Talk:RuneScape/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

General Reminders

• Spelling- RuneScape is a British Game and uses British spelling, so British Spelling must be used. This rule applies to all articles in the RuneScape Series.

• Fansites- Wikipedia's external links guideline is that one major fansite may be included as an external link. As fan sites all offer similar information, an effective measurement must be made to decide which is the most appropriate to list. The method that contributors believe is the most effective is by Alexa ranking. RuneHQ.com is the lowest-placed (most often visited) by Alexa rank and is therefore listed. For more information on this, plase click here.

• RuneScape Wiki - Ok, I'm advertising the RuneScape Wiki, but it's probably a good idea.
  For those of you who get your edits reverted with such nonsense explanations like "cruft" or "linkspam" or whatever, you might want to check out the RuneScape Wiki. To put it plainly, your edits are more likely to be appreciated there. Hyenaste ^(tell) 02:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Recent Articles for Deletion - Since we're trying to improve the quality of this Wiki, we must get rid of the fancruft from the sub-categories. Remember, they have to pass the rigorous inspection of not being a game guide, being verifiable and representing all sides equally and fairly, so no weasel wording would be allowed. Makoto 00:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

RuneHQ

I think RuneHQ shouldn't be the top fansite simply because there are other sites like tip.it/runescape that give just as much information if not mare than Rune HQ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davud363000 (talk • contribs) .

Please sign your posts. RuneHQ has been decided on as it is the most popular, and it has relatively good information on the game. If you have a legitimate argument for why it should be replaced, feel free to make it here, but "simply because there are other sites" isn't good enough to include more. Wikipedia is not a directory of links. Agentscott00^(talk) 04:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

RuneHQ is a much cleaner, stronger, and better community. Trust me. I've explored both Tip.it and RuneHQ. Suffice to say, I stayed with RuneHQ. It's also more user-friendly.

-Kang

RuneHQ is at the top due to the quality of their guides, and the amount of organization in their users and staff. It doesn't matter why its at the top; this is an encyclopedia, not a website-rating organization. Mamyles 21:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

fancruft?

I think that this sentence is important to the article, but everything I put in bold above seems like fancruft to me (is a non-player going to care about members being able to do Recipe for Disaster?)

"Membership status allows players to explore their own part of the RuneScape world, which has since become the majority of the map, dozens of new quests to embark on, such as Recipe for Disaster, new skills to tackle, like fletching, new items to be had, like the dragon spear, various mini-games to pass the time, such as Castle Wars, and other minor, yet numerous additions."

I removed the specifics, revert if I shouldn't have--JCGracik ^{talk c} 18:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I added those, examples should be given when possible, but i am going to agree with you and say they need to be reformatted, as its even looking like an advertisment.Exarion 00:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

membership- advertisment

the membership section is taking shape now, but is looking more like an advertisment that an enclyclopedic section. this will need to be severely rewritten before this article is going anywhere beyond a "B" article. here is the current text, with problematic sections identified:

"Players are allowed to upgrade their account status to "Members" status, and can then gain access to a plethora of new features which over time, have become more numerous than what is offered to players of free status. This feature of RuneScape is referred to as Pay-to-play, or P2p. The premium fee attached to membership is $5.00 United States Dollars (USD) per month when paying with a credit card, $6.99 USD per month when paying by phone, or $7.95 USD per month when using the services of PaybyCash.com. The cost of a membership has been $5.00 USD per month since its conception, and any additional costs are influenced by the third-parties used to handle the transactions.

Membership status allows players to explore much more of the RuneScape world, which has since become the majority of the map. It also offers many more quests, skills, and items, as well as making posts, having pets, various mini-games and other minor, yet numerous additions. In addition to more game content, frequent game updates, access to official community forums, and more dedicated customer support are also some of the advantages of having a subscription. The official RuneScape website provides more indepth information as to what advantages are available to members."Exarion 00:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a member's account in RuneScape, and the customer support sure doesn't seem much more dedicated. Maybe more precise wording would help, such as saying "about 4 times as many quests" instead of "many more quests". Pyrospirit 16:31, 3 November 2006

I've added a section about the updates non-paying and paying members get, noted the Stronghold as an exception... I think that helps to look at the difference in GUs quite well. Philipwhiuk 11:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Just want to bring to your attention that non-members have had a few other updates as well, such as the new bank in Lumbridge and the skill tutors. Pyrospirit 2:06, 5 November 2006

How about something along this lines: "Players may upgrade their account to "Members" status by paying a monthly fee. Membership allows players to access additional map space, quests, items, the official forum and other features. Paying customers enjoy updates on a regular basis as well as more dedicated customer support." I don't think it's neccessary to go more in depth then that. Actually i wouldn't make a seperate "membership" section at all. I feel this subject is already explained well enough. So i'd say: Just delete that section.

