones the heave-ho. They're out of date with the new graphical updates. It's not as if we can't DRV them if we change our minds. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
As much as I hate this deletion of fair use image policy bullcrap Wikipedia has suddenly pulled in the last few months, the images could be updated and repositioned. On another note, is there any reason why there shouldn't be a Runescape quests article? It might be informative and help add to the collection of articles, as quests are probably just as important an element in Runescape as the lore gods and the skills. DeusExMachina 02:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

←It's not bullcrap, its policy finally being enforced. And because there is not a need for more RuneScape related cruft articles. i said 03:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a bullcrap policy, anyway, and I don't mind going on the record saying that. (If I decide to RfA in two or so years, I may regret it then, lol). But yeah, it was just a thought, and it's an element of the game that should be expanded on given its popularity, though I'm sure people will disagree. I'm not going to go and make an article if it becomes RfD'd a day later by people who think it is mere cruft, though. DeusExMachina 04:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Let's not debate the mertis of WP:FU here. Let's instead act on the policy until it is changed. i said 05:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Well I've made a promise to myself never to get involved in image deletion, etc., in a hands-on capacity in any case, because of my clear bias in the issue, so no worries there. I'm not going to put myself in situations where I HAVE to use the policy, in light of my opinion on it. That way it won't get me into trouble. Hopefully it'll change though. But this is all off-topic. *vanish* DeusExMachina 05:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

←The discussion seems to have stalled. Thus, I shall propose. Barring objections, I am going to remove
Image:Runescape equipment armours decorativearmour-gold.gif,
Image:Runescape monsters kingblackdragon-updated.gif,
Image:Runescape randomevents frog.gif.
I do this because they don't help me as a reader understand it all that better to warrant a picture. As for RuneScape Skills, I intend to remove
Image:Runescape skill woodcutting.gif,
Image:Runescape skill farming.gif,
Image:Runescape skill fletching.gif,
Image:Runescape skill agility.gif,
Image:Runescape skill slayer.gif and
Image:RuneScape Quest Cape Emote.gif.
I'll take the liberty to deal with all RuneScape related articles. For Gielinor, I'll axe
Image:Runescape items teleportations sphere-break.gif
Image:Runescape monsters kalphitequeen-1stform-updated.gif and
Image:Runescape spells lunarspells vengeance.gif.
RuneScape combat will lose
Image:Runescape monsters kalphitequeen-2ndform-updated.gif and Image:Multi-Purpose RuneScape Image.JPG.
As for RuneScape gods, I'd axe all but the one actually showing a god, but I'll let you decide. Sorry for the odd format listing the images. It looked very cluttered otherwise.i said 03:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

For Gielinor, I'd agree with those image removals but I would like to replace them with a couple map images to better illustrate the places they describe rather than the vague gif pictures being removed. I know you don't want too many fair use images in the article, but more maps could illustrate it. DeusExMachina 06:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Maps would be perfect. i said 06:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll get on that right away.. actually a lot in that article can be condensed into sections, with a map to illustrate each section - "Southern Sea", "The North", "Morytania and the Eastern Sea", etc. DeusExMachina 00:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleting all of them is a little hasty, I think. The skills images are fine where they are (they illustrate points in the article). The teleporter animations would be better in Gielinor, and the combat/armour/monsters/magic in Combat. I think the KBD in the main article works quite well, though. Just needs a little moving and tidying up, not necessarily deletion of everything. Maybe delete the ones that are too similar to another, or don't fit properly anywhere. There's no need to get paranoid about WP:NFCC, just be careful. Just my opinion. CaptainVindaloo t c e 21:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Non free images are to kept at a minimum. I believe that the ones that would remain after my removals would adequately illustrate the subject,considering the fair use policy. We don't need to illustrate every single skill action. Only one or two. And if we were being paranoid, there would be even fewer. We shouldn't be copyright paranoid, but not everything is paranoia. i said 22:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm perfectly fine with the removal of some of the fair use images. I've always argued that non-free content should always be kept to a minimum in any article, even if any possible image for the game constitutes as fair use. I agree with I; you don't need to supplement every section of text with a relevant picture. A few images would be fine for the entire article. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind commenting on my specific suggestions? i said 22:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Four days later; no conversation. I'll probably start removing them in the next day or two barring serious objection. i said 22:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as how I created the majority of the images, I would like to be the one to remove them instead.

Please tell me the number of fair use that is allowed at most and I will choose which one goes, especially since I am more likely to know which ones are relevant and which ones aren't.

By the way, only two images in all of the RuneScape articles besides the logo are not fair use. Even the current maps are fair use seeing as how they are copied straight from the RuneScape website, so they're hardly any more acceptable than the other images. Tarikochi 22:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You do not own the images or the articles, so the fact that you uploaded the images does not give you special rights to remove ones. There is no set number of fair use; they should just be kept as low as possible while still have enough to illustrate the topic. I made suggestions above as to what, to me, an outsider, illustrates the topic best. Would you comment on that list, or make another one that you would prefer that we can comment on? i said 22:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I did not say I own the images. I said I created them, so I would prefer that you please read what I said closely before responding.
And "low" is not very specific in the amount needed.
As an outsider, I believe you hardly know which ones are appropriate to the article, so it would be much more appropriate if I remove them myself. The list I already know myself, and would not be necessary to be told if all I get is "low". Tarikochi 23:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I read what you said. You said that since you were the one who uploaded them, you should get to remove them. WP:OWN is the relevant policy. And actually, as an outsider, I know which ones help me understand the subject the best. Because they are all fair use, we need to have a balance between illustration and keeping FU images to a minimum. And there is no quantified limit. Its just 'a minimum'. I believe that removing the ones I suggested gets it close enough to a 'mimimum' while still aiding understanding effectively. As a side note, you can use '''three single-quotes to bold enclosed text''' in Wikimarkup; you do not need to use <b> </b> tags. Double quotes for italics. i said 23:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Cant people have multiple accounts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenny10 (talkcontribs) 21:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes? What does that have to do with anything? On a related note, I am going to remove the images shortly. i said 22:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes, take a look at WP:SOCK (assuming you mean on Wikipedia). CaptainVindaloo t c e 23:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the images. i said 02:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Meh opinions

I'm going to leave in comments about which images I would keep in the article and which images I would remove. First of all, the basic aim for this article is to use selectable and varying images in the article. By this, I mean that there shouldn't be too many fair use images, but enough to give a wide view of Runescape. Because, fair use images of computer games should be used for identification purposes only, and not as a gallery of what kind of things you can find in Runescape. In Template:Non-free game screenshot, identifaction purposes either of the game itself or some characters/items in the game.

