Talk:RuneScape/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Info

I hear that there is a runescape project on wiki

how do i join and how do i place on my user profile that i am part of this project if it is available thanks Maverick423 22:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

goto WP:RUNESCAPE and add yourself to the list. → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKS^C_RS 22:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Great however i cant edit the part where the participants are at and add my name =( what do i do next?Maverick423 22:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

: I'll add you. You are already there. Aparently you did add yourself... or something. → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKS^C_RS 12:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep i figured it out after a while lol but thanks! =) Maverick423 15:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Player's gallery etc.

Jagex is starting to get big on these things. Are they now notable for a subsection, or still just cruft? → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKS^C_RS 22:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's not worthy of a subsection yet, just a brief mention in the article. DiscordantNote^Cntrbtns 14:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree - • The Giant Puffin • 17:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if we get into the gallery, we'll have to cover all the fan stuff outside of the actual game: God letters, stories, historical texts from Reldo, wallpapers, and everything. I don't think they're notable enough yet. Pyrospirit ^{Talk Contribs} 00:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

add me2 → Xiaostu (lv 94) ←unbeatable and cool^C_RS 22:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh boy, xiao you are the second to copy my sig, Puppy441 being the first. I would ask that you modify it, as to not make it look like we are related or something. Tvvm, → p00rleno (lvl 82) ←ROCKS^C_RS 13:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

hey guys well

basicly i notice that we tend to chat quite a bit here depending on what the subject is. the last thing we need is someone comming in here and starting something because we are doing some POV type stuff (which i really dont understand at times since all comments are POVs) anyways if we want to be chatting we can start a group to start chatting in runescape world. if this is not possable then we can use my own website to do the chatting (even then we wont have to go directly to my website) i can place a link that when clicked on it will produce a popup chat link that can be seen and we will be able to discuss better on it. i dont know what you guys think but well if it sounds good so far tell me and i will explain it more for those intersted right now place your name here. i didnt really know how to place this anywere else but if we can put this on our project page well it would prob be better.Maverick423 17:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• name of those intrested

Maverick423 17:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

well it looks like no one is intrested in this so im ganna scratch it no probs heh. if you later do get intrested just unscratch the articleMaverick423 20:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Updated Alexa Ranks

• If you look at the Alexa Rankings you will see that Zybez.net is now around and above both Tip.it and RuneHQ. It has only just happened, however if this keeps up I think that Zybez.net should be listed as well. Maybe it should be the only one if it proves to be very popular. ETools 08:39, January 20 2007 (UTC)

You're right, but it looks to be a small fad. Let's say if it can keep this up for 2 weeks or so, we will reconsider. J.J.Sagnella 09:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it might be downhill from here for it - • The Giant Puffin • 17:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is due to a recent change in their website. Now, their forums are on the zybez.net domain name, instead of their old one at runescapecommunity.com - this would lead to the combined traffic of the two being registered under one domain name on Alexa. If you look at this Alexaholic graph, you can see runescapecommunity.com's traffic drop to almost zero when the Zybez traffic goes up. Proof that the incline is because of the forum merger. Zybez has been so low in the past because the forum and site were on separate URLs, and the forum was the more popular of the two. We failed to take this into account, so we only looked at site traffic. As an example, tip.it's forums are on the same URL I believe, so it would have both amounts of traffic to begin with. This isn't going to change soon, since the traffic will just increase to reflect what has happened. We can wait two weeks or we can do it now, there won't be much of a difference on when we add it - Zybez is popular. Only problem is, having three fansites I have a problem with. One was fine, two was borderline, but should we really use WP:IAR as an excuse for 3? I support Zybez being added, but if it means having 3 fansites, I object. Agentscott00^(talk) 18:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This link might be more useful in gauging who is the top-ranked fansite (notice I've added runescape.salmoneus.net which is my personal favourite and has been totally ignored :-)). This link (as I write this) shows that there's 3 strong fan sites out there and runescapecommunity.com has died a death (I hadn't even heard of it before reading this :-)). Also, thought I would point out that...good though RuneHQ is...it has a lot of mistakes in quests and such, and also quite a few omissions. I personally think that having all the links would be a better idea than choosing a specific "best" one...popularity on alexa is no indication of factual correctness :-) SmUX 20:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, probably that or the fact that theyve had advert players in lumby of many servers. → p00rleno (lvl 81) ←ROCKS^C_RS 18:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's say look at this as it stabilises over 2 weeks. If zybez stays consistently better, than perhaps removing both other fansites will be necessary. I dunno know, watch it unfold. J.J.Sagnella 20:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say three weeks, to be safe. Definitely, removing it now would be counterproductive. -Amark moo! 02:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, three weeks. After 3 weeks, we'll reacess (How do you spell that?) the situation and see what the best thing to do is. J.J.Sagnella 09:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to change the external links to reflect the top fansite at the current time. That way, we don't have to keep adding.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 15:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

But the top fansite changes every day. -Amark moo! 06:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• At the moment the Zybez Help Site is down for server issues. It should be back up soon, but the alexa rankings have dipped a lot because of this. ETools 00:07, January 22 2007 (UTC)
  • Aargh. Unless it shoots up immediately after coming back online, we can't really say that it's unambiguous, so we'll have to start waiting again. -Amark moo! 06:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I objected at two being added. Three is too much. I think we need a way to monitor and a schedule, so we arent changing this every time it changes a bit. Xela Yrag 18:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Where does it state Wikipedia policy on fan sites? - • The Giant Puffin • 12:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's under WP:EL, External Links, about half-way down if I remember rightly. There's not a lot actually said on the subject, but the brevity of the entry makes it clear that fansites are bottom of the pile. QuagmireDog 14:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If Zybez does manage to hold a consistent lead for a few weeks, then it may well solve the problem for good. I wouldn't be surprised if the reason for Zybez's moving the forums would be in order to gain alexa ranks, possibly even as a result of discussions here (it's free advertising on the .. #4 (?) ranked website). Perhaps regular alexa checks on the three sites, say every few days, for a couple of weeks would show a clear winner? If that's the case, I'd put the responsibility of checking on those wanting to change the thing from that point onwards. QuagmireDog 05:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Less than a month ago, I requested we establish consensus on this issue. Where is that request? In the archives? Seriously, I don't care what decision is made - just make the right one. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Up until the point where the article is renominated for GA status it makes no odds any-which way, and that isn't on the menu ATM. The problem may have solved itself in the meantime, I'll start adding some Alexa checks here so we've got something to discuss. QuagmireDog 15:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Good, then we can decide is Zybez is noteworthy enough. If you view the past history on Alexa, its clear to see that as soon as it made the address change, its page views rocketed somewhat - • The Giant Puffin • 10:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody else please continue with these rankings and put the issue to bed? I'm quitting WP. Thanks. QuagmireDog 23:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that. Temporary madness aside, I will finish this. QuagmireDog 09:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Do we still need it? Tip.it and RuneHQ are staying consistenty ahead of Zybez, so I think we can now say that what we have is fine. A weekly or even semi-weekly check to make sure no major changes have occurred should be enough. I will volunteer to do that if someone will tell me where to get the Alexa rankings. Xela Yrag 13:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah a daily one isnt needed. The big 2 are constantly ahead of Zybez, so we only need to prove that. I doubt that Zybez will overtake consitantly enough to get it a place in the external links section - • The Giant Puffin • 16:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The ranks are obtained from Alexa.com, after typing the web address in the bar, hit 'traffic results' (or something similar, you'll see it), look down the list of results to the daily total (it's below the graph, left hand side). That's it.