Scammers in the article

Ok, yet another scammer attempts a mass attack in the article. This time from Runescape cheats (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). Amarkov shot that little plan down in record time, but that won't stop the vandal from doing it again or creating articles for the same purpose. I'll post this situation in WP:ANI tomorrow, but maybe we could file a checkuser and hand the IP address over to Jagex? CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 04:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what handing the IP to Jagex will accomplish. Last I heard, they're still dead against IP bans, although it's possible that it's changed. More of the problem is, I doubt you'll be able to get a checkuser for the purpose of handing over the IP to Jagex. -Amarkov ^babble 04:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't necessarily mean for Jagex to impose an IP ban - just to ban the account operating from that address. If the IP is static, there isn't much chance of a false positive. Thing is, the email address that you are supposed to send your username/password to looks familiar - this latest vandal may be one of several sockpuppets and checkuser will answer this. Whatever the case, using Wikipedia for phishing simply for one's own gain easily qualifies as a form of trolling and bad vandalism and is certainly not good-faith. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a checkuser for that would probably be good. I just don't think you'll get the IP to hand over to Jagex. -Amarkov ^babble 18:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...this article is becoming a HUGE target for vandalism.--Ed^{I'm lonely, talk to me} _contribs 19:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, duh. -Amarkov ^babble 19:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The phisherman has yet to return. I'll file an entry with the checkuser folks and we'll see what comes up. If they are all socks, then an ANI report might get them all banned. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 02:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

RFCU filed. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 03:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Argh. Another scammer, this time linking to a cheat site... I don't want RuneScape to be fully protected, because then only admins could edit it, but the article is still constantly vandalized, and it's getting out of hand. Pyrospirit 15:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've already asked Chad123261 (talk • contribs) to stop, after seeing him add the links three times [1][2][3]. We'll see what happens. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 15:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject RuneScape

Wikipedia:WikiProject_RuneScape
It was on the Portal talk but I thought I'd post it here too. So far I've made the basic layout for it, since the one the creator made looked a bit weird. Just click the "EDIT" button on the top-right of any frame to change it - try not to change the main page unless you know what you're doing. Agentscott00^(talk) 04:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Recruiting member for the WikiProject RuneScape

Yes... If no one joins it will collapse. Visit Wikipedia:WikiProject RuneScape. Only if you are intrested to making this project triumphant(/perfect... Ok i have bad english).

--Storkian 12:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Um... It's a Wikiproject for eleven articles. Maybe I'm biased by being part of the PCP, with 500+ articles, but that seems a TEENY bit low. -Amarkov ^babble 14:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it's going to stay long or not, I'm doubting it here, but as long as we've got it we should at least try. Even if it's only eleven articles, but they could use some help. Agentscott00^(talk) 17:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Move "Runescape" to "Runescape 2"?

Generally the title "Runescape" is unencyclopaedic. Should we move the article to "Runescape 2" and make "Runescape" redirect to "Runescape 2" and put down a disambugation page while we are at it? It should make navigation easier. I know that the mass number of redirects need to be fixed, but it shouldn't matter much.Doomed Rasher 00:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is it unencyclopedic? And WHY should we force a redirect from the title any sane person would try to use? -Amarkov ^babble 00:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well it is the game currently in use by Jagex. Perhaps we make the redirect from RuneScape 2 to RuneScape--Ed^{I'm lonely, talk to me} _contribs 01:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

But even Jagex does not officialy call it "RuneScape 2". The official name is "RuneScape", and the older version is "RuneScape Classic". Nothing is officialy called RuneScape 2. The redirect to here makes sense, but not the other way around. -Amarkov ^babble 01:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This article contains information on the background of both Runescape Classic and RS2, therefore I feel that it should remain titled "Runescape" -Mamyles 12:15, 01 November 2006 (UTC)

history and development- own article?

i created Runescape history and development to reduce the size of Runescape to within the size guidelines of 32 KB, and to accomplish one of the to do list items. i then changed the current section to an overview. this started an edit war. the edit war stopped soon, but a consensus needs to be reached on this.Exarion 00:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it an edit war, just a request that you propose it first. Seems like a valid split to me, though not completely necessary, quite appropriate. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If all edit wars were as smoothly executed as that one, Wikipedia would be a much nicer place. I disagree with the split, as it is just a split. If you tear a page of a book in half, you'll be left with the same information, but provided in a way that neither makes sense on its own. Hyenaste ^(tell) 01:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The amount of information you removed wasn't really that great, a portion of it should have stayed (eg. Graphics, servers, advertising. Some of these parts should go, some should stay. It would have been better to go through them rather than to just move the whole sections.) 32kb isn't a requirement, it's a sylistic guideline. The average user's attention span won't last them much longer than reading through 32kb of information according to the page on it, but that's no reason to strictly enforce this. Until we can find a way to smoothly create a second article or subpage for the History section, it should stay for now. Agentscott00^(talk) 01:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to put the in main article template and include the article in the {{Runescape}} template, but no more. Exarion 02:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