  • The first two images in the article (1 and 2), about DeviousMUD and Runescape Classic, I'd keep these because those are definitely for identification purposes of a minority of RuneScape. And definitely because you can't access into these games anymore. (Unless a regular to RSC.) Yes check.svg Yes check.svg
  • The third image (3) is a map of the server locations. Definite keep, because it is not copyrighted. It is always a bonus for articles, for at least one public domain/GPL/CC licenced image, to be included. The text both in the image and in the article is a duplicate though - it should be enough in the image to describe, where are the servers located. Yes check.svg
  • Now for the first Runescape 2 image (4), this image is a description to, which skills are not available to the unpaid version of Runescape. What I'm asking, that is it necessary as an information source? It only tells about an example, what is different between P2P and F2P versions of the game. Since the image is fair use - it isn't a good idea so I'd remove it. Red x.svg
  • There's an image where a player is mining a rock (5), as a description of what a skill could be in Runescape. However, the very next image (6) shows an animated picture of a player slaying an NPC in combat. This is a skill also, and having two images about skills is more than enough for simple identification in the main Runescape article. I'd remove the mining rock image and keep the combat image. Red x.svg Yes check.svg
  • The last image (7) is a temporary image of moderator crowns. To be honest, it is part of in-game and you are instructed to read the rules before playing the game - and between the rules you will possibly approach the fact, what do the crowns mean. This isn't very useful for non-players, because the image is just a set of icons, how to identify a moderator in-game, and the article text should be enough to tell that there are moderators in game. I'd remove it, as the image isn't much of use in it's current state. Red x.svg

We still need some other images, to identify every possible gameplay fact of Runescape, while keeping the amount of fair use images limited. What do I feel, that we need at least the following media:

  • A screenshot of the whole gameplay screen, only the player names removed out from the image, to identify how is the game interface arranged.
  • A screenshot of a crowded place. This would be a fine example/proof of the popularity in Runescape. If possible, could be merged into one image with the phrase mentioned above.
  • A monster. As seen in the template, identification of copyrighted characters also. We already have the King Black Dragon image, and I'd keep that one, as it's the best image in quality/animation about an example monster in Runescape.
  • Quest interface. For example, events occurring in a quest, NPC talking, etc... We need to give a view, what could you do in Runescape.
  • A screenshot of talking/activity of both player and jagex moderators. This isn't just about the "crowns", but more like how do moderators act in-game.
  • A public domain/GPL/CC image which is not just about graphs. If it's possible in anyway, somehow relating to Runescape, to include a non-fair-use image to the article, to show that Runescape is not just about fair use. What I was thinking, real-life results somehow inspired by Runescape. For example, player's gallery in Runescape, is a great source for this, but not just "any" picture, but an encyclopedic one.
  • A piece of music in Runescape. I am throwing this in as a wildcard, because I am 100% unsure if it would be allowed to include in a sample music found from Runescape. The length should be about 30 seconds, and the music should be one of the very first musics found in the F2P version of the game.

Opinions about this are more than welcome. ~Iceshark7 18:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Everybody! And a question about Rs Working on Wii Internet Channel?

Hiya everybody. I've been kinda tied up for a while with work, and now sophomore year of high school so i havent been around much, but i'm not dead. I was sorta wondering if anyone knows if RuneScape (not Run Escape, that discussion was idiotic) works on the Opera based browser on the Wii. but other then that i'm pretty much brainwashed from too much Naruto / Naruto Abridged on Youtube. → p00rleno (lvl 87) ←ROCKSCRS 00:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Permanantly Distracted Until December 3!

One thing I'm sure is that your signature is way too long! OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Not really. It's only three lines of wikitext. A bit on the foofy side, but if it's under the 255 characters limit, (which I presume it is, unless you manually type it) it's policy wise ok. i said 02:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Perm Distraction is not part of sig lol, my sig is here! But, that's all. → p00rleno (lvl 87) ←ROCKSCRS 13:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Permanantly Distracted Until December 3!
To answer your question, as of a few months ago, it doesn't work. My wireless router isn't set up correctly now, and so I can't really try again. The forums and such work though. Comrade Tux 22:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the reason it doesn't work is because the internet that the wii runs on doesn't support Java. Tesfan 00:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Zezima is RuneScape?

Why does the article Zezima redirect to RuneScape?

I'm beginning to get suspicious...

-- 01:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's because that page was repeatably recreated but there isn't exactly anything we have to say about Zezima, (nn runescape player) so it redirects to the closesest page on the subject. (I think) - note that Zezima is in "Category: Protected redirects" OSbornarf 01:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I know Zezima is a RuneScape player, but why does the Zezima article even exist? There isn't a Kid Evil 1 article, is there? I know they're number one on the hiscores, but that doesn't make them deserve an article. Besides, if you don't play RuneScape, you most likely have no idea who Zezima is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It exists to be protected, so people don't create another one- yes, Zezima is quite nn (not notable.) OSbornarf 21:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The redirect exists because Zezima is the most notable RuneScape player, but still non-notable. If people type in "Zezima", they probably want information about him. Since there aren't any non-trivial independent sources which can give that to us, then an article on Zezima cannot be created. --Hojimachongtalk 05:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Zezima is a pakistani (or bengali) name. Although the "a" at the end makes it a feminine name (just like the e at the end of a french word...). So whoever is redirecting Zezima's name here, just remove the redirect codes and tell an administrator to lock the page please. --• Storkian • 12:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Private Servers

I think private servers should be mentioned in this article somewhere Diablo1123 05:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I say no: They are nn copyright violations. I believe a page on them was AfDed some time ago. Are there established sources on them? Are they notable? OSbornarf 05:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works, we don't link to copyright violations (which is what the private servers are, as RuneScape is copyrighted and Jagex have never released the source code). Sorry. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Private Server attempts happen in almost every popular MMORPG found in the Internet. There is no need to mention about it in the RuneScape article, as it's a regulary occuring thing between many games. ~Iceshark7 17:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats incorrect, private servers are 100% legal, the code in them is not Jagex's source code. Private servers started with whitefang(Corrected this) and he coded a basic script in java that worked with the Jagex client. Unauthorized use/manipulation/commercialization of the client is illegal. Thefifthlord 22:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Erm, "the code in them is not Jagex's source code"? It is, I'm afraid. They wrote it, so they own it and the copyright, and they have chosen not to release it to the public domain or under a free licence like the GNU General Public Licence. That makes downloading the source code, reverse engineering it and providing one's own version of RS a copyright violation. Private server operators own just the code of any modifications they have made. CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid your completely wrong there, First of all they never reverse engineered runescape's server, they reverse engineered the client and built a compatible server from scratch.(Found out what each packet did and built a case for each of them). Therefore private servers are completely legal, and as i said above Unauthorized use/manipulation/commercialization of the client is illegal. Private servers, by themselves are perfectly legal and deserve to be mentioned in the article, the reverse engineered clients are not.(So you may omit them if nessecary). WhiteFang happens to be a friend of mine, and i have been in private server development for nearly 4 years so i know what i am talking about(In case you were wondering). To put it into perspective, OPEN XDK - Microsoft's XDK == Runescape Private Server - Runescape's Server. And there are fully open source clients out there that do not use any jagex code,models or cache at all the only reason you don't see them is because they are not public. In conclusion 100% non-jagex server + 100% non-jagex client = legal server. They deserve to be listed, Period.