Despite Zybez not showing signs of overtaking either of the current links, I felt it important to keep it included to show an open-mind and also give it a chance to settle from its new website structure. However, continuing the results for another week should not only discount a third link but also the second - an average of the results should show a clear winner.

With that done, this WP:IAR/two links business can be settled, the issue no longer being a problem for future GA attempts. I think the problem with the links has and is that the focus has been on being 'fair' to the fansites in terms of WP's traffic instead of what's necessary for the article and balanced in terms of time devoted to the subject. It's a fansite, it's an external link, the experienced editors struggling with the RS series don't seem to be the ones with the problem. That being the case, why does it continue to be an issue? I'm doing nothing more with the thing, but I suggest you guys settle this issue and leave it to the one wanting to change it to provide the reasoning and the proof in future, it's a white elephant and your time could be much better spent. QuagmireDog 17:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

One more set, then I'll average the totals. QuagmireDog 16:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Daily Alexa rankings

The lower the ranking the better. Please discuss the subject in the topic above or create another, leave this one for just the rankings.

26 January:

• RuneHQ - 4,005 [1]
• Zybez - 4,536 [2]
• Tip.it - 5,421 [3]

QuagmireDog 15:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

27 January:

• RuneHQ - 5,379 [4]
• Zybez - 6,329 [5]
• Tip.it - 4,509 [6]

QuagmireDog 19:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

29 January:

• RuneHQ - 2,425 [7]
• Zybez - 4,251 [8]
• Tip.it - 2,805 [9]

QuagmireDog 23:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

1 February:

• RuneHQ - 3,818 [10]
• Zybez - 4,544 [11]
• Tip.it - 4,254 [12]

QuagmireDog 23:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

4 February:

• RuneHQ - 5,004 [13]
• Zybez - 6,058 [14]
• Tip.it - 4,062 [15]

QuagmireDog 09:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

6 February:

• RuneHQ - 5,196 [16]
• Zybez - 5,470 [17]
• Tip.it - 5,459 [18]

ETools 23:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

8 February:

• RuneHQ - 4,051 [19]
• Zybez - 5,476 [20]
• Tip.it - 3,668 [21]

QuagmireDog 16:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

10 February:

• RuneHQ - 3,868 [22]
• Zybez - 3,837 [23]
• Tip.it - 3,909 [24]

QuagmireDog 22:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

List

ok guys

Basicly Runescape has Tons of weapons right

well i checked out Weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series and it had a whole list of all the weapons. I know that it might just be exssesive information but seeing as how that one article still exsist maybe we can start one up ourselvs. a list of Runescape weapons. its just a suggestion cause i know that once we start doing this everyone else is ganna want to do this for the other games. but like i said its a suggestion. it would be pretty darn cool.

although i know we more then likely wont be able to do it.Maverick423 18:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

well after checking the article again I see that it is more then likely going to be deleted so this will not be a good idea anymore sorry guys.

Sorry for posting too much guys but well i reviewed the articles deletion and it seems that it will be kept. like i said it might open a new door for us. and someone suggested a new Wiki area just for such information so a list of weapons might be forseeable. Maverick423 18:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

We did once have a pair of articles like that: RuneScape weaponry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and RuneScape armour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (review the histories) - they were merged and redirected to RuneScape combat last November, after six or so AfDs. A lot of articles like these have been deleted for being 'fancruft': information only a fan of a certain franchise will have any use for. It's best left to fansites and specialist wikis (like the RuneScape Wiki), really. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow so we already got this stuff up thats awsome =) I take it with the recent improvements and new weapons and armor available its getting bigger by the day eh. (its me maverick423 i just didnt sign in)

Erm, not really. The articles effectively don't exist, since searching for them or following a link will just give you the RuneScape combat article. See Wikipedia:Redirect. The problem with them is that a massive list of fictional weapons isn't really what Wikipedia is for. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 19:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

True sorry for the late response but i have been working on my website alot lately adding reviews to games and such. and yea i noticed that they redirect its kinda sad cause i mean so many weapons and most people wont know what they are unless they play the game Maverick423 15:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

People argue that they wont wnat to know unless they play the game - • The Giant Puffin • 10:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Vague term

On RuneScape#Critical_review, the term "boot" is used. I checked the disambig article for boot, but there are so many computer-related terms. Can someone please clarify this?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 02:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a slang term. I'll just remove it. (For reference, the phrase was 'and it's fun to boot'.) DiscordantNote^Cntrbtns 03:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 03:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What about the following sentence?

The Yahoo Buzz Log states that "while it may not be as easy on the eyes as some other popular online RPG games, like World of Warcraft, City of Heroes, or EverQuest, RuneScape is still a lot better way to kill time than pushing around cells in a spreadsheet."

I'm wavering on the decision whether to remove this statement or not. To me, it's a little POV (read WP:NPOV), since it only compares 4 RPGs without a more in-depth review. The reference provided cannot be used to justify our message, since it doesn't provide much detail into its arguements.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 03:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It is POV, and not enough detail to warrent such an opinion. Removing it, or replacing it with a more NPOV sentence is a good course of action - • The Giant Puffin • 15:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The boot thing was originally part of a direct quote from a review. What happened to the quotation marks? I thought quoting a third party with a citation was OK anyway...? Also, the EverQuest/"half again" bit with the Guardian review could need rephrasing. It means that RS has 50% more players, IE: EQ has 500,000, RS has 750,000. But take out the 'again' and it means RS has half as many players as EQ. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I may be late on posting a comment on this so sorry for that. ok basicly if we post a sentence like that sooner or later some fan boy will come here and vandalize the page. then more and more fanboys will do the same so i think its just better to remove that comment or reword it. Maverick423 19:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

People come in and vandalize it anyway... But about the 'boot' thing...when I got rid of it, it had no quotations around it. Sorry if that causes any problems; it can be re-added, right? DiscordantNote^Cntrbtns 19:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That's OK, it looks fine as it is. No harm done. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 19:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The critical review stuff that is direct quotes is going to be POV to some extent or another. That is ok. The NPOV thing is for how the information is presented, not for direct quotes. It is difficult if not impossible to un-POV someone else's thoughts. Xela Yrag 16:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Citation #41

It's messed up. Bad. Very bad. I have no clue how to fix it or what went wrong. Someone fix it... NOW!!! ok, now on an unrelated note, i feel the need to tell you all that at 8:30pm et yesterday January 23, ima member =) → p00rleno (lvl 81) ←ROCKS^C_RS 12:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone forgot to add a closing ref tag. I've added the closing tag, but I hope no information was lost. By the way, congratulations on becoming a member! What's your RuneScape username? (Mine's Hildanknight.) I need several members to help fletch me arrows - are you interested? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Man those refs and all the other link stuff can get kinda confusing at times eh! Congrats new member lol now we can go to castle wars together and kick umm.... yea you get it add me guys if you all like to , (maverick4230) see ya on the battle fields! Maverick423 14:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the link is fixed, at least for the time being. Congratz on membership. You'll be busy for quite awhile getting those member skills up to par with your other skills. LOL. I'd say give me a holler (yes, I am Xela Yrag in game too), but that is easier said that done. As a mod, I pretty much have to keep my private chat on friends or I am inundated with outrageous requests from people I do not know. Xela Yrag 16:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

hey you know i think i have seen you in catherby before. you were a girl wearing red mystic or something. well tell ya what why dont you add everyone that placed the names here that way we can chat with you! i know this is out of subject and all so sorry. but still i suggest something on a new paragraph