But is the History and development article necessary?--Ed ^Trick? or _Treat? 02:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

it isnt nessecary, but it would be helpful to reduce the article size. Exarion 05:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Most featured articles are 30-50 kB long (although we may wish to make it shorter if we are aiming for GA), and have reasonably comprehensive History sections. The current "History and development" section is written in summary style, and I don't think it's long enough to warrant its own article. Given the amount of fancruft in the RuneScape subpages, do you want the RuneScape history and development article to face an AfD, or even worse, become a 100 kB article about every single update in the game? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

A peer review comment has been left regarding the criticism section we have. I'm think that we delete the entire portion of the article and rebuild it from scratch. Is this a good idea?--Ed ^Trick? or _Treat? 02:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It could solve it. People have been trying to fix it for ages and, evidently, its still not good enough - • The Giant Puffin • 11:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd just start by removing anything blatantly unusable (IE gamefaqs reader-reviews). The problem is that 'criticism' has been read as 'negative criticism' as opposed to 'critical review'. This has lead to desperately searching for some negative views of RS to put into the article. If nothing concrete can be found from reliable sources so far as negative opinions, then that's all there is to worry about - we're just reproducing reliable sources here, not trying to magic up opinion where there isn't any. 86.139.126.131 18:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I did a closer look, and found that the citations unreliable, making the only suppot weasel wording. Exarion 00:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the entire section so we may start from scratch. Should we put all of our information on someone's user subpage?--Ed ^Trick? or _Treat? 03:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems like we shouldn't. If we're eliminating POV, we should start completely from scratch, not try to better verify statements that we already had. -Amarkov ^babble 04:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Like Amarkov says, don't bother. Just leave it to gather dust in the history. Sorry to keep plugging this, but don't forget the PC Gamer article! And what was wrong with this version of the section? We need professional reviews of the game, not people ranting on GameFAQs about being banned when "all i wuz doin tricking teh nubs to giv me all der gp and st00f!!!1111!!!11one!!" CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 04:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that section was that it contained mini-lists. Mini-lists aren't allowed per WP:MOS--Ed ^Trick? or _Treat? 04:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please have a link to runescape. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.162.57.133 (talk • contribs) .

Why don't you look at the bottom of the Article? ;) Back on topic, the BBC and PCG articles would probably be our best bets for now, we should use them as main reviews/criticisms, and maybe the GameFAQs as supporting reviews instead? This was suggested a while back, but I think we should rename the criticisms section header to something that gives a more positive appeal - although there are positive critical reviews, the way it's used seems more like the section is about negative opinions towards the game. Of course, we can't have all good stuff, but in my opinion the current name should go. Agentscott00^(talk) 03:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Switch it back to 'Critical Review'. Gamespot should also has a staff review (ie, not written by a visitor to the site, but by a Gamespot employee), try that. I'm sure Gamespot can be called a reliable source for critical commentary of a game aswell. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 11:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, just checking Gamespot, there doesn't seem to be a staff review. Odd. I could have sworn there was one last time I checked. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 17:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Remember that when we changed the Criticism section to a list of press reviews, many complained that the section contained pro-RuneScape bias and read like an advertisement? I suggest we rename the section to Reception, as several featured articles on games and movies use that, instead of Criticism. Doing so would reduce complaints about the section being biased.

Please read the comments I made in this article's latest peer review, and my requests for advice on the talk page of the NPOV and Verifiability policies. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that you deleted the critisism, this atricle has become extremly bias with no negative critisism at all. This needs to be fixed, as these actions comprimise Wikipedia non-partisin claims.--68.192.188.142 19:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD

Heads up, folks. RuneScape random events is up for deletion again. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 11:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of which, RuneScape weaponry just survived its AfD with no consensus. How many people would support a rewrite? This concept i've been working on seemed to generate a little interest during the debate. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 19:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm planning on rewriting a section of RuneScape weaponry if no one objects. (See the topic at the bottom of RuneScape weaponry's talk page.) I'm waiting until this Sunday to give people time if they're opposed to it. Pyrospirit 16:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I just noticed this. A bunch of RuneScape articles just got deleted. When did this happen? Pyrospirit 00:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You mean RuneScape weaponry and RuneScape armour? They were merged into RuneScape combat. I thought you knew a merge was in the works? CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 01:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, cool. I heard that there was a merge coming, but I didn't know we had already started merging them. By the way, I saw the new article--it looks great. Also, do you think I did a good job of removing the redundancy between Skills and Combat by moving the combat section in Skills to the Combat article? Pyrospirit 01:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

versions

if this doubles srry. there isnt a good diffrence to call the may update a ottaly new version of rs and shoudl be merged with version 4(rs version 2)

peopel dont assosiate post may update rs as the current version, they call the RS2 update current--Cody6 03:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Isnt it just a series of improvements? Its not a nver version - • The Giant Puffin • 12:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

about morphing

"Players using certain items can transform themselves into piles of stone, eggs, or monkeys, allowing them to avoid negative effects or gaining them access to otherwise unreachable places. Such "morphs" are temporary, and players cannot perform activities other than chatting while morphed."