Private servers are not permitted and I could go into detail if required. They are also not directly associated with the game. They don't need to be mentioned. BlazeDS 20:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested edit protect to Zezima and Talk:Zezima


Please add:

{{R unprintworthy}}

to Zezima


{{r to documentation}}

to Talk:Zezima

This was the closest place to make the request as both pages have been fully protected. ~Iceshark7 16:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

When editing this article, please remember

WP:Cruft is an essay, not a policy. Pictures or sections of articles should not be removed by waving WP:cruft in people's faces. Tesfan 00:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If they're being removed because "OMG we must follow WP:CRUFT", then you're right. But if things are being removed because they are insignificant and give no information that any general reader would care about, then it doesn't matter if someone just uses the accepted shorthand for that argument, which is "WP:CRUFT". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarkov (talkcontribs)
The main reason some of the pictures are being removed is because the pictures are fair-use. Images about games should be only used for identification purposes and not as a gallery, and what are we trying at the moment is to give in a reasonable amount of images of all sorts about Runescape, hence some of the images have to be removed anyway. ~Iceshark7 07:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I've never really been happy about using the word 'cruft'. I think we need to be careful not to go overboard. The issue really is just keeping out gameguide material, player names (ugh), clan adverts and so forth. I'd rather see the relevant policies or guidelines being cited. CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

10 million players!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

That sounds fake. People can create up to 100 accounts per person. Absolutely ridiculous! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Runescapehater (talkcontribs) 23:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Just please tell me you aren't the same person who keeps adding the unsourced statement about this? ~Iceshark7 23:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm willing to bet he's a sock of User:Maplefan.. someone really needs to block them both. DEVS EX MACINA pray 00:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
With over ten million free accounts [...] RuneScape is rated among the most popular online games in the world. [...] More than five million unique players access their accounts to play RuneScape at least once a month. Where does it say RS has ten million players? Comrade Tux 06:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Nowhere, but people could read it and assume it was supposed to mean 10,000,000 individual people. I even assumed that when I first read it. ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 08:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
It says accounts, and then it states how many users there are. It is worded fine. - • The Giant Puffin • 16:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
With regards to Maplefan, he's causing a lot of trouble at MapleStory. He removed information that received consensus. Every time I revert his removal, he adds it back. See [1][2][3] Judging from Maplefan and Runescapehater's contributions, I believe that they're sockpuppets. Both only concentrate "their" editing on MapleStory and Runescape. Want me to go report? OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
You could possibly go and report, but what I see that User:Runescapehater is an invalid name anyway, breaking the first rule of section 5 in Wikipedia:Username. If User:Maplefan keeps creating socks, then a report of sockpuppetry might be necessary. ~Iceshark7 17:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's a good idea. Runescapehater is also an "offensive [username] [...] likely to make harmonious editing difficult or impossible" (WP:IU item 5). CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that name is not offensive in admin's mind. I have reported a user named Anti-MapleStory for bad username and an admin only asks his reason behind making this username. His name remains unchanged. I doubt if Runescapehater will be forced to change his name. OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Anti-MapleStory is not that serious than User:Runescapehater is, in my opinion. The word "Anti" isn't really an "Username that promotes a controversial or potentially inflammatory point of view.", because it is not so heavy is you just sightread the username. (However, if people get annoyed then a name such as that should be proposed to be switched.) User:Runescapehater certainly is a controversial and a potentially inflammatory point of view, because it gives a clear message that he hates the game. (And WP:POVs are not very supported here.) ~Iceshark7 04:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Uh oh, Maplefan is reverting against consensus again. [4] [5]. Just found out Runescapehater left a message on MapleStory. [6]. I think it's now safe to assume that they're sock. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Can we PLEASE get some action on this? I'm still a little hazy on procedure for getting an admin to block. DEVS EX MACINA pray 02:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm jumping in waist-deep water here, but I went ahead and reported him to WP:AIV. If this goes on, somebody should request page protection. --Hojimachongtalk 02:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I did report Maplefan before, at AIV, and got turned down. [7] OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous.. we got turned down AGAIN. Content dispute my arse! And now apparently it was "resolved after discussion". What resolve? The thing we have consensus for is that his editing must stop, it is vandalism, not a content dispute. It would be a content dispute if it actually contained CONTENT. DEVS EX MACINA pray 04:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If I'm understanding this correctly, you guys have A). warned the other party several times, B). Gone through the first two steps of WP:DR, and C). requested blocking multiple times. IMO, the best possible course of action would be an RFC or building a strong consensus here, which could be used as justification for further reverts. I think that this process is quite annoying, considering that the text in question is non-neutral and crufty, but petty arguing wouldn't do much good anymore. --Hojimachongtalk 05:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Alternatively, a long term abuse report could be attempted. --Hojimachongtalk 05:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Go to WP:ANI. LTA is more for the more obvious vandals (those who move random pages to Article name ON WHEELS!!!!, for example). This isn't much of a content dispute, it's just unsourced OR-POV and borderline trolling, because they don't like the subject of the article. Since they're ignoring requests to stop and discuss their edits, I doubt an RFC will do much. WP:RFCU if you want to do a sockpuppet check, but I'm not sure if they are. They have slightly different writing styles and Runescapehater doesn't sign posts, whilst Maplefan usually does. If anything, they're probably friends cooperating. This is unnacceptable, Maplefan's lucky not to have been blocked for that. CaptainVindaloo t c e 14:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, if we're on the MF issue, we need facts that really show how much of a problem he's been for the MS and RS articles. (Like how many times he's vandalized them each) I'd do it myself, but I'm a tad busy, and I have a lousy connection at home; I use my computer here to edit. If I were to do it, it'd have to wait until tomorrow at best. Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 15:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, Cap'n, don't forget that the signing thing could be a ploy by Maple to hide the fact of sockpuppetry, if he is really a puppet. Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 16:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
True. They do behave differently, Maplefan edits existing articles, but Runescapehater prefers soapboxing on his/her userpage. Still, you could be right. By the way, I think SineBot's getting confused by your sig because it detects unsigned posts by looking for a link to the User: or User talk: namespaces in the post. Either opt out or alter your sig to link to your userpage, and SineBot should leave you alone. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, Maplefan is getting me angry. He undo my revert on his edits. [8] OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you want to report to ANI, or shall I? You know more about it than me, mind. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have opened a ticket at WP:ANI about this. Comments are more than welcome.
~Iceshark7 18:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Finally a moment of peace after Maplefan and Runescapehater are blocked indef. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. I see I was wrong about Maplefan and Runescapehater being separate. He/she really was a crafty one. Ah well, you live and learn. CaptainVindaloo t c e 14:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

i think Maplefan could be right. People can creat multiple accounts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavegave30 (talkcontribs) 21:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Heads up people, I think we got another sockpuppet running around. See Talk:MapleStory#OhanaUnited?, [9], and [10]. According to Wannabe Kate Edit Count[11], that account was created and edited on September 28, 2007, which is about a day after being blocked. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Gavegave30 is almost certainly another sock. Brand new users just don't jump into debates like this, never mind to endorse the position of a POV pusher, as their second edit just four minutes after creating the account. The account was created just after Maplefan's ACB autoblocker would have run out. CaptainVindaloo t c e 21:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I've requested an RFCU on this. CaptainVindaloo t c e 22:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse Me! I am not a sockpuppet! I am a person who plays both MMORPG's and when I looked at the dicussion pages, I looked at what happened!Gavegave30 00:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're not Maplefan, then you have nothing to worry about. The concern here is that brand new users don't generally jump into long-winded debates within 4 minutes of joining. 4 minutes is also a remarkably short time to read up about everything. Endorsing the view of a POV pusher doesn't help, either. In reply to your post: firstly, the figure is 10 million active accounts, not players. It is indeed true that there is no limit to the number of RuneScape accounts one may create, but we know that it is very easy to technically find out if one person is using multiple accounts. It isn't hard to make an accurate mathematical estimate, either. This is where the 5 million players figure comes from. CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser confirms Gavegave30 and unused account Velvet80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) as sockpuppets of Maplefan. CaptainVindaloo t c e 14:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

How come they only blocked Maplefan and Runescapehater, not Gavegave30 and Velvet80? OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Maplefan and Runescapehater were blocked after the first checkuser on the 27th. Gavegave and Velvet were created after this. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The recently released Jagex Industrial Placement 2008 - 2009 information pack states, "We want you to help us provide a professional level of customer service to our 6 million players within our Player Support team". --RS Ren 20:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the information pack? I had to revert the change you made into the article, because there was no link to the source. Besides, the current refernce stating the amount of players is pretty stable, and I think it's the best source someone could look the estimated about of players. There is no need to look up a prediction for possibly more players.
Industrial Placement sounds like a job oppoturnity - the "6 million players" you are talking about sounds like just a quick attempt to gain interest from people interested to fill up the job. Positions aren't usually very serious as they seem to be... ~Iceshark7 21:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clan Directory