Have fun with that! I'm Quino Kataya there...still free-to-play though (I may upgrade during the summer). My chat also tends to be on private for the same reasons Xela has. I'll add everyone here though, so you will be able to chat with me despite that. On topic, at least it's fixed now. I don't see how a coding error that simple would mess up any information, so I think we're fine. DiscordantNote^Cntrbtns 16:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

unrelated: man i just got screwed. i wore my sara into zammy portal at castle wars... IMP!! → p00rleno (lvl 81) ←ROCKS^C_RS 20:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

My RuneScape name is just p00rleno, ill open my friendlist for a few days, but so we can be organized, put your usernames here: → p00rleno (lvl 81) ←ROCKS^C_RS 20:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

1. P00rleno User:Poorleno

Read WP:REF and other policy pages. It's actually not that hard to handle once you get used to it. I too was afraid of the deadly reference monster when I was a new user here, but I gradually started to incorporate different styles of referencing in all articles I was involved in. Nishkid64 23:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

General note: Please discuss off-topic issues in the user talk namespace. Thanks!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 01:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Runescape

ok guys well like i said we were getting out of topic up there ^^^ anyways we should start a team on Runescape itself and chat there as pals and whatnot. we can keep up with updates and eachother this way

add your runescape name here if your intrested in a runescape wikipedia team or just basicly haveing more runescape friends!!!

(RS Name: Maverick4230) Maverick423 16:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the rest of this convorsation to User_talk:Maverick423#Runescape - please continue it there. Article talk pages aren't discussion forums. Agentscott00^(talk) 21:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright thanks much Agentscott well on a final refreance for those of you all intrested just add your name to my talk page and we will talk were it is more approprate. Maverick423 22:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference tagging

I would like to make a general note for editors to read WP:REF. Before I had to close the ref tag, the article had a major reference problem.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 01:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Map Size

well guys as we know the size of runescape is increasing greatly lately. do you think we should add this to the article in a breif paragraph or just mention it on the graphics area or something like that?

Maverick423 14:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Not worth noting, I think, but we have been thinking of creating an image of the map that shows the differences between the free and member worlds. Unless they have a huge map update, it's probably not worth mentioning on its own. DiscordantNote^Cntrbtns 15:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

that would be cool but the image would have to be sized down considerably to display it due to its large size Maverick423 15:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No, we'd just need a thumbnail. Wikipedia's got images that dwarf the size of RuneScape's map by a lot, you know. DiscordantNote^Cntrbtns 19:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

ah yes the PX command right sounds good then. but the file size itself is quite large i belive it was about 2 or 3 megabites Maverick423 20:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Size of picture and file size go hand in hand, you know. Once again, size is not a problem. DiscordantNote^Cntrbtns 01:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Where would we get the map from? I doubt the tip.it map cannot be copied - • The Giant Puffin • 10:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this problem already resolved? if anything a person can download the map from the official runescape website Maverick423 18:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

We could do that, but then we'd have to check what the copyright policies and stuff are for it since it's the official map. DiscordantNote^Cntrbtns 01:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Death section

I have reworked this for grammar and consistency with the rest of the article, but I am not sure this is needed here. All this information should already be in the Combat article, so I think we need to decide how much is actually needed in this, the Main article. I would like to get some of the rest of the major editors' opinions, tho, before I delete it. So, what do you think?? Xela Yrag 16:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Its a pretty informative section and it states a major diffrence of runescape from other games such as the losing all items and stuff. i think its something someone considering playing would like to know. but then again it is extra information that should be only in combat. well i say delete it from here and move it to combat. if someone acctually wants to play the game and learn more they would go there eventually. but then again thats just me speaking Maverick423 17:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure that I count as a major editor, but I agree. The section is there to summarize what is available in the combat sub-page. I'd suggest porting the lot and adding a snippet back if you feel it's warranted. QuagmireDog 17:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, there seems to be a lot items/play-styles within combat which could be brought back as a sumary, possibly increasing the size of the combat section in the main but at the same time keeping the 'under the microscope' combat details in its own articles but giving readers of the main article a more rounded picture. QuagmireDog 17:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

What happens to players when they die would be an important section to keep in the main article especially the part of losing items which is different from other games. Players don't expect to die from those random events until it happens to them. Players can get skulled without attacking another player in the Abyss. And then there are the safe minigames where players can die, but still keep items; maybe the exceptions could be expanded in the combat article. But definitely mention something about death in the main article. Petersam 06:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This is my only concern: Will that particular piece of information prove beneficial to those reading the article who do not play RuneScape? Now we have to consider 3 possibilities:

1. The reader is a frequent gamer
2. The reader is reading the article for research
3. Random Article was used and the reader was curious about the article

The information in question would only be beneficial to the 1st possibility, the frequent gamer. Now you also have to consider that not much people are video gamers. It's mostly the younger population interested in RuneScape. Therefore, is it safe to assume that the info is fancruft?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 16:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is fancruft as it is written now, but the question is: should it be in the main article or only in the combat article? I can see both sides of this one, which is why I asked for some opinions. Xela Yrag 17:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The RuneScape article is meant to give readers general information about the video game. That's where readers get their general reading. Now if they want to delve further into more detailed information about combat, then they go to the Combat article. I really think that the information in question should go to Combat.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 22:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The main article should as a summary of points, any in-depth information should be put in the appropriate sub-article - • The Giant Puffin • 10:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, reduce the 6 sentences to 1 - something like: "Players die when their hitpoints to fall to zero; they also lose almost all of the items they were wearing or carrying." The parts about respawning, skulled, protection, numbers, and what they keep/lose can go to the combat article. Petersam 22:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Not sure if I'm overreacting, but someone put links to "Cheating websites". I am removing that sector (which was near the bottom) now. Kang227 02:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No overreaction. Cheat sites are not cool. They damage the article, send readers to probably malware-laden sites and will look to Jagex like we are condoning cheating, which'll give them sufficient reason to order us to remove the screenshots. They were added by Jeremybub (talk • contribs). CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 02:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If they have the power to order us to remove the screenshots, they are not really fair use, so we shouldn't have them in the first place. -Amark moo! 02:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought fair use was based on the assumption that the copyright holder wouldn't mind, as long as it doesn't harm their profits or anything? And judging by that license in the fansite kit, Jagex do mind about cheating. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 02:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to check with a Wikipedia lawyer on that one. If it so happens that Jagex wants the images removed, then what shall we do? We need to make sure that we know what were doing here.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 03:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use, at least in the United States, is conditions under which you may legally use copyrighted works, regardless of the wishes of the copyright holder. It is based on what they won't care about, and one of the criteria is that it doesn't infringe their ability to sell the product, but a company can't just say "You can't use my picture" if it's legal fair use. And if we are using copyrighted pictures in any other way, they need to be removed and deleted as soon as possible. -Amark moo! 04:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't gotten any results yet from the people I asked, but I think Amarkov is right. WP:FU says that we are permitted to use the copyrighted images for educational uses. I guess that's why fair use images aren't permitted outside of the mainspace, since the other mainspaces aren't for the benefit of the rest of the world.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 14:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It's no big deal. I'm not saying this is going to happen, its just that Jagex might just take offense if we have more links to cheating sites than official/fansites, and may not see it as educational. It's the images from the fansite kit that I meant really; the license with it forbids use for promoting cheating. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 22:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