As far i know, monkey shaped players can cut trees and bunnys/sheeps in cw can attack barricades.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aure22 (talk • contribs)

You need a ring to morph into egg it was the Easter holiday item. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pg908 (talk • contribs).

I think players can move about in monkey forms as well. The meaning of "perform activities" is indeed sort of ambiguous. GSPbeetle ^{complains Vandalisms} 14:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Image- Can we try to get it in somewhere? (Or something similar)

I just took this screenie- Think it fits anywhere?

File:RuneScape one mill trade final.JPG

→ p00rleno (lvl 76) ←ROCKS 7:40 pm Eastern Time; Nov 7, 2006

No, I don't think it does fit anywhere. Hyenaste ^(tell) 00:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Upload a new version where you are trading money for items, and we could stick it in RuneScape economy. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 00:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Get a higher quality one, and don't shrink it next time - we can resize it when (if) we put it into an article. Agentscott00^(talk) 01:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

^O_h ^w_e^l_l. I'll keep it on my talk page anyway. → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS^C_RS 8:07 AM November 8 2006

Er... It might be better if you had a picture of a useful trade, like maybe trading 2 mil for an abbysal whip, as opposed to just 1 mil for 1 mil. Pyrospirit 14:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

my brother was playing runescape like he has been for 2 years and we saw a player change (1,000k)to (10,004) and back to (1,000k) like he was deleting the 4 and putting k to scam us. is that posable and if so how do we prevent it? flare mage22

He was removing 989996gp, then adding it back again, then removing it again, etc. Just check the second trade screen carefully. Pyrospirit 01:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont think so it did not do that to me and i have been playing for 3 1/2 years now i think it was a scam. Flare Mage22

Of course that's a scam; switching the amount of money like that practically defines scamming. Anyway, this isn't the place to talk about it. Pyrospirit 16:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

well then tell me where i can ? mr. rude!! Flare Mage22

Some gaming forum. Wikipedia isn't here for you to ask general game questions. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 21:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say the RuneScape forums, but the mods would probably lock the thread. All you need to know is to report someone who does that. "Mr. Rude" 15:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

well this is also a problem seeing as i am not a paying member. therefor not alowing me to post anything on the forum. A guy trying to get some answers

Like I said before, this is not the place. Since you can't post on the forums, check the RuneScape manual. Pyrospirit 00:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

RuneScape Wikipedia Page: Biased and/or non factual?

Some proof that ive added here is in bold with footnotes

RuneScape takes place in the fantasy-themed realm of Gielinor1, which is divided into the Kingdoms of Misthalin, Asgarnia, and Kandarin, the tropical island of Karamja, the Kharidian Desert, the Wilderness, and various other areas.[4] Players can travel throughout the game world on foot, magical teleportation, gnome gliders, fairy rings, and others. Each region offers different types of monsters, materials, and quests to challenge players.

Players are shown on the screen as customizable avatars. They set their own goals and objectives, deciding which of the available activities to pursue. There is no linear path that must be followed.2 Players can engage in combat with other players or with monsters, complete quests, or increase their experience in any of the available skills. Players can also interact with each other through trading, chatting, or playing combative or cooperative mini-games.

On 27 February 2002, Jagex launched an optional service. In order to gain access to a more extensive variety of features, players could choose to pay a monthly fee of £3.20, $5.00 United States dollars, or €8.40 per month when paid by credit card. Players can also pay through online services such as Pay Pal, by check or money order, or with their telephone number by paying additional fees to the payment provider. While not a new version3, because the game still operated under the same game engine, this service significantly changed the focus of the game.

Random events are short interludes that occur during the game, requiring some form of player input. They were introduced to deter players from using automated programs, known as macros or bots, to play the game with no human interaction. Postings in the RuneScape forums by Andrew Gower suggest that random events were designed not only to hinder macroers but to alleviate the monotony that can occur while leveling skills for long periods of time (referred to as grinding)4

Players can submit questions to any NPC in the game. Selected letters are answered in an update called Postbag from The Hedge at the end of each month. This feature of the site started on 26 September 2005 and has since become one of the most accessed pages of the site. From 24 September 2002 through 9 December 2004, players could submit questions to the RuneScape gods; however, the gods will no longer communicate so directly with mortal beings5.

1. This is the Guthix name for RuneScape; there are other names. 2. Some random players are chosen to do special reasons, such as Dark Prior. (Note- the most recent Dark Prior is Lord Revan57 [me]). 3. There are improvements constantly for just paying members. 4. Many people have never heard this term, including myself. 5. In the Zamorak Temple near the Taverly wilderness entrance, if you take Zamorak's wine, he will pour out his fiery wrath upon you. Is that not communication. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.119.251.105 (talk • contribs) .