I think we should list some of the major clans in RuneScape based on clans on the RAW list (A ranking of clans that is found on Clan Discussion on Zybez's forums). I can't do it seeing as I can't edit the actual article. *Cry*

The 'clan community' is pretty large and significant enough to be included under the Community section or maybe under Gameplay -> Interaction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MooMix1 (talkcontribs) 21:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. This would be blatant advertising. Besides, do you see a clan listing anywhere in World of Warcraft- or Guild Wars-related articles? Fan sites such as "Zybez" do list clans, but the Wikipedia article about RuneScape is not something that should be targeted at the RuneScape community, it's supposed to give basic information about it. Litis 08:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, clans are not an official part of the game - at least yet. The only clan feature that's been implemented this far is the clan chat, and people just use it as chat-rooms. Litis 08:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Just so you know, you should be able to edit the main article in about 7 hours. It's semi-protected due to heavy vandalism in the past, so unregistered or newly registered users can't edit the page. You will no longer be considered newly registered after 4 days, after which you can help us improve the article to featured status! *cough* join the RuneScape Task Force *cough* ... Why's everyone looking at me like that?
However, I do agree that a clan list would be unnecessary. See Wikipedia:Fancruft for a general explanation of why we don't include stuff like that. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 13:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture Icon

Hiya. I'm new on Wikipedia, and I saw this article and was wondering, shouldn't there be a section on how much of a popular cultural icon Runescape has become?Alexander Le Fey 01:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware that RuneScape became a cultural icon, except that it is universally considered the worst online game ever. Did I miss something? Litis 09:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
If you can find several major reliable sources indicating its influence as a popular culture icon, then we can put it in the article. Otherwise, it can't be there without reliable sources indicating that it merits inclusion. However, I don't think "universally considered the worst online game ever" could be put in the article either, as I'm pretty sure millions of players would disagree with you on that. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 13:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I wasn't saying it was the worst online game ever, I play it from time to time myself. It's just a lot of people say that. Litis 14:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
How is it the worst online game ever? I think it's an awesome game. If people would stop calling me a noob (I'm a level 66, by the way), then it would be more fun. BTC 13:00 (Eastern Time Zone) 2 October 2007
I've been playing since 2001 and am still a level 76 (I take long breaks from it, lol, and usually only play when a new quest or area comes out, and I have to train to access it), and I get called a noob all the time. Ah well. But this isn't a RuneScape discussion board. And it's not "universally considered the worst game ever" - why would at least 5 million people play it then? DEVS EX MACINA pray 23:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, all that matters is that people who call experienced players noobs are actually noobs at life and they don't know how to live it. BTC 01:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

RuneScape is called "the worst online game ever" by millions. I hate it too. And a cultural icon? Darano 17:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC) MapleStory has more than 73 million users around the globe. I'm a level 53 cleric. Go Maple. Go to I think.Darano 17:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC) Wait. Actually tybe nexon intro in google or yahoo or a searc engine. Not the URL box.Darano 17:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Get me a source that confirms that. And, by any chance, are you Maple? --Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 19:20, 15 October 2007

link titleOKAY! O yeah. I am not Maple. Who's Maple?

You're going on about how bad you think RS is and that the article must reflect your opinion immediately, you're posting about player numbers on MapleStory, and you forgot to log in for these two edits, so your IP shows up the same as when you forgot to log in to Gavegave30 to make these edits. You're obviously Maplefan. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you check the site? Isn't it 72 million players? UPDATE it or I will.BYE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darano (talkcontribs) 00:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 01:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Anyone got a banhammer around? We could do with one right now. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Yep, methinks tis time to run a checkuser. Again. Sheesh, he's like a phenoix. --Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 12:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Now he's moved into actual vandalism [12][13][14]. I've already posted twice on ANI and once on AIV. Too complex for AIV, and nobody seemed to notice the ANI threads. Probably something to do with the shutdown of WP:CSN, traffic surge or something. I'll try AN, seems to be relatively quiet. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
If you have the time, could you make a report at WP:SSP? We have all the evidence to identify User:Maplefan, and based on the previous RFCU and ANI reports related to Maplefan plus the vandalism he has done, I'm sure he will get blocked/banned after the report. ~Iceshark7 17:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, report posted. Please append it if I've missed something or made a mistake. I'm not sure if SSP is necessary at the moment, the sockpuppetry is fairly obvious here. I was actually thinking WP:LTA if he/she keeps this up. CaptainVindaloo t c e 17:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Funny how Maplefan wants to warn me [15] through his IP address (though not using the proper way). Can an admin please block that IP? OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