What is this fansite kit, anyway? I keep hearing about it, but I've never seen actual information on it. -Amark moo! 22:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Behold! The fansite kit! :-D It's a pack of screenshots, logos and so forth. Jagex supply their own special license with it, which could even allow us to use images from it outside of the article space, just as long as it isn't being used to scam people or promote cheating or anything, otherwise Mr. Flibble will be very cross. That's what's getting me worried, as for starters the RS logo at the top of the article is from the fansite kit. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 23:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should be using images under that license at all, or under any license which can be arbitrarily revoked for certain people. Unless we can make a decent fair use argument... -Amark moo! 02:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not? We've got no reason to alter them (a), WP:IUP says we have to cite runescape.com as the source (b), acknowledging cheating exists is fine, as long as we aren't promoting it (and WP:NPOV forbids that), and of course the last person who made a serious attempt at scamming was indef blocked and checkusered (c), we're obviously not pretending we are an official RS site, we're Wikipedia (d), and as we won't be misusing them, Jagex won't have any need to withdraw permission (e). We're supposed to favour free over fairuse, correct? Well, whilst these aren't truely free images, they're free-er than a simple screenshot. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 15:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

runescape cheating

i think there needs to be more said about this, possibly another article. whenever i try to edit anything, it gets reversed, so someone who is more knowledgeable should write on the subject. it is very prolific, and readers should not be left in the dark Jeremybub 02:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources for it being so prolific? If you do not, we can't include it. -Amark moo! 02:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

31 January 2007 (UTC)Zezima, N0valyfe, The Old Nite, are the most popular cheating characters and X x Jut x X is the known as the most honest player

www.sythe.org, cheatin/runescape item-selling forum. 400,000 posts (scroll to the bottom)

www.moparisthebest.com/smf runescape cheating forum 500,000 posts, 75,000 regestered users

www.dylock.net/scar easily downloadable free runescape macro, has VERY advanced scripts written for it.

http://kaitnieks.com/index2/rscnhistory/ a history of runescape cheating, i can understand if you dont immediatly trust this source

as you can see, people are very active cheating... i can give you half a dozen other sites where you can find macroes, but these are the most popular.

Jeremybub 04:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, those sources are not reliable. -Amark moo! 04:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Some possible sources:

• [25]
• [26]
• [27]
• [28]
• [29]

--Exarion 04:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

you can browse the 500,000 posts... thats reliable... you can download scar and see it works smoothly...and jagex does not have to tell the truth about everything in those announcements... they say most private servers are keyloggers, etc. do you think someone made a fake website and generated hundreds of thousands of fake, but real sounding posts? give it the benifit of the doubt. Jeremybub 04:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that any of this would reliably source is the statement "Some users will use cheating tools to obtain goods in the game". Something like that is already in the article, I believe, and if not, it should be. -Amark moo! 04:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

if you try getting a runescape macro at any of those sites and many more, you will find it's very easy. there are thousands of accounts being banned, and jagex pretends that it is catching all the macroers, when in reality, there are many more that go uncaught. thousands of people are doing this, and vast networks and programs have been generated just for this purpose... i think it deserves more than a sentance, also considering that jagex spends a considerable amount of time trying to catch macroers.Jeremybub 04:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it deserves more than a sentence, unfortunately. What matters is that you can reliably source the more than a sentence, and you can't, really. -Amark moo! 04:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

well, if you look at it from perspective, you are getting informationm from the source... and if you go to the websites, and test it out, you are getting information from yourself... what will it take for you to trust a website? if you get informarion from the masses, you will see, cheating is very prolific!! Jeremybub 04:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Testing it out to verify it would violate WP:OR, and "the masses" can be wrong. Please read WP:RS. -Amark moo! 05:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

uggg,i guess all this formal stuff has blinded you from the truth...permanently... i wasnt aware of the OR rule...i guess people will have to be enlightened at places other than wikipedia Jeremybub 05:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It hasn't blinded me from the truth. I believe you fully about cheating being a problem. But two people's opinions do not mean that it is true. For all anyone else knows, we're both blowing it out of proportion, and maybe we are. -Amark moo! 05:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

A sentence is all we need on the subject. It informs the reader of the issue, and that's all we need. Wikipedia is neither a gaming guide nor a hacking site. Plus, several guidelines, not just WP:OR, would prevent you from posting this (for example, WP:CRUFT comes to mind because only certain people playing the game would care about such 'tools'). Yes, there is a cheating problem, but you are blowing it WAY out of proportion. Judging by what you're saying, one would assume that over half of the user populace uses scripts and programs. This is certainly not the case, as it would be very obvious in-game (tons of level 3s mining mithril in the mining guild, for example). Speaking of macroing, it has decreased considerably since the implementation of a few coding tweaks that Jagex has mentioned every now and then. You still see it, but it's not nearly as bad.

As much as we appreciate your concern about a possible lack of information in this article, it's something we really don't need. DiscordantNote^Cntrbtns 07:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Is cheating mentioned anywhere on a reliable fansite or on the official RS website? The knowledge base or security section of the official website must have something on it because of the risks its poses to new players - • The Giant Puffin • 10:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The section explaining the rules on the official site would be your best bet. I'm not sure how much of it would be useful though. DiscordantNote^Cntrbtns 16:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Its not really about cheating, it just says not to cheat and to report any bugs you find. I suppose this could be mentioned somewhere in the article, but its not really relevent to what Jeremybub brought up - • The Giant Puffin • 16:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

actually, in case you didnt notice, go to any yew tree or coal mining location...you will find at least one lvl three autoer (probably default clothes), and most likely several more, whixh might be a lot harder to find because of autoresponders... those few coding tweaks...baloney...the huge amount of macroers dissappeared, because a huge bot that hacked into the client died. the reason was that the makers got sick of everyone bugging them for updates, so in one release, they made it set everyones UID to -1. thus, all the macroers were easily detectable, and they got banned. however, two new macroes have recently been made that i know of... and two more are in the making. if you go on runescape, you will notice a lot of lvl 3 autoers with "aisian" sounding names... which could mean that there are two cheating communities. if you ask any "legit" player, they will tell you about how many macroers there are... they hate em. and, i could prove to you how abundant macroers are, but that would ONLY go against OR... otherwise i would. Jeremybub 17:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC) how about this? http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?t=599280 Jeremybub 20:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry, fansite forums don't count as official research. DiscordantNote^Cntrbtns 02:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok im going to pretend that i never played runescape and am reading the article for information on it ok. basicly yes i would get a good view of the game from here however when i start reading about how people can cheat on this game well that would be a big turn off. My computer bites! it cant handle macroning programs or whatever. If its a game that cant be played honestly were everyone is in the same lvl of playing abilitys then i wouldnt play it. Basicly I Dont Want to Hear about People Cheating! the reason? if im a new player and i hear that people are cheating then whats the use of playing? some lvl 3 is going to have billions in credits while i have to work so hard just to get 100? puting such information (although true) would really make people think twice about playing the game and that is where Jagex can do something. they can sue or just force the article to be removed because it is damageing their busniss. this information can be more harmful then good if u think about it. Put yourself in a new players shoes and think about it. Maverick423 15:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That really doesn't matter either...Wikipedia, though it's nice for telling people about stuff, is not meant to be an advertisement for anything. We tell everyone, and by everyone I mean anyone that can access the internet, what they need to know. In this case, they don't need to know how bad the cheating is or how it's done, just that it exists. We also should have no control over how much they like the game, and we shouldn't try to change that. DiscordantNote^Cntrbtns 17:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