1: Such as?

2: What does that involve? If it is part of a quest, you are never forced to complete a quest. I had Dragon Slayer sitting yellow in my journal for about half a year because I couldn't be bothered to finish it.

3: By 'not a new version', it means 'not a different game'. Being a member is the equivalent of unlocking a new feature by completing some task in another game. For example, in Judge Dredd: Dredd Vs. Death, getting Judge Dredd rating on a mission unlocks a bonus mission. Getting Senior Judge or lower doesn't unlock the bonus. But despite the bonus unlocking, the game is still Judge Dredd: Dredd Vs. Death. And despite being a member, the game is still RuneScape. In some ways, you could call free-to-play RS a demo version.

4: 'Grinding' is a generic MMORPG term, not specific to RuneScape. Remember, we are not writing for RS players, we are writing for the general public.

5: "The gods will no longer communicate so directly with mortal beings" is a direct quote from a RuneScape.com page. It simply means players cannot send letters to the gods anymore. Instead, Jagex operates the 'Letters from the Postbag' system now.

Sign your posts! CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 00:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering why this IP took all of the trouble to copy and paste the text and make the commentary and footnotes. Perhaps something IS wrong with the way we worded the article. --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the one who wrote this article again. Runescape can be known by many different terms, like Geilenor, the Material Realm, and the Anti Warp. The players chosen to do things isnt part of a quest. Its in game fantasy. For example, the Dark Prior, he is a chaos lord. The player is not obligated to do it, BUT, when he finds out, many want to go along with it, in order to mve along the ingame plot. I understand what you meant by the game isnt changed, but it unlocks much, much more when you become a member. So, it sort of changes your veiw of RuneScape as a game. According to the "Gods not communicating" item, people such as the Dark Prior are immortal and can never truly die without being rewarded in the immaterial realm. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.119.251.105 (talk • contribs) .

The alternate names for Gielinor sound like names given by demons and warp monsters. Listing names like that are borderline cruft, and not necessary; just because the Covenant call Master Chief a demon doesn't make him a demon. I'd like a citation or some kind of further reading link to do with this 'Dark Prior' thing, i'm not the only one to have never heard of it and Google finds nothing relevant. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 22:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

As I've done every single quest, I can say there is most definitely no such person as "Dark prior". Both Anti Warp and Material Realm refer to qualities that Gielinor has, such as being made of material. -Amarkov ^babble 22:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Checking this on a hunch; look what i've found. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 22:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You didn't expect that? Pretty much every name conceivable has been taken, excluding gibberish or numbers. -Amarkov ^babble 23:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Article Writer again. Contact my RuneScape player Lord Revan57 for imformation on the Dark Prior. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.119.251.105 (talk • contribs) .

Why don't you just say it here? A chat in the game isn't going to provide any proof, there needs to be information which we can properly cite. If you're going to be difficult, nobody's going to bother keeping the "Dark Prior" in the articles. Agentscott00^(talk) 02:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've contacted him. It turns out that it's a player made cult, that he once heard Jagex liked, and has had a maximum of 117 members. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a Comment

I enjoy Runescape very much and I read that somebody said that this article should be relocated to Runescape 2. I disagree. This is a more popular version, so I believe it deserves the title of Runescape.

This is a discussion page, not the actual article. So I am allowed to add a comment (I am discussing Runescape) My name is Deathordoom0 on Runescape. And thank you to whomever deleted Chidro7's topic.

Also I started Runescape just a few days after postbag from the hedge was created (just a fun fact). Runescape4lyfe 01:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Gielinor

Why is Runescape referred to as Gielinor in the article? It certainly isn't known as this within the game and I can only find one or two references to this word in the crumby postbag on the runescape site?--timdew (^Talk) 08:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Because in the few crumbly references, it's made clear that Gielinor is the official name of the main dimension. -Amarkov ^babble 14:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

that's the only place it was ever called that, everywhere else in every other reference it's simple Runescape. 81.102.100.105 15:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The official name of the RuneScape world, according to all information from Jagex, is Gielnor. When refering to the game, it is called RuneScape; when refering to the game world itself, however, Gielnor is the proper name. Pyrospirit 16:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

what information from Jagex ? please let me know where this is located. 81.102.100.105 18:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

See the: Seventh paragraph of this, Postbag 9 (use your find-on-this-page), this, under the description of runite, and here, first paragraph. Many more instances of it as well, spread out through the KB. If that's not enough proof I don't know what is. Agentscott00^(talk) 23:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Gielinor is an official name for the universe Runescape is in. There is sufficient references from Jagex to support it. Mamyles 12:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

We've already had this discussion and the result was that RS=Gielinor. It should stay that way. → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS^C_RS 8:39 Am Eastern Time Nov 13 2006

Relative terms

Please, when editing articles involving RuneScape, don't use relative terms such as "recent" or "new". These become out-of-date very quickly and require someone else to edit them once those updates have become old news. Since this isn't a RuneScape current events article, I'd say write everything as if it was a regular, completely integrated part of the game, rather than a new update. If you must, put the date in which the update was introduced for the most major updates. It's really getting annoying when I have to edit out the words "recent" or "new" a dozen times. Pyrospirit 02:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge of RuneScape economy

I got Friday to restore a copy of the text to User:Amarkov/Runescape economy, if anyone cares. Sorry if someone else already had a copy. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Why was RuneScape economy removed, anyway? It's a major part of the game. At least it should be merged with RuneScape community. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pyrospirit (talk • contribs) .