Well, it appears all of our subpages are gone. We don't have much of an RS series anymore, does this mean the RS task force is going to go? Some of the content from the old articles can be merged into here I guess, but it will have to be kept to a minimum, explaining only the basics instead of dedicating paragraphs to every skill, god, and location — merging everything would triple the page size. An idea that I had would be to remove the present economy paragraph and integrate it into an expanded skills section that briefly describes each type of skill. Thoughts? Comrade Tux 06:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe they were deleted and I didn't even notice. Goddamn it. And it's probably not going to survive a DRV either, though I suggest that avenue is tried... Gielinor was an article that did not deserve to be deleted and I propose that we recreate that article as a notable gameworld per Azeroth and all those others. But yeah.. this article needs to be expanded now, since all of those articles are gone (thankfully, the history of them still exists). DEVS EX MACINA pray 06:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
That deletion argument was total wikilawyering rubbish. If it wasn't, then RuneScape is non-notable, subpages are high treason, and I'm a banana. The nominator all but admitted it was seriously flawed and that he would have done the same thing as us if he had a long article to deal with. Delete voting with the same invalid argument, probably brought there by a link in a WT:VG thread suggesting banning subpages (?!), created the illusion of a delete consensus. There was absolutely no basis at all for the deletion of Gods or Gielinor, not while articles on characters and settings are encyclopedic. Skills and combat are debatable, but deletion is still a poor solution to any problem with them. Making a serious merge suggestion would be much better - we've already proven we welcome constructive criticism and suggestions; that's what started off The Great 2006 Cruft Purge. The assertion that seperate pages = completely separate unrelated topics is wrong in so many ways. When I questioned this (backed up with a strong precedent and pointing out the separate existence of WP:FA and WP:FT), the response was exactly the same unevidenced statement, just repeated more forcefully. The truth is that WP:SIZE-split subpages should be treated as a section of the main article. WP:N doesn't say anything justifying deleting subpages, and that is not what it is for anyway; it's for keeping out topics (it actually uses the word topics, not articles) about someone's newly formed band, pet, best friend and whatever else. The deletionists also kept citing WP:FICT and WP:CVG/GL, despite both of these pages either not supporting or even outright opposing their argument; FICT actively encourages splitting long articles, and CVG/GL only talks about excluding gameguide stuff like key combos, walkthroughs, strategies and such. An encyclopedic overview of a topic includes a description of the plot, setting and characters, and if those aspects make the main article too long, the sensible thing to do is to give them a subpage, not delete it all under WP:N. I find the nominator's statement "[using common sense] is the last refuge of the argument-less" rather worrying. Why does every other topic get the subpages it needs to give a proper, encyclopedic overview and not us? How, exactly, are we supposed to merge that content into this article without GA delisting because of excessive size? We should start building a DRV nomination, that deletion argument and result can't hold, they're clearly inappropriate. CaptainVindaloo t c e 14:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Toned down the above post, I suppose I went a bit overboard. Sorry for any offence. CaptainVindaloo t c e 21:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello again CaptainVindaloo. I just have to comment, as you have misquoted or misrepresented me at least three times in your above post. Firstly, "[using common sense] is the last refuge of the argument-less" is not what I said, as that would be an obviously absurd statement for anyone to make. What I said was that attempting to WP:IGNORE the arguments against you at that point in the discussion seemed a desperate last resort (neither was it intended to be an all-out attack on WP:IGNORE as a policy, though I admit it may have come across that way!). Secondly, I didn't say that seperate pages were seperate and "unrelated", I said that they were seperate and "related", which is quite a different thing altogether (the opposite, for a start). In fact, search for the word "unrelated" on the AfD page and you'll find that you're the only one who ever used it. Thirdly, I certainly don't recall saying that I "all but admitted the nomination was seriously flawed and that I would have done the same thing as you if I had a long article to deal with". I'm quite perplexed about this statement to be honest. I didn't say that, because the nomination simply wasn't flawed, no matter how much you would like it to have been, and I told you what I would have done in your situation (no, it wasn't what you did), and even made further suggestions later on. So yes, trying to bring my character or honesty or sanity or whatever into question to support your argument is both below the belt and not really workable if I can see you doing it. Doing so (or making personal attacks as another "keep" person did), when an editor brings and argues an AfD on perfectly legitimate grounds (or indeed any grounds) is bad form and those doing it should know better. It's also a bit hypocritical to accuse me of wikilawyering and countering arguments by "repeating myself more forcefully", as illustrated by your creative policy interpretations and continued insistence, despite evidence to the contrary, that sub-articles don't need to assert their own notability.
Look, I have nothing against Runescape, and it's really not my fault if something doesn't qualify for an article. In fact, if you find sufficient sources to prove notability for any of the sub-articles, I'd be only too happy to see them re-created in an appropriate fashion. In the meantime I would still advise you to follow Maple Story's example and stick the sub-articles in another wiki with links in the main article here.
Anyway, back to the your above post: Though we've been through them before, it appears that I have to point out again that WP:FICT and WP:CVG/GL do not contradict the argument; CVG/GL's "Scope of information" section says that articles should not contain "a detailed description of how to play it or an excessive amount of non-encyclopedic trivia". Instances of both were pointed out in the AfD (not by me), though the second was more prevalent than the first. But the "gameguide" argument is secondary and indeed insignificant compared to the main argument - notability. While WP:FICT may encourage splitting long articles, it makes it absolutely clear that these sub-articles need to prove their own notability, as I pointed out to you twice, to no response. I also pointed out the WP:WEIGHT issue to you twice, to no response. I'd also remind you that mere "votes" do not matter on an AfD; it's arguments, as the closing admin mentioned, that matter. Even so, I make it 15 "keeps" to 15 "deletes", so I don't think implications of vote-counting really apply if that's what you mean. Yes, the thread was mentioned in the middle of a discussion on WT:CVG, but so what? You probably found out about it from that thread yourself, as we had already spoken there, and you weren't exactly in favour of deleting - and of course the AfD was linked to from the most prominent position of all four of the articles in question, an unlikely source of deleters, I think you'll agree. It's also linked to from various other deletion-related pages. As for DRV, I really don't think there's much of a chance of the result being overturned as the primary reason for deletion is a very simple and strong one - lack of notability - which applies to all articles, sub-articles included. But of course it's up to you, if you want to go to DRV don't let me discourage you. Regards, Miremare 21:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