True I understand what you are saying but im just stating that to post the links and methods of cheating is just going to promote critisim on the article. Mentioning it is ok as long as the ways of cheating are not emphasized. Maverick423 18:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Which they won't be for the reasons mentioned above. Don't worry about it, we know what we're doing. ;-) DiscordantNote^Cntrbtns 20:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

To-do list

I think that the to-do list is too long and needs to be condensed. Any ideas?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 03:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...well, we don't need two sections up there for the fansites (especially stuff that references changes to other pages, such as the portal). We don't need to include specific stuff regarding Wikipedia guidelines (citing sources, fancruft, etc.) either....just a condensed reminder ought to work. DiscordantNote^Cntrbtns 07:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of the to-do list is now irrelevent as its already been done. Some of it also needs editing because of partial progress with some of the points - • The Giant Puffin • 10:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Runescape creatures

Could you not make a Runescape creatures page? as the bosses and enemies in the game help you alot in your combat skills. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.156.224.238 (talk • contribs).

There was an article on it,but it got deleted. J.J.Sagnella 08:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was deemed to specific and crufty - • The Giant Puffin • 10:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"Improve referencing in the introduction section."

Is there really that much more that could be done to the introduction? It has 7 references, and most of the information not referenced is either referenced later in the article or directs to another article - • The Giant Puffin • 09:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should clear the to-do list. I'll get to that right now.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 17:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Much better, little point in having a to-do list that never seems to be updated, better to add current issues with the article starting now. I'll clean the general reminders section that's under the header, some of these are long out-of-date (any regular contributor who still needs reminding that WP has rules needs a slipper around the face, leading by example will help new contributors). QuagmireDog 17:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of current issues, what kinds of problems do we have with this article? In my opinion, all we have to do is to improve the critical review section.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 18:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thats the main problem. There are still some minor problems though. Some of the article needs extending. Its mainly general improvement as opposed to specifics - • The Giant Puffin • 19:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've renamed the section to 'Response', as in what the outside world thinks of this strange beastie. Obtaining more information from secondary sources would be ideal (if they exist), but then that's always been the case. The 'Criticism and Response' section is awkward, one-sided and IMO is overreaching. It certainly provides citable evidence of RS' continued development in a NPOV fashion, but what's listed is details from the primary source, not secondary sources highlighting problems with RS. Even the title seems a little lop-sided 'they have criticisms but here's how they've responded'. Yet the criticism isn't sourced from reliable secondaries and the 'response' is in effect cherry-picked - this is what they've been working on, not what they haven't. I think the best thing to do with it would be a very slight trim and then a move to the development section. 'NPOV' covers the entire article and everything within, this section adds no weight to the neutrality of the reception/critical response section. Anybody else see it that way? QuagmireDog 22:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean - • The Giant Puffin • 11:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

From the proposed guideline WP:Criticism -

Criticism in a "Criticism" section In general, making separate sections with the title "Criticism" is discouraged. The main argument for this is that they are often a troll magnet (see quotes in See also section below).

Criticism sections should not violate Article structures that can imply a point of view. These sections must not be created to marginalize criticism or critics of the article's topic or imply that this criticism is not true while the more positive claims in the rest of the article are.

Reasons to create a separate "Criticism" section include using a source which only criticizes the topic or only describes criticisms of it. Also, not having the time or knowledge to integrate criticism into the other sections of the article might be a reason to create a separate "Criticism" section. In that case, however, the separate "Criticism" section might be only a temporary solution until someone integrates the criticism (in the mean while the "separate" section might be tagged).

Criticism in a "Reception" or "Reception history" section Often Wikipedia articles separate the description of a topic from a description of how the topic was received. This is often the clearest (also, this often helps to keep the description of the topic itself neutral). Another advantage might be that a general "reception history" section usually avoids to be "all negative" or "exclusively laudatory" about the topic.

I think the above pretty much sums up the problems with the existing 'criticism and response' section. Some discussion would be good on this. QuagmireDog 14:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

References

I think this is something that needs to be cleaned up a bit. First off, do we really need a fact tag for the line in Membership about exchange rates? Second, can we link directly to the player's gallery as a reference for the small paragraph we have about it? If there's any others we can get rid of or source properly, we probably should do so before we submit this for review again. DiscordantNote^Cntrbtns 19:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont think we need a fact tag for the exchange bit - • The Giant Puffin • 19:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Do we even need the exchange bit itself? A price difference of a dollar or two (or whatever currencies it applies to) isn't really that important, and we would have fun trying to cite it. I've heard it mentioned only once before, so it can't really be that huge of a problem. AScott00 20:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should drop it then - • The Giant Puffin • 20:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I put the information in there and I did it because of a request and some confusion. I asked several of my in-game international friends to verify its truth, but could not find a citable source. If you think it needs to go, that is fine. Just trying to give the information I have. 216.30.213.50 15:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC) Oops, I wasn't logged in when I posted that. 8) Xela Yrag 15:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok i got a quick question here. Runescape doesnt charge taxes right? or at least not yet? anyways just a question Maverick423 18:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It probably does, but the tax is already included in the membership fee.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 01:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah i see. well i made a article on Virtual Tax about a month or two ago and well if we can find proof that runescape taxes members (like you stated it probably has it in the fee) or of all the games that tax and sites that tax for that matter then we can start making a list of them there. the only ones i have found are maple story that charges a tax and paypal that charges for transactions. i dont know if anyone is intrested in finding out but as far as my searches are concerned i cant seem to find a tax on runescape. maybe someone else will have better luck? Maverick423 20:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Dumb question here, but do we care? It's not added onto my payment every month - it's a straight $5.00 deduction. My British friends say the same. My Norwegian friends say it is included in the fee. Xela Yrag 22:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Your right we shouldnt care, however since the tax is stated that it is included into the payment, then that itself makes it a Virtual Tax. its not weather we care or not its weather the tax is there. simple as that. Maverick423 14:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Even then, we don't need to write much about it. Maybe just something like "Runescape charges $xx.xx (plus tax) for full membership" or something will do. DiscordantNote^Cntrbtns 20:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Or in this case just simply (taxes included)Maverick423 20:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

3rd Party Software

Shoukldn't this page contain information about 3rd party runescape saoftware, like swiftswich, and so on?--Stranhorox 04:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Aside from a brief mention that acknowledges that those things exist, no. We have a discussion a little further up the page on the subject if you wish to contribute. DiscordantNote^Cntrbtns 12:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There should only be a brief reference to keep the article tightly focused on the main topic, which I believe is still a FA criterion. — Deckiller 12:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Joshw26's Comment

Yes I cut through everyone else's articles. Well anyway I was on Runescape before i heard of Wikipedia. It is a terrific game! I p2p and have a native tribe called the Runewikin tribe. I am the chief, and my username on there is Joshw26. Hee hee hee...