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape economy. The problem with it was that a lot of it was redundant - covered already in Virtual economy. Its a better idea to have a short economy section in the RuneScape article, describing the unique features of the RS economy and use the {{seealso}} template to link to virtual economy. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge Delete Merge Delete Merge Delete

Too many haters are being nit picky about every runescape related page they can get their hands on. We need to do less for the main RS page and split off to the minor pages as there is no way the main page is getting anywhere near the AfD list. If the subpages can be made problemless, the AfD spree will end. → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS^C_RS 1:37 pm ET November 16 2006

Well, most of the subpages are just fancruft. I don't think we need a page to list and describe every single weapon, quest, spell, etc. If anybody needs to know that, they could just go to a fansite.--JCGracik ^{talk c} 22:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Really, I think it would be best if we could eventually remove all the fancruft and reduce the RuneScape articles to just the main article. Pyrospirit 16:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Not possible, really. If all that needed to be said about the game was in one article, it would be very, very large; a problem we've had before and resulted in several sections, RuneScape community for instance, being split out. According to Wikipedia:Article size; articles shouldn't be longer than around 32kB. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 17:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Our main focus should be on making all sub-pages as encyclopedia-friendly as possible so prevent them from being unjustly removed - • The Giant Puffin • 23:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Runescape Classic Page

I think there should be a seperate article about Runescape Classic. I, and I'm sure many other people, would like to know more about it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Codelyoko193 (talk • contribs)

"I want to know more about it" is not a good reason to create a page. Make it if you want, but be prepared for an AfD on it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Besides, the RS Classic has too little information to warrant its own article.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Say, Shedinja, probably has much less information. The issue would probably be more notability seperate from this article. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Totally Unrelated post warning ROFL! Sorry for the geek-speak (lol again) but thats pretty darned funny. → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS^C_RS 6:30pm ET November 19 2006

We are trying to cut back on unneeded sub-pages. Unless it is written in an encyclopediac way, and has enough information to make it worthwhile, it will most likely be deleted, which would then be another nail in the RuneScape series' coffin - • The Giant Puffin • 16:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

What is the difference between RSC and RS2? Just a graphical update? That isn't enough to warrant a separate article. If you think you can expand this article's coverage of RSC, please do! CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it could warrant an article, and I say this lightly, but ONLY if 5+ people still have active rsc accounts of which to gain info with, AND can find sources for (I know tip.it still has it's rsc page) However, If it were up to me, i would put it at A subpage of this page as to avoid AfDs until the RS/WIKI community says that it is ready. If any of the above don't work out. Everyone working the page will need to use this

AfDThis user has had pages put up for deletion. Most of the time, they were deleted.

:P

I personally think that either add more information to this page, or make it an entire section, or just make a seperate page. This would only work if at least 5 people with RSC accounts would be willing to contribute to this.

If we need people who have a RSC account to write it, it most definintely should NOT be written. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

→ p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS^C_RS 6:25 pm ET November 19 2006

Subpages don't work in articlespace. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to read this for more information WP:SP - Mamyles 03:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

After checking WP:SP, it seems we could subpage on Talk:RuneScape temporarially^SP to get it on its feet. → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS^C_RS 7:45 am ET November 20 2006

Criticism Section Reverted

[4] I reverted the edit using popups, and unable to give an explanation with popups, I might as well speak up here. Although the paragraph in question was well written, it was added with no references and questionable information. We could probably use some info, but not all.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 00:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

New servers

Finland should be added on the map and list of new servers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.231.12.104 (talk • contribs) ..

You're completely correct, the map now needs changing. I'll put it on the to-do list. J.J.Sagnella 20:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 20:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. I'll go find the news source and update the reference.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

RuneScape vs. Wikipedia

I just wanted to know, which is more popular, RuneScape or Wikipedia? I couldn't find it on the statistics pages. Should the article contain this information? AstroHurricane001 18:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia, and no, sorry. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Another fight for the ages. — Deckiller 18:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow lol - • The Giant Puffin • 22:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

RS vs. Wii

just fyi, runescape fell to 9 on Special:Mostrevisions to the Nintendo Wii We're only back 125 edits or so, so its not a big difference, but it may be a bad or good thing that the place of RS is falling so vandals dont hit it as much. → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS^C_RS *:05 am Nov 22, 2006