May I please ask what MapleStory has to do with RuneScape? It seems that all the MapleStory people (yes, I know this is an exaggeration) have suddenly decided that the RuneScape article or series of articles has to look like/be like the MapleStory articles. I read the MapleStory article recently, and, although I know very little about the game other than it appears to be a way to make a lot of money for someone with its equipment for sale for real money with little concern for the character's ability levels, there were a lot of grammatical and style errors apparent. I think we need to do whatever we can to get the sub-pages back, as we do not want to jeopardize the good article status of the main article by increasing its size dramatically. Someone please let me know what I can do to help in this endeavor. Xela Yrag 19:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why said pages were deleted, myself, after the last attempt failed. Somebody should see about finding an admin or something to undelete them. --Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 19:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mario Sonicboom (talkcontribs)
As a GAC backlog elimination drive co-ordinator, I personally think it's time for me to step in (I was watching this discussion for some time already). What does MapleStory's "equipment for sale for real money" got to do with Wikipedia articles? The argument is not about grammar or style errors. Nor do you want to use GA criteria to throw punches around. According to GA standards, the skills and etc. section goes to sub-pages in accordance to "broad in scope" but not written "in-universe" style. Monsters, gods, and skills in RuneScape are surely in-universe. Xela Yrag, nearly all your contributions are focused on Runescape. I don't think you made reasonable judgements with regards to MoS or GA. Now I'm no expert in DRV, but I believe that subpages are treated as main articles individually. Honestly, I don't see the reason about how normal Wikipedia users benefit from reading the 3 combat types of players or Runescape armours. If this does go to DRV, I will vote neutral leaning towards oppose. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, my edits are centered around the RuneScape articles, simply because I don't have a lot of free time to devote to editing articles, with work, my children, and playing RuneScape. And, yes, I am passionate about the RuneScape articles. My point above was that it seems that everyone is pushing the editors of the RuneScape articles to mimic the MapleStory article, which in my opinion, is not a fantastic article in the first place; therefore, why would we want to mimic its format/style/whatever. If I went overboard in this, I apologize. Like I said, I do not play MapleStory and know very little about it, even after reading its article, which is one of the reasons I feel that the article is not a fantastic article. It gave me little useful information (and I do not mean fancruft type information - I didn't expect it to teach me how to play the game). A few months ago, the RuneScape sub-pages were pared down drastically to the bare bones and what was left survived a whole series of afd attempts. What I don't understand is why what was left was suddenly deleted with very few of the core editors of the series being aware of the attack (and yes, I seriously consider it an attack). I was on the pages last week and saw no deletions notices. I come back a few days later to find them gone. This, understandably I think, upsets me. Xela Yrag 18:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
For last month, I remember that we removed some images in this article and those subpages because we want to lower the use of fair-use photos. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
As a heads up, GA is undergoing a sweep process. Might as well resolve this problem before the sweeps crew reaches video game section and reviewing the quality of this article. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoever deleted the RuneScape articles are smart enough to know that Wikipedia is NOT a guide to ANY MMORPG.Gavegave30 16:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a good thing these articles aren't game guides then, isn't it? CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Miremare, I gave you a source, that journal article I stumbled across, and you dismissed it as unreliable. That's not exactly fair. Do you know how hard it is to get an unreliable report into an academic journal? I mentioned Private Eye's recent report on a journal article found to be flawed. The Eye's remit is media screwups like that, but that's the first time I've ever seen them report on dodgy journal articles. Even then, the bad article was political (the ever-controversial genetically modified food), and RuneScape is about as political as my chickens. Any game review worth reading describes gameplay and the game world and usually plots and characters. Regarding your points; WP:IGNORE is synonymous with "use common sense", and I'd been advocating use of common sense since the very start. You did keep asserting that because we'd put that content in subpages, we'd decided to make it a free-standing separate topic, when in fact we didn't. We separated it because we'd failed GA noms on article length and people kept complaining. Not exactly declaring it a separate, free-standing topic, is it? The MapleStory solution, while apparently sensible (which is why I am ignoring the MOSLINK violation) has no relevance here whatsoever. When I challenged you on what you'd do in the same situation, you acknowledged that the pages were created in good faith - I take this to mean that you would have done the same thing. I have no intention to make personal attack, and I'm sorry if it seemed I did. I only asked that the delete side in general defend their argument. But I don't see how someone can read WP:N, a guideline intended to exclude newly-formed schoolboy bands with no songs, small games mods and fanfiction from Wikipedia, and conclude "all subpages must be deleted". You'd think everyone would have noticed and done something about it if subpages were forbidden, wouldn't you? Even more confusing is the existence of a number of exactly equivalent subpages (characters, worlds) which have never been nominated for deletion on notability (except the 26 WoW subpages, recently nominated by an SPA copy-and-pasting your nomination, probably trying to prove a point). You'd think they were encyclopedic, wouldn't you? CVG/GL really doesn't support the delete argument; people kept saying 'gameguide', but never, not once, did anyone substantiate this, even when I asked them to (all I got was something about how professional gameguides don't talk about a game's development that I couldn't really understand). There's a difference between stating what something does, and where to get that something, or how and where to use it and improve it. I did respond to the FICT/own notability point - I pointed out the aformentioned journal article and games reviews. I didn't respond to the WEIGHT point because I didn't understand why you were referring to a passage of WP:NPOV dealing with minority opinions and minor points. Giving an article to the prevalence of cat jokes in RuneScape would be undue weight. CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Your points in order:
1. Well, you didn't exactly give me a source, you said you had a source but gave no details other than it was a journal article. I didn't dismiss it, it simply said let's wait to see it before we decide what it can and can't be used for. And yes, any game review would describe all these aspects of a game, though rarely would a review provide "significant coverage" to any of these individual aspects, in that they're just describing them for the purposes of review, rather than examining or discussing them in any depth.
2. WP:IGNORE isn't necessarily synonymous with common sense - it depends how it's being used. I thought you were using it to simply ignore all the arguments against you at that point, which would be questionable as "common sense" to say the least, though if you weren't I apologise. And, of course, common sense is entirely subjective here, maybe the deleters thought that they were the ones using common sense?
3. Topics: The use of the word "topic" is not consistent - for example there are the Featured Topics you mentioned before, and then for example there's WP:FICT refering to "topics within a fictional work" - clearly using the word simply to mean the subject of the article in question, despite it being a sub-article of a broader "topic" itself. While a little more consistency wouldn't go amiss for clarity's sake, it's not that much of problem. This is because is doesn't matter if an article is broken off from another, or is otherwise a sub-article, or is a seperate or free-standing topic or not, due to the notability requirements for fiction requiring sources and real world context be provided for all articles whether they're sub or not. I'm not claiming that sub-articles aren't allowed at all, they just have to provide those sources and context. It's simply easiest to think of every article as a stand-alone subject or topic in it's own right as then there's no confusion about what's required, which is understandable when words like sub-page are used. Yes, other sub-pages exist that shouldn't (indeed, most of those World of Warcraft ones, though some, such as Corrupted Blood are fine examples of sub-pages proving notability with real-world, not just in-universe content), but it's less a case of them being allowed, and more a case of them just having not been AfD'd yet. Well, not AfD'd properly yet anyway...
4. Maple Story: that's fine, I'm not lobbying for this method to be adopted or anything, I was merely suggesting a possible solution to the problem.
5. That I acknowledged the pages were created in good faith doesn't mean I would have done the same, it just means I can understand how editors unfamiliar with notability requirements may have taken this approach in good faith, especially if suggested by one or more reviewers. And as for personal attacks, I wasn't referring to you, as you conducted yourself admirably, but to another editor whose name escapes me.
6. A large part of the gameguide argument is the excessive (and comprehensive) in-universe detail inherent in these articles as much as a "do x to achieve y" kind of guide. Gods was mostly the former, whereas combat was both. But of course, the more detail you go into, the more unavoidable telling the reader how to do stuff becomes.
7. WP:WEIGHT - this paragraph specifically:
"Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."
To explain my point - giving such a comprehensive coverage to gods gives the impression of them being far more important to Runescape than in fact they are - just as important as combat, possibly even as important as the game itself. This is clearly a case of undue weight being given to the subject of a sub-article, where just the most notable aspects of the gods as a subject should be covered. Are the gods even important enough to Runescape to deserve to have been split in the first place? Would that honour have better gone to some other sub-section? This again comes back to notability - when splitting an article, don't just consider the size of each prospective section to be split, consider its importance to the topic as a whole too. Basically, giving part of a topic its own article means that space is no longer at a premium and it frees up editors to fill that article to the brim with information, when this isn't necessarily the right thing to do.
Finally, it appears to me that any "misrepresentation" was down to misunderstanding on both sides rather than intent, so I apologise for any offence caused by that remark. Cheers, Miremare 21:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Probably easier to use a numbered list.
1. Crowe, N., Bradford, S. ‘Hanging out in Runescape’: Identity, Work and Leisure in the Virtual Playground, Children’s Geographies, Vol. 4, No. 3, pgs. 331–346, Routledge, December 2006.
Unfortunately, as much as I'd like do, I can't upload or copy-paste the .pdf I found in an online library without getting the DRM thought police after me.
2. I just meant; you have a long article. It can't be reduced any more than it has been or removed without harming comprehensibility. What do you do?
3. I've interpreted 'topic' as everything about a particular entity, and 'article' as just... a container of information. A less complex topic could be neatly contained in a single article, but a larger one may need to be spread over a group of articles. This is in the interest of giving the topic a sufficient, encyclopedic coverage. It makes more sense to organise multi-article topics into subpages according to it's different 'aspects' (treating aspects the same as a page section, if the topic was contained in one article), as opposed to organising it randomly or as a "page 1, page 2" system which could cut off in mid-sentence and wouldn't make it any easier to read. It also makes sense to keep down subpages to a reasonable number, which is why we jettisonned the 30+ articles for individual skills, settlements and whatever else and settled on 4.
5. There's a case for giving a topic the sufficient, encyclopedic coverage that I mentioned a second ago. If parts about the setting, plot or so forth were omitted, it wouldn't make much sense. For example, in SWAT 3, if you weren't told that it was about terrorism and nuclear abolition treaties in 2005 Los Angeles, you'd either wonder what the hell the game was about, or just think it's boring shooting people in balaclavas. CVG/GL advises giving an "overview of what a game is about", listing things like the plot, (including characters and setting, I presume), and gameplay. The problem with RS is that there's an awful lot of it; it's been nine years since DevMUD, that's a lot of storyboard and design time. Admittedly, there's always been a case for reducing skills/combat, but it's an old idea that doesn't require outright deletion to implement. Gods would be a traditional characters article, if only there were more mortal characters (I mentioned before that RS's backstories go back thousands of years; mortals don't tend to live that long).
6. RS quests are quite complicated affairs (it's almost a puzzle game) - you'd know if there was a full quest guide hidden in here. Just hit a fansite guide for, say, Dragon Slayer and you'll see what I mean. Explaining events aids comprehension, even if those events take place in a quest, just as long as it doesn't give blatant instructions. Also, some of the events described could have taken place years before the game time, and there's no time travelling quests that I'm aware of.
7. Yes, I noticed that passage. Wouldn't you have to go to quite extraordinary lengths to give undue weight to things like the gameplay or plot? They seem quite important to me.
And yes, I have calmed down a bit by taking a couple of days off. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
You could quote the relevent parts of the Crowe/Bradford source and give us some idea as to the amount of coverage each subject receives. As for the article being long, be a bit less comprehensive where you can, I guess. Bear in mind that this article is intended as an overview for those who have never played the game, and say only what they would need to know. I see what you're saying about the complexity of the subject, but many single articles cover complex subjects - it's just a question of covering what's important and leaving out the rest - not everything about a notable topic is important to the topic, or needs to be mentioned at all to understand the topic. Be ruthless!
Right, so after quickly going through the article I reduced it somewhat (don't worry, I reverted it back again!): [16]. What I attemped to do was to remove any repeated, obvious, or unnecessary bits without removing (I hope) any necessary info, and reduced the article size by almost a fifth. As an expert on the subject I'm sure you could make further reductions to free up a bit more space. And remember that unused fields in references can be removed completely (and maybe there are some refs that needn't be completed so thoroughly), and spaces are also not necessary in ref fields, for example " | work = RuneScape Knowledge Base | publisher = Jagex | " should become "|work=RuneScape Knowledge Base|publisher=Jagex|". Small savings I know, but it all adds up.
Finally, DeviousMUD's viewpoint (judging from the provided screenshots) isn't isometric projection. I think it's oblique projection, though I'm not sure... Miremare 23:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "We acknowledge the work of Dodge (1998), Wright et al. (2002) and Yee (2002) but suggest that there has been little attention given to what young people actually do while gaming online and how they understand this. Our research focuses on a relatively small Java-based game-world called Runescape that, unlike other games, is the product of a UK ‘bedroom developer’ and has been user-responsive in its development." (section: Introduction)
  • "Unlike some virtual gaming space, the geography of Runescape does not simply recreate the geography of the material world. Like all games, both on and offline we suspect, Runescape extends material existence, providing an arena for ‘. . . children to transcend their immediate environments’ (Jenkins 1998, p. 2). Inevitably, Runescape both references material structures and processes and is mediated through them. It takes the form of a Tolkeinesque quasi-medieval environment incorporating towns, buildings, dungeons, forests, landscapes and seascapes within which gamers live their virtual lives. The narrative borrows heavily from the Western European Fantasy tradition referencing the ‘dungeons and dragons’ role playing games of the 1970s." (section: Runescape: Virtual Space and Place)
  • "Character development is not based on spatial progression but on gaining experience through in-game tasks or challenges: fighting, fishing, mining or cooking, for example. As characters undertake more of an activity their experience and competence increases (e.g. only the best cooks are able to cook shark, or the most experienced miners prospect for and mine gold). Some citizens become specialists—armour-smiths or magicians, for example—whilst others develop more rounded characters. The game environment incorporates quests and adventures, but unlike other games these are not central to the Runescape dynamic. Many gamers simply become skilled craftspeople earning a living from their virtual labours and many simply want to hang out." (section: Imagining Virtual Space: ‘Hanging Out’)
  • "As [Player X] indicates, Runescape incorporates the locality of place as well as an imagined space in a more abstract sense.