Welcome to the RuneScape articles on Wikipedia. I have moved your comment to the bottom of the talk page. Please post your comments at the bottom from now on. Xela Yrag 22:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition, please use ==level 2 headings==--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 01:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Runescape log in problems?

has anyone else noticed a problem with runescape??

i cant seem to log in it says login server offline

is it a update or somethign? Maverick423 03:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, this is a tricky one. Do you think the login server is offline by any chance? ¬_¬ Error messages are there for a reason, try guessing what it means first time. This isn't a discussional forum about the game, sorry. Next time take it to a fansite, the forums, or customer support. AScott00 03:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Lol i already did but well the gameservers themselvs look so empty its strange well i guess i will try later68.201.101.192 04:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please keep any discussion here relevant! You guys could go message each other on AIM or MSN or something, but if it is not relevant to the article, then don't discuss it here. Thanks. Nishkid64 02:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This page is for Wikipedia-related stuff - • The Giant Puffin • 13:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the logging in problems can be placed in the Critical Review section???--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 04:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

They're not frequent enough (to my knowledge at least), and when there is a serious problem they announce it and it doesn't last long. DiscordantNote^Cntrbtns 05:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If it happens again, or becomes a regular occurance, a mention is probably a good idea - • The Giant Puffin • 10:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless the log-in problems are documented on RS or by an outside source, then adding anything about them is original research. What's to say about them? "The site experiences occasional issues which prevent users from logging in"? Same as pretty much every site then. The message about problems was removed as soon as the problem was fixed, any chance of a citation disappeared along with it. I'd suggest focussing on obtaining secondary sources to provide more balanced opinion, rather than over-reaching with minor foibles that can't be documented. I've really got to stop posting. QuagmireDog 11:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Problems with logging in are not a common occurance, and I see no point in including them in the article. Pyrospirit ^{Talk Contribs} 14:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Importance assessment

I put this article up for an importance assessment, as it is currently unrated on this scale - • The Giant Puffin • 16:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance, but what is an importance assessment? Xela Yrag 18:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a rating from none>low>medium>high for inclusion in the CD-based version of WP, they're often given along with the page status rank (or whatever it's called, the 'B' in our case). QuagmireDog 18:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Unfortunately it wasn't in our case - • The Giant Puffin • 19:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, since the wonder Internet version is much better than the CD version! It covers more articles are and always updated.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 00:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

One needs not ask for a rating but sometimes when you are a player, it is hard keeping a NPOV. I rate it mid and on a side note to QuagmireDog, I believe that Core is the level after high importance. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Oooh, don't remember ever seeing one of those (need to randomly roll around pages more), thanks for the rating. QuagmireDog 04:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - • The Giant Puffin • 14:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The link was still up at the CVG Assessment page, so I'll chime in- I'm agreeing with both the B-class rating as well as the Mid-importance rating recently added. I'd suggest submitting it to GAC sometime, if, you know, being stable wasn't one of the main 6 requirements. --PresN 17:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Website

There isn't actually a section in the article about the RuneScape website - all information pertains to the game itself. Does anyone else think it would be a good idea to create a section on this?  H4cksaw  (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

We do have a few mentions of other things, such as the postbag and the gallery, in the article. Considering the game takes up most of the website, how much more can we add that isn't somehow part of it? DiscordantNote^Cntrbtns 17:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It might warrant its own section, with a type 3 header. I doubt much more is appropriate - • The Giant Puffin • 21:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Mining animated GIF

Rather than start a counter productive revert war, I thought I'd bring this issue up here. I recently replaced the image of someone mining with an animated version (see right) which was reverted twice by people who believed it would slow down older computers. I don't understand this logic when:

1. The RuneScape Skills page has seven animated GIFs, all of which have been there for a long period of time.
2. Why should we be limiting the content on Wikipedia because it may or may not slow down some older computers? Surely we should be aiming to provide the best content we can? Things like featured pictures aren't downsampled because they won't fit on somebody's monitor!

Which brings me on to my second point - the image on the right is clearly much better than the existing image for three reasons:

1. The area depicted in the current image no longed exists in the game, and the image is misleading about the appearance of the mining rocks.
2. Animation is much better at demonstrating an action - people can clearly see how the action works, and what is happening.
3. The existing JPEG has compression artifacts in both thumbnail and full size view.

I'd also like to point out that other pages on Wikipedia take advantage of animations as well - take a look here and you'll find three on one page. Now, if you've got any points of opposition, I'd be glad to hear them and discuss the subject with you.  H4cksaw  (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer an animated picture to a normal one - • The Giant Puffin • 10:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

We don't need an animated picture of anything, not even the combat one. People don't need the extra animation to figure out what's supposed to be happening. The reason there are three images on the page you linked to was because it's an article dealing with physics; something that is VERY difficult to explain to many people in words alone. Mining, on the other hand, can be explained in a short paragraph, and any information it lacks can easily be derived from a still picture. Who says the RuneScape Skills page is correct in its usage?

I don't agree with the obsoleteness of the still image either...this article is first and foremost for people who most likely never heard of the game, so how would they know the difference? Plus, many mining rocks still have that color scheme...go to the mining guild, Karamja, or Crandor and look around if you don't believe me. Also, not every picture on Wikipedia has to be worthy of high-definition, so who cares about a few compression artifacts?

And finally, when you think about it many featured pictures ARE downsampled...even the thing you see on the image page is only a thumbnail, and thumbnails, being smaller than the original image, take less time to load. DiscordantNote^Cntrbtns 14:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Umm excuse me but the Location on the image DOES exsist, i acctually go mine there every once in a while. it is located in the islan volcano where the dragon (you know the green one that you have to kill on the dragon slayer quest) is at. you can also access it by an underground tunnel from karimig the jungle(cant spell that one). in anyways the image is still valid because the area DOES exsist. Maverick423 15:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it only half exists, and it's not on Crandor (the island you mentioned). Nowhere on Crandor is there mithril and adamantite right next to each other. The location pictured is from the Lumbridge Swamps, which were revamped recently. The location is still there, just changed around a bit, but none of it matters since the picture still illustrates the point perfectly. DiscordantNote^Cntrbtns 16:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

ahh i see thanks for the corrections. Maverick423 16:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Also bear in mind the fair use requirements on images. In that respect, "Is it really necessary to the article" is a very legitimate question; all images should have fair use rationales to say why they are necessary. Additionally, use of fair use images on talk pages is verboten, so I've reduced the above image to an inline link. Have a fair day. Nifboy 21:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this has actually highlighted a problem and offered part of the solution, bear with me. Fair use is one of those WP gremlins which lurches towards you, gibbering, as you wander the WP wilderness. It's been following me around for months, hooting and clapping, I've never found the time or will to stare the little bleeder down, but have started to recently.

The RS series, despite best intentions, to me looks like it's gone from fair use to extremely unfair use, using excessive images and animations which are little different from each other in order to demonstrate nothing more than the player animations. This has already been covered in a sentence or two on the main article (or at least it was). I'll find the text and post it right here > Each activity performed by a player, from walking down a city street to planting a seed in a farming plot, has its own distinctive animation.