Good to see its not being vandalised as much now - • The Giant Puffin • 22:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It's now about 200 edits behind Wii. Semi-protecting it was the best decision we ever made. I just hope it stays that way. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Moderator section

Is it a good idea, or not? It's better now that it's sourced, but is it important enough? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 19:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think so. Its a pretty important part of the game, especially as there are three types - • The Giant Puffin • 22:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it. Sure, information on mods would be good in the article, but not a section of what's already covered in RuneScape_community. A condensed copy would be much better. Agentscott00^(talk) 23:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

RuneScape community is likely to be AFDed, so it would be good to have a short section on mods in the main article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Some detail on the moderators would be good in the main article (which discusses more than gameplay anyway), providing it is in keeping with the article and doesn't drag on. The community article serves no purpose, RS' community itself is largely teenage boys who play RS, it's self-explanatory.

The amount of text devoted to moderators in the community article is out-of-proportion with their actual impact on gameplay. It's something of an RS foible that so many players obsess over them, but again we're talking a large crowd of teenage boys - anything 'different' or with even the faintest whiff of authority is pored over fixatedly. There are 3 moderator types. Jagex staff members? What do they do? That's the info needed. That p-mods have their own forum etc. etc. is no more relevant to those wanting info on RS than the contents of the average Tesco worker's lunch box is to those who want info on Tesco. 86.142.194.72 15:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

repetition

The following lines are in the article 3 times, word for word.

Since it takes many hours to develop a character, many players regard playing RuneScape as a lifestyle, not a side activity. Playing RuneScape can be addicting, and some people play RuneScape more than they do anything else.[24] Jagex has included music, sound effects, and ambient noises throughout Gielinor to enhance gameplay. The music, while often a simple tune,[22], is designed to enhance mood and help to define the underlying cultures of the various locations around Gielinor. Sound effects, such as the "sploosh" heard when a lobster trap is submerged in water, are heard as players train their skills. Ambient noises, such as the cry of seagulls flying over the ocean, occur in logical places. Players can turn the music and sounds off if they prefer.

Once in "Gameplay", again directly below that making up the entirety of the "Lifestyle" section, and a 3rd time lower on the page under "Boring Tasks".

Someone else has removed the repeated sentences. Thanks for pointing that out! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The Criticism section - please participate in discussion

I cordially invite all of you to participate in a discussion about the Criticism section of this article. Stability, NPOV and verifiability are all GA criteria, and in order to reach GA status, we must make a decision and stick to it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Varrock article

Its been proposed for deletion. Are we going to try and save this article? Or is it too specific to keep - • The Giant Puffin • 11:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

That article was merged into RuneScape locations ages ago, and has been unmerged by Necrobrawler (talk • contribs), who has also put Zezima up for DRV (here; since closed with deletion endorsed) and unmerged RuneScape weaponry in this edit. As weaponry was merged per concerns at its last AfD, I re-redirected that. I say re-redirect Varrock; there is no possible reason to keep it when everything you might want to know is already in locations. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 17:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape community

It was overdue. Maybe 2nd one will get more discussion. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Pure Fancruft article

The following discussion is an archived debate of the straw poll for the proposed Creation of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made beneath this green box. No further edits should be made to this Section.

The Result of this Straw Poll was Do Not Create by majority rule.

Call me nuts, but I think there should be an article, like RuneScape tips and Tricks, for nothing other than fancruft. We could justify it under WP:IGNORE because by providing a proper location for all those who like to add fancruft to RS, we would lower fancruft-alism on all other RS series page. I know, i know, Wikipedia is not a game guide, but WP IGNORE says ignore all rules if it stops you from making Wikipedia better. Therefore, I think a location for fancruft is totally warranted. Like I said, call me nuts. → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS^C_RS 10:37 am ET Nov 26 2006

How does it make Wikipedia better to move the junk somewhere else? I also doubt that people would restrict fancruft to that one page. Just go to the RuneScape wiki for cruft. Trust me, that article would be AfDed the instant it was created. Overly literal interpretations of IAR are bad, too. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

'Tis an interesting idea though. I'd jokingly considered voting overturn when Zezima came up on DRV, simply because it would keep the vandals occupied and leaving us alone. Maybe a massive, page filling flashing pink neon sign saying "GO TO RUNESCAPE WIKI!!!!!!111one!!1" would be just as effective? CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 15:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want somewhere to put fancruft, you can go here. A pure-fancruft article would get AfD'd fairly quickly, even if we did ignore all rules. You can only imagine what they'd do to the other articles. Feel free do download the MediaWiki software and make an RSCruft wiki though. That would be interesting.. Agentscott00^(talk) 17:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Meh, a general cruft wiki would be better. Although we would get a Zezima article there... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Lol, the page would not be for me, but for all those who insist on selling those who read the atricle how many runite ore rocks there in f2p runescape no matter how many times they get it reverted. And, as I see it , there is no harm in having it AfD'd because it would just be a distraction article so-to-speak, and it would probably keep short not eating too much of WP's server. I say we have a vote. And mine goes to... Create. Well, no duh. → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS^C_RS 6:57pm ET November 26 2006