For me, going online or to a (clan) meet is like going out on Friday night. I want the noobs (new gamers) to know I am there. I put on my best armour so they know [Player X] is on the board . . . most of the time I hang at Lummy (a gaming location) sometimes noobs want to challenge me but usually it’s just a good place to meet my sisters, to be seen, you know. ([Player X, online])

  • This is not game-playing in any traditional sense and the virtual world constructed and occupied by [Player X] offers a complex perspective on how young people interact with (and create) a virtual dynamic in which display, expression and competitiveness can be important. For some players the busy trade and commerce locations on Runescape are ideal places to hang out, mirroring the spaces in town centres and malls in the material world where young people go to see and be seen." (section: Imagining Virtual Space: ‘Hanging Out’)
  • "[Player Y] and [Player X]’s desires for ‘special spaces’, referred to earlier, is a recurring theme with online gamers in virtual worlds. Virtual worlds might serve similar functions to tourist locations, allowing participants to escape from their everyday-life into other places (Book, 2003). Tourism is constituted in a range of often complex practices and purposes (tourism as recreation, escape, adventure, pleasure, exploration, individually or collectively organised, and so on). Runescape has many such tourist places. Some gamers use the world as a meeting place, divorcing the virtual self from the surrounding activity of quests and adventures." (section: Virtual Work and Play: Leisure and Labouring Spaces)
  • "Some gamers use Runescape locations to add depth and authenticity to their virtual experience, almost as some material tourists regard the capacity of experiences gained in some travel destinations as enriching the self (Bennett, 2005, p. 154);

One of my favourite places on Rune is the Braxton Waterfall. You can just sit back by the river and relax . . . I could watch the water for hours it’s so pretty . . . not that many people come here so it’s a great place just to be, you know. ([Player Z, offline])

  • How this operates becomes clearer when we consider [Player Z]’s approach to her role in Runescape which locates her use of virtual leisure in the broader context of her Runescape life. As in the material world, leisure only makes sense in terms of its other: work. [Player Z] explained how she spends the first part of her gaming session on Runescape working: mining and smithing. Through this activity she generates income with which she buys necessary commodities: food, clothes, armour and so on." (section: Virtual Work and Play: Leisure and Labouring Spaces)
Excerpts from Crowe, N., Bradford, S. ‘Hanging out in Runescape’: Identity, Work and Leisure in the Virtual Playground, Children’s Geographies, Vol. 4, No. 3, pgs. 331–346, Routledge, December 2006.
That's just some of it. I've wikified the formatting where necessary, and omitted player names. Regarding your other points; some of the cuts are fair enough, just don't be too quick to remove technical information, that's one of the areas we've always been lacking in, as Jagex haven't said much about it. Leaving the spaces in the reference template code makes it a bit easier to read the code when editing I think, and redundancies and inefficient wording were another issue at GA. And yes, I see what you mean about DevMUD's graphical projection. It looks like both to me. CaptainVindaloo t c e 15:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Not enough negative, too much positive.

Okay. I read this article and found out that Runescape has many qualities that are unfavorable for players. I read many other game articles and found that almost every on of them had a criticism section. This game already recieves a large amount of criticism. Shouldn't there be a criticism part too? If you don't think so, please respond. If there are no replies, I will add a criticism part. With MANY sources. Otherwise, please respond.Tally ho!Darano 01:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This has previously been discussed many times. You may wish to read through some of these archived discussions on the matter: Criticism of RuneScape, Criticism section rewritten, Criticism Section Reverted, Criticism, Criticism. Basically, it got absorbed into the reception section and the rules and cheating section.
Oh, by the way, could you give some links to those negative sources? Whether you put them in the article or not, any new reliable sources are much appreciated. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 03:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
AAAAHHHH! Something happened to my browser. Huh. Well I can't get to google, but I can get to this website because of my favorites list. There are somethings that should be added to a "criticism" section. Such as:The lack of free content for non-members,thet graphics and some other stuff. Much of this is included in other MMORPG articles. RuneScape is NOT an exception. Tally Ho!Darano 01:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there really anything wrong with providing more content for P2P? There has to be some incentive to pay for it, no? It may help to think of F2P as like a demo version. As for graphics, do remember this is a browser game downloaded over the net. World of Warcraft (for example) standard graphics would mean that the client would take quite a long time to download - WoW does come on six CDs or a DVD. High-detail image files are among the largest files you can get. Sections on critical reception aren't standardised, instead varying depending upon the discretion of the local editors. We use "reception", which includes the reliable reviews we've found so far, with positive and negative opinions. Other topics I've seen use "critical reception", "reviews", "critical reviews" and a few others. "Criticism" isn't generally applied to topics on fictional media, however. Could you, perhaps, list the reviews you've found, with links? As for your browser; what happened? Error messages? Browser version? CaptainVindaloo t c e 14:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[17] I read this other MMORPG article called AdventureQuest and one part of its critical review section is about the lack of free content. Please add a critical review section. Tally Ho! 00:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC) And also, add things that you know that you don't like about this game, since most of the things you would say is most likely to be related to other players who know this game's cons. Tally Ho! 00:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