I think there's a compromise that can settle this dispute, take us leaps and bounds away from violating the fair use policies and also give article readers something more relevant to look at:

• 1) The mining image in question is for the skills section, which in turn leads to a sub-article awash with fair use images. The same could be said for the combat image with the character using the Darklight special. Removal of both of these images will not impact the main article or the sub-article it represents in the slightest. What they're there to demonstrate has already been done and then some.
• 2) The skills page has too many animations. I would suggest one for each type of skill (gather/process/indy) and the skill cape emote is plenty.
• 3) Whilst I'm sure we're all appreciative of the user who took the time to make all these animations, there's a missed opportunity. Having the same character model with the same clothing does not demonstrate one of RS' biggest assets - the range of clothing and armour available. Now, whilst there's an argument that says having the character in the same clothing places emphasis on what that character is actually doing (the only difference), it doesn't look right.
• 4) The new mining image could replace the old woodcutting image from the skills page. If the agility animation and cape emoticon animation stayed, that would only leave one image left to replace - the processing animation. If someone were willing to make a processing animation with a completely differently dressed character then we'd have four animations, each with a different character doing a different task. Looks great, gets the message across and doesn't take the proverbial out of Jagex's copyright. An example: A female player character with long blue or white hair, black (t) armour, obby cape, matching grey gloves and boots and a highywayman mask or black mask, smelting or smithing etc. Completely different look and doing something other than standing around cutting a small piece of wood.
• 5) The main page could do with another image or two further down for sections not represented by sub-articles, especially since doing the above would actually subtract five images from our total. What about a random? Is the mysterious old man animation still kicking around somewhere?

Anyway, I put that to you all. Only one other animation would need to be supplied to do all that (assuming the MOM or a similar random image is still available), and I think it'd kill several chompies with one arrow. QuagmireDog 12:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

wait let me get this straight. Do you want us to add more images? or remove and combine some? Make new ones so we can have 4 more with diffrent cloths doing diffrent things sounds great but if we are going to add them all then that might be a prob. as far as removing some yea i agree some of the images are getting old after all runescape is upgrading alot and more and more improvements are being made so some pictures will have to go sooner or later. Maverick423 15:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Bit of a mouthful isn't it, let me break it down. There are two parts, one for our current issues and one for future considerations. So, for now I'm suggesting:

• Remove the static mining image from the main page, the skills page contains plenty of images which do the same thing, the skills section is just a summary anyway.
• Remove the Darklight special attack image representing the combat article, for the same reasons. That's two images freed up.
• From the skills page, remove the herb picking image, one extraction skill image is enough. The character appears to be having a tug-of-war with thin air and losing, not exactly the best looking example of extraction.
• From the skills page, remove the runecrafting image, one processing skill image is also enough. The player character spends half the animation standing like a zombie, not as interesting as the fletching image.
• From the skills page, remove the Slayer image, ditto. The player appears to be magically transforming a rock slug into a hammer with some magic powder - not a patch on the log-crossing agility animation. That's five images gone.
• The last step is to replace the woodcutting image with the new mining animation, maintaining the four images used on the page.

All that is what I'm suggesting we could do right now, with consensus, to remove excessive fair-use images and to use the new mining animation, thus ending the dispute. Further to that I'm suggesting in the future that:

• Another animation for the processing skills, with a character wearing different garb could be added to the skills page, if everyone's happy about that and if some generous soul is willing to create it. Thus each of the four images shows a different character and shows off the range of attire available to players.
• The removal of the two images from the main page would allow images to be placed on other sections which don't have sub-articles - the randoms seems ideal and (hopefully) an image still exists to be placed there. There's no hurry at all with this suggestion, but I wanted to mention it so nobody thinks "gods, we're just going to de-populate the main article", but hopefully instead considers how images could be used to convey other parts of the game that the current ones do not. Hope that makes a bit more sense QuagmireDog 18:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm i like what your getting to QuagmireDog. well what we can do for the skills images is combine 4 or more into a single GIF and display them. (for example put mining fletching smelting and runecrafting all together in one single GIF.)

If you would all like i can create the GIF i have a GIF creator that allows me to do so. we can have 1 picture showing 4 skills at the same time. very intresting and it will get the point across very fast.

If you all decide you do want this i suggest we upload the 4 images that we want merged (take a vote on which ones we want in the GIF)then i will place them and merge them into one single GIF. Also if and when we select lets try our best to get diffrent clothing in there (mage cloths warrior armor archer armor etc) that way people can also see the diffrent armors and stuff. Maverick423 15:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very generous of you. That said, could we put that aside for now? I've already asked folks to consider a good few things and baby-steps are easier to take. A bit worried that this thing is just going to get bigger and bigger. QuagmireDog 11:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

heh not a prob im ready when the time is right. just ask and ill get right to it but untill then im ganna be playing =P Maverick423 16:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Troll Section

Messages hidden. → p00rleno (lvl 82) ←ROCKS^C_RS 12:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

are you stating that someone left hidden messages on the runescape page? Nvm i saw what happenedMaverick423 15:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Fancruft – we need to be careful

I've noticed a somewhat problematic trend in this article recently. Everything seems to be becoming increasingly generalised. Yes, we need to make sure that the article isn't overwhelmed with fancruft and gameguides, but I think we've been going overboard. You see, I think that what really causes problems is not detail, but information with no context. Of course, unencylopedic lists and ridiculous amounts of detail on minor points are never good, but still... It's not a good thing if we reduce all the information in the article to vague generalizations, either. Now, one of the most common explanations I see for removing fancruft is, "People don't really need to know all this information." But isn't that the whole point of Wikipedia? Look at any featured article, and you'll find a good deal of information that the casual reader would have little interest in; however, it is well explained, relevant, and put in context. So, maybe we should have more detail, even if it does go into more depth than most people need. As long as everything is well written, relevant, and with sufficient context, there should be no problem. In the long run, it would be a big improvement for the article. Pyrospirit ^{Talk Contribs} 16:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree! im tired of all this fancruft nonsence! people dont want to know this people dont want to know that; then tell me what do they want to know? (POV starts here) when i read a article i want as much information as i can get and example of this was radiation poisoning. they stated all the dosed of radiation that youcan get and the symptoms of it. however they never once stated on the article about how it feels to touch radiation with your hands and if you can feel warmth or anything when your touching it. I had to go to the science refrence desk to get this information. it would of been nice if it was in the article itself because i wouldnt of had to wait 1 hour to get my awnser as opposed to just reading it to begin with.The extra information is good! and people wont be asking about it in talk pages or have to risk going to virus infected websites or fansites to find out. (POV ends here) well a little extra informaion is good and this fancruft issue is just an excuse to what i see as vandelism. people dont want to know but what about those that acctually get so into the article itself that they do? its not neccessarly fans Maverick423 17:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

My point exactly. Even very specific, detailed information is understandable to anyone if it's explained clearly. Pyrospirit ^{Talk Contribs} 18:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you give some examples of where you think the information was too enthusiastically cut back? QuagmireDog 18:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Bagsy the word 'radiationcruft'. :-D

This shouldn't be an offensive against every trace of borderline crufty information, we just need to keep out the vast lists of weapons, armour, monsters, quests and quest guides, in game landmarks (like the locations of farming spots, Saradomin altars or those wierd teleport rocks in the wilderness) and so forth. Avoiding using in-game terminology and language where possible, and explain it where you have to. Just imagine you are talking to a friend who knows nothing about RuneScape, and a little at most about gaming/MMOs. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 19:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed. --Exarion 01:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

While i dont mean add like land marks and stuff i mean some of the information is sometimes valid and necessary yet it gets deleted. and as far as fansites go great puffin is right a list like that would be just a waste. and like i stated we dont want to be having our readers risk going to virus infected sites. Maverick423 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course I don't want unencyclopedic lists everywhere, but I've seen plenty of cases where fancruft removal removes good information as well. A small example is the information on the Skull in the Wilderness. It used to say that the Skull lasts for 20 minutes, which is precise and not in the least confusing; now it only says "a period of time". That is not only awkward-sounding but also less accurate and more confusing, as it could mean anything from half a minute to a few days. It's things like that that cause problems. Pyrospirit ^{Talk Contribs} 18:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That does need to be fixed. the fact that its not percise will confuse many readers. but what about the fan cruft excuse what can we do if that issue arises? Maverick423 18:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If that comes in a specific situation, we revert and explain on the talk page. If an article is AfD'd for cruft, we clean up the page and post on the AfD discussion. If an admin deletes a good page, we request undeletion. Not much more we can do than that. Pyrospirit ^{Talk Contribs} 01:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sections

Do we really need this many sections, or should we revert to this version --Exarion 01:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Revert please. Despite best intentions the article doesn't look right now (even the criticism and response section, which shouldn't be there, got its own heading >.<). QuagmireDog 08:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I've done it, looking at the history there's just a load of back-forth-back-forth except that the headers have been kept in. I've rolled it back to Captain Vindaloo's last edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by QuagmireDog (talk • contribs) 09:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Alexa rankings results

Over a two week period, the three sites were ranked eight times.