Straw poll

Per Poorleno's request. Setting up straw polls is fun.-Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
24 hours left!!! Looks like im gonna lose anyway... lol. → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS^C_RS 21:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Create

1. Runescape4lyfe (talk · contribs)
2. Poorleno (talk · contribs)

   Note: User is the originator of the idea. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Do not create

1. Amarkov (talk · contribs)
2. Agentscott00 (talk · contribs) - Use the RS Wiki, or just go help out with a fansite.
3. Nishkid64 (talk · contribs) Your interpretation of WP:IAR makes no sense

   Note: User does not regularly edit the RuneScape Series. → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS^C_RS 13:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

4. JCGracik (talk · contribs) - Nobody would go looking for a fancruft-only page to put things on. Also WP:IGNORE says you can ignore rules only if they prevent you from improving/maintaining wikipedia, and fancruft doesn't improve it.
5. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) It's pointless; a pure fancruft article would be AfD'd instantly and vandalism of the main article would still continue. Pyrospirit ^{Talk Contribs} 01:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Other unrelated comments

Man, we just lengthened the TOC on this page... now it looks ugly. p00rleno 00:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed some superfluous sections, that should help.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made beneath this green box. No further edits should be made to this page.

Ambiguous server locations.

The rs would select page now says things like US East 3 as server location. That could make locations a pain if it becomes even more ambiguous. Keep your eyes peeled... p00rleno 00:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC) PS I was bored of typing timestamps so I just used the standard sig this time.

The information we have would be true if each country only had 1 server, except the UK. It doesn't really matter to the article. And you know, you can set your signature to something else. Just click "Raw signature" and copy in the signature you normally use, excluding timestamp. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

i dont know where raw signature is. p00rleno 00:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

In Preferences, where you type your signature. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

TEST → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS^C_RS 00:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Random events

In this it says they were created to stop "automated programs"?

It was created to stop java based G.U.I.s that use scripts made by the users, to click on specific locations of the window which has runescape located somewhere within the window , if you want to get technical. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joshua090909 (talk • contribs) .

A "script" that plays the game/clicks in pre-programmed spots (macros) *is* an automated program. It doesn't necessarily need to be made from Java, many aren't. Agentscott00^(talk) 04:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It does not literally "play the game". It uses the pixel scale to tell the mouse where to click. Such as "MouseClick(X,Y,Right or Left click)" Just to mention --Joshua090909 04:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC) ^{even though this does not matter?}

The information can always be added once you find a reliable source for that. Also, signatures are important, so that we may identify who left a comment.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 04:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I myself as a java and pascal programmer know it is the simplest way. Such as the once popular pascal color clicker S.C.A.R., it used the command i showed above. Java bots simply just use there jar file "runescape.jar" and place it on a java applet the same way jagex would if it was client based.I also know that "bots" can be made in Java,Pascal,VB .net,etc. . Joshua090909 04:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC) ^{Im not trying to argue im trying to find out if im right or not}

Oh, I get it. You mean bots that reverse engineer the RuneScape client/applet? You might also be interested in the Captcha article, as this is what random events effectively are. Computer programs don't do randomness. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

External Links

It says that the most trafficked fansite is RuneHQ without any proof at all? Do external links need to cite there sources?--Joshua090909 04:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see the messages at the top of this talk page, and see here. They provide information on why there's one site. Agentscott00^(talk) 04:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There have been many questions about this recently. The community decided that RuneHQ was the most trafficked web site, backed up by a ratings system.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 04:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah i see that now, i just didn't see that page before.Joshua090909 04:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Number of servers

Due to the fact that some servers are taken offline and the number of servers often changes, we are only providing an approximation. Currently, the number of servers should simply say "over 130," and the maximum number of players need not be exact. So, please don't change the number of servers unless Jagex actually adds new servers. For RSC, of course, the number can be exact because there's only 2 servers with 1250 people each maximum. Pyrospirit ^{Talk Contribs} 15:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, there is too much arguing over this. Using an exact number of servers is nothing but trouble, and a nightmare to keep correct and up to date. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I just got tired of people editing to "correct" the number of servers every day. Pyrospirit ^{Talk Contribs} 16:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree, people are like, Arrgh! Im gonna cut someone's head off if it dosn't say 137.59 servers capable of 2_x10³ players per server! Now dont rv my edit or fear my wrath mwahahaha!!!! ^{Sorry, felt like being silly...} But seriously, more than 130 will suffice for now, till theres over 140, and 150, and 160, 170, 180 190, 200, 210, 220 230... u get the point. → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS^C_RS 00:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Number of players per server

I'm pretty sure it's 1980, not 2000. It may be splitting hairs, but is there any source for either? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)