siiiiiiigh - once again - This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA article - it is not a compilation of what I think is good or bad about the game (or what you or any one particular person likes or dislikes) - it has to be verifiable through citations from reliable sources (not your grandmother or your best friend said so, a real source). The thing I hate the most about the game might be the thing that the next guy or gal adores. This is not a game guide or anyone's opinion. Keep it encyclopedic - keep it sourced - keep opinions (good AND bad) out of it please. Xela Yrag 16:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
*sigh* Maplefan, you could at least remember to log in. CaptainVindaloo t c e 01:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
BTW, AQ is NOT a MMORPG. It's a MSORPG. Just wanted to clear that up.
--Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 19:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)  

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mario Sonicboom (talkcontribs)


What happened to the god guide? I spent too long editing that page removing all the fancruft and only keeping the truthful data, its not my fault ALL INFO ON THE GODS are only spoken of IN GAME, as I said, is where the info was gotten, go there and look for yourself, its impossible to get more direct links, I even offered for anyone to ask me where the info was from and I would tell them the quest and the NPC that gives it, this is just so idiotic that I think I may quit wikipedia felinoel 05:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I myself have also given quite a bit of time editting and improving the God Guide some weeks/months ago. Sad to see a compilation of work disappear just like THAT. 16:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


Small question, why was this article put under protection? Javascap 20:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Javascap

Because of mass vandalism from IP's is my understanding. You may want to see the Protection logs for this page . SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 20:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ow O_o That is quite a chunk of vandelism 22:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the famous website that came out ages ago should be put on. It's called and is very good although it was previously closed and thousands of pages of content lost but the guy is starting it again now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terr ible 002 (talkcontribs) 15:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If it has a higher Alexa rank than the current set of fansites, fine. But please don't just add it without making sure everyone else is okay about it. Sorry about misinterpreting this post as spamming, by the way. I didn't look close enough. >_< CaptainVindaloo t c e 17:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Exchange of hats?

Since October 2007, according to the credits on the website, it appears that the C.E.O. of Jagex is no-longer Constant Tedder, but instead "Geoff I". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Jagex's CEO has been, since August, Geoff Iddison, the former CEO of PayPal(Europe) Ltd at eBay. --RS Ren 15:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting information, but not relevant to this article, since the CEO of Jagex is never mentioned - only the founders. Xela Yrag 16:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Constant T was basically a founder, however. I believe the first 3 members of Jagex were Andrew, Paul, and Constant. MooMix1 02:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


there is one skill that is not actualy a skill you just need to know the price of items. "scavengers" or "colectors" are players who can be in low lvl. they pick up stuf high lvl players don't want. the only known scavengers as i know is "sno222" and "sno777". "sno222" hasent been in game for a while, but "sno777" normaly hangs around falador or varock. Sno777 11:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The RuneScape article should only include facts, which are both notable and verifiable along with the Wikipedia policies. There are tons of non-skills people use to play the game - the article is already too big and is unable to include even some obvious things worth of noting. ~Iceshark7 16:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

On the community section

On the community section I think that it should say that around 24% of runescape users come from the USA, around 9.6% come from Lithuania, around 6.3% come from the UK etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arain321 (talkcontribs) 11:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Abusive user

An abusive user, Darano has been reported to Admin noticeboard. Please comment if you wish to add information to that section. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Problem solved, at least until the block on his IP runs out next week. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
If you want my opinion, he got off too lightly. Ah well, at least we have a week to prepare until the next inevidable wave of puppets. --Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 19:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

6 million players

In jagex's latest press release it says that runescape has over 6mil regular players. Please update this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arain321 (talkcontribs) 21:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Runescape 3?

An user, Pyroraptor70 added the information about Runescape 3 in beta.[18] I have doubts about this site and reverted it. I would like for opinions with regards to this site as it seems to be that this website is a phishing site. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be so, is owned by "Chris Spencer", doesn't sound like how a company like this would operate. (Also does not appear to use Jagex's own login Java applet, AFAIK they use this since it's hard to duplicate and therefor scam sites like this are easy for consumers to spot.) OSbornarfcontributionatoration 05:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC) says the Admin contact's email is "". See: OSbornarfcontributionatoration 05:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
This isn't even worth debating on. It's clearly a scam site - if Jagex were working on another version of RuneScape, they'd at least hint at it on the web site. Litis 08:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Any site that is not at or that says it's an official RS site is a scam. ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 20:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I was just double checking. I guess we better look out for more links like this one. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Another tip-off is that, when I looked on the rs3beta page, the worlds were always the same number of people playing for 10 minutes. Iner22 18:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
If you went to the Rs3 "beta" site, you should scan your computer for key loggers and then change your rs password to ensure that your account is secure. Dr5ag2on1 23:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr5ag2on1 (talkcontribs)

Falador Massacre

the page definatly needs info on the falador massacre on the 6/6/06. as it is a big part of history that jagex will not want repeating —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a curious glitch, but it is none of the general crowd's interest. There is a link to the RuneScape wiki, and anyone can stumble upon the article regarding this. Thus, there's no need to mention it. Litis 10:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Gold points vs gold (pieces) is gold pieces, not "gold points" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean. Recent change, so I've switched it back to "gold" for now. If anyone has any concerns, don't hesitate to raise them. CaptainVindaloo t c e 22:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
A search of the RuneScape Knowledge Base found 19 results for "gold pieces" and 0 results for "gold points". --RS Ren 21:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I've played RuneScape for over two years, and I've never once seen "gold points" said in game, on the forums, or in the knowledge base. "Gold pieces", "gold", and "coins" are all correct, but "gold points" is not. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 01:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no doubt that it is gold pieces and not gold points. BTC 22:00 28 October 2007 (Eastern Time Zone) —Preceding comment was added at 02:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
It's always called "coins" in-game, and never "points". ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 06:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


Should we link to all three RuneScape Wikias (RSW, DRSW and RSFFW), or just to the original, like we are now? ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 06:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think RSW is fine, I'm not sure about DRSW, but probably not RSFFW, only because fanfiction isn't considered canon by Wikipedia; this is a common issue in Star Wars articles and on Wookieepedia. If the three linked between eachother on their Main Pages, that would be great. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I think this should be voted on to have a rule, like with fan sites to prevent any "yes"-"no" edit wars. But yes, it would be a good idea to have then link to each other on their main pages (which they do :)), but some of the people at RSW seem to hate DRSW for some reason... Ah, oh well. ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 06:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I think some people might "hate" DRSW as it is beans, but I don't think they meet the criteria in the external links policy, so it should be removed if it has been added back in. RSW is perfectly fine though. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 20:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Seperate Section for Negative Critism?

In the reception section, there is only positive opinions on runescape. Considering that at least half of the comments about it are negative, shouldn't there be a list of negative reception in here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I just went and gave this it's own spot so it will get seen. Anyway, I don't think it's needed; critism goes under reception, just like positive reception. --Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 16:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)