Totals (all ranks added together for each site):

• RuneHQ - 33,746
• Zybez - 40,495
• Tip.it - 34,087

Averages (total/8), rounded up or down to the nearest unit:

• RuneHQ - 4,218
• Zybez - 5,062
• Tip.it - 4,261

I have two suggestions based on the above:

• 1) If nothing else comes from this, reduce the fansites to one (1, uno) and cycle every month to another fansite. I don't see this as warranted but a lesser evil compared to the current situation.
• 2) This issue is a paper tiger, stop running.

The more I type the less interested folk seem to become so I'll try to keep to the point. Zybez has made huge strides but isn't in the running. RuneHQ and Tip.it are very close, but nonetheless RuneHQ came out with the lowest score.

The application of WP:IAR is not sustainable when it comes to linkspam, which is all this boils down to. IAR is specifically for edits which improve the encyclopedia. Adding a second link to another fansite does not improve the encyclopedia by any stretch, it doesn't offer a reader anything new. Switching from WP to google does not cause rupturing of the brain, if someone is looking for fansites then they can use a search engine like the rest of the world.

No amount of pre-emptive text prevents visitors from regularly changing the links. Reverting is easy, a quick explanation is all that's needed if anyone asks, no newcomers need to be bitten, we don't need to fear the paper tiger. Please change to a single link (they both do the same thing, I couldn't give a flying monkey's which), have a straw poll between the two sites if necessary, then stick with it. QuagmireDog 23:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's apparent zybez is not a canidate. But simply dropping another site is much more difficult. The average difference is 43, not enough to show anything significant, and those sites change daily. It would be difficult to establish any kind of consensus. --Exarion 01:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It's only difficult because the perception has been that we must constantly monitor the situation and that the fansite is a rod for our backs. The task at hand is to build a good article and impart as much relevant information as possible to the reader, it's not our job to constantly monitor websites. The changes to Zybez certainly warranted an extended period of monitoring, but day to day fluctuations between RuneHQ and Tip.it should be their webmasters' problem, not ours. Having two sites is going to get in the way of GA attempts and doesn't benefit our readers. 'Fairness' has been demonstrated repeatedly and thoroughly. If the alexa ranks don't show enough difference then we should have a straw poll, pick one, then get on with improving the articles. The amount of air-time afforded to this non-issue is getting well beyond a joke. QuagmireDog 02:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You know, I was just about to suggest a weekly rotation myself. Make any site with an Alexa rank better than, say, 6000 eligible, list them alphabetically and start from the top. Monthly would be best if there aren't many sites because there will be less editing involved, although some might complain about their favourite getting February. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 02:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we can remove the fansites all together. People come to Wikipedia to get basic information on RuneScape. Do you think they would benefit from going to a fansite? No. Also, think about it this way: the RS fansites don't make any sense to those who don't play the game. Did any of Wikipedia's processes make any sense to you before the first day you started editing? It sure didn't to me!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 03:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Remember though, there are people who come for a basic idea, a large amount of people already having a basic idea. J.J.Sagnella 09:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

But these people wouldn't understand the fansites unless they actually play RuneScape! A fansite is for fans, so people visiting the site would need a basic knowledge of the game and its jargon, culture, and inner workings.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 13:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

And for those people who played RuneScape before checking it up on here? I say adding links to fansites for *general* in-game information like quest guides and news is a *must* as these sorts of things aren't addable to Wikipedia and may be of use to everyone who reads. If the person goes from here to RuneScape to sign up then gets into the game, they might require the added help that a fansite can provide and that Wikipedia cannot. I personally think fansites should stay SmUX 21:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There wouldn't be an issue if a decision/straw poll/whatever was used to change to a single link, instead of stopping at the final hurdle. That said, WP:EL seems to have been altered recently, I can't even see the wording relating to a single fansite any more. I think a request for input from the EL talk page could settle the problem. QuagmireDog 20:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sal's Realm/Zybez

I have added Sal's Realm to the list of fansites, because Sal's Alexa ranking is higher than Tip.it And Rune HQ combined. Although, I see it has been removed. It may also be in order to add zybez to the list, as it too has higher rankings than tip.it and runehq.

Edit: What is the reasoning behind not wanting these two sites to be added? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gamerfreak (talk • contribs).

Because Alexa works by giving lower numbers to more popular sites, sort of like the results of a race. Sal's Realm has a greater Alexa number than the other sites, so it is therefore of a lower rank. We are currently selecting the fansite with the greatest Alexa ranking (lowest number); normally we would be linking to one site at most, as per Wikipedia:External links, but RuneHQ and Tip.it have been fluctuating for some time, so they are both linked to until the ranks stabilize again. This is intended as a temporary measure, but as there is no sign of stability any time soon, discussions have recently started (in the section above this one) of a new system. Suggestions include a rotation system, and having no fansites at all. Sign your posts! CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 22:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I was not aware of the ins and outs of Alexa. Also, I was not only basing it on the ranking, but the user reach of each site. Thank you though for filling me in, and I'll sign my posts from now on. Gamerfreak

archive?

Could we please archive this page? IMO it's a little bit long--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 04:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

We should only archive when everything is ettled. Is everything settled on this page? J.J.Sagnella 08:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Not yet. I was going to archive a few days ago but there's too many things left unfinished. Pyrospirit ^{Talk Contribs} 01:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, there are still discussions going on - • The Giant Puffin • 09:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, i put the archiveme tag on, its the thingy that looks like this. {{archiveme}} → p00rleno (lvl 83) ←ROCKS^C_RS 16:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because there's an {{archiveme}} tag doesn't mean we *have* to archive the page. Once the majority of the discussions have settled, we can archive it and copy continuing discussions to the new talk. AScott00 23:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Macroers banned

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

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

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

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

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

German translation now into beta testing

Just noticed this now:

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

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

Just so you folks know, when they get around to making a Spanish translation, I'm ready. My grammar is not too good, but I can get a draft of a potential article to the point where someone who knows more than me can clean it up. DiscordantNote^Cntrbtns 23:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about transferring information over to the Spanish Wikipedia? If so, I would be able to help out. I speak a little bit of Spanish, but I can try my best to help in translation.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

wtf you guys translating for. just say theres a german version available. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bakeeshbaba (talk • contribs) 01:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Chances are they're going to stick with German and English for now, we don't need to get worked up about translating the game if other versions come out - if they do, they won't be coming for a long while yet. AScott00 02:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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

There have been no major changes, other than this beta testing thing. -Amarkov moo! 02:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Quick question

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

German Language Servers?

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

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