Talk:RuneScape/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Do not edit or reply to comments on this page.
It's an archive of discussion from Talk:RuneScape from 7 May 2006 to 23 May 2006.
If you'd like to comment, do so on the current page.

Hyenaste ^(tell) 01:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

External links

The list of fansites really doesn't belong here. Not only does the first one listed push software at you (which is extremely unfriendly), but none of these sites is really relevant to the encyclopedic topic. Wikipedia is not a link farm, and you may not use Wikipedia as a nice way to get referrers to your favorite non-notable webpage. I see I was reverted, so I'm only going to remove it once more today, but I urge y'all to stop adding these. Besides, I'm tired of getting complaints about them. Your friendly info-en@wikipedia.org email responder, Kelly Martin (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

What Kelly said, this isn't a link farm and only the most prominent, informative and vital external links should be included. This usually means official sites and not fan sites (and that one that tries to install software is evil) -- sannse (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a link farm. At 5 links and kept at 5 links, think of them less like a link farm, more like link household pets. And all of the links get millions of hits per day, way more than many other links on other games. J.J.Sagnella 19:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's purpose is most emphatically NOT to drive traffic to random sites. If the site is THAT notable, then it deserves its OWN article, which can then be linked from this article as a see-also. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with Kelly Martin on this. A section cannot be removed just because one user has the opinion that it does not belong. Truth be told, he is not any more important than the rest of us, and he does not have the final say on any of this. I think the only fair way to settle this is to take a vote on it. Kelly Martin can talk to me on my talk page if he has further problems, but I say that we should start the vote below, and I say:

Disagree: I do not see a reason these links should not be here. On the articles for video games, there are links to strategy guides!

Disagree I do not know where Kelly Martin came up with this rule and would definitely be intrested in konwing where it says what Kelly has said.Also, isn't Kelly Martin a girl? Kelly is a girls's name. J.J.Sagnella 15:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree Who knows what the sites may link to? Most sites are unauthorizedp00rleno 21:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree completely. Wikipedia is emphatically NOT a link farm. The vast majority of so-called fan sites are in fact leach sites just pushing some affiliate programme or other, or just out and out scams. There's no telling what such a site may actually be up to. It's the principal reason URLs are banned in game, and to my mind a perfectly good reason for not allowing them in the game article. Cain Mosni 05:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment We have checked all sites beforehand. That is why we are so tight about adding new sites, and in the event someone adds a fansite that a majority of people have not approved, then we remove it immediately. In other words, we do moderate that list. Wikipeedio 21:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment Moderation? What moderation? One of the sites currently has a prominent ad to a site that sells ingame gold peices. Clq 05:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe those ads came from Google AdSense. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Which demonstrates perfectly, why such sites should not be encouraged. Even if they don't engage in fraud themselves, they may be inadvertent links in the chain. Cain Mosni 05:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree I support this because it doesn't exactly put up a Neutral Point of View when discussing the topic. Sure, fansites may be popular and have all the information, but they're not in the best interest of EVERY user that comes here. I'd rather let the people discover fansites the old fashioned way (through friends ingame), and NOT have them linked to every second on Wikipedia. Makoto 03:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree While one should not advertise sites in game, anyone could type "Runescape" into google and find theese sites. In other words, not needed here. Clq 05:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The fansite list has been removed from the article, and it has been decided that it will not be readded. Instead, they will stand on the Portal.

Where'd my stuff go?

I posted a TON of stuff on scamming in RuneScape, as it always happens and is a Major problem. Next thing I know, it's gone. Where'd it go? Post response on User:Poorleno p00rleno 21:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Poorleno

Scamming is something not important, and hence shouldn't be wrote about. J.J.Sagnella 06:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. I can't see how you could justify such a statement, unless you approve of scamming.Cain Mosni 05:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Methods of scamming are not noteworthy enough to be placed into the RuneScape page. Note WP:BEANS for another reason. If you would like to include a small sentence or two (not a whole section--this is not required), you're welcome to do so, provided it is informative, NPOV, and especially does not cause a lot of controversy. Hyenaste ^{[citation needed]} 06:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

i think that the players should find out how not to gt scammed on their own!! flare mage22

dishonest practice plagues every single MMO game in the world, and going into detail with regards to Runescape scamming would be unnecessary, and going against WP:NOT

If we were to list one site with tips to not get scammed then we would have to do it for every MMORPG in the entire world and I am not going to do it so no this site should not contain info on how not to get scammed because it would bring about to many complaints saying "why have you not added scamming controles on our site" and I think we all dont want to be bugged by that!! flare mage22

They cna do it by themselves. Just foucus on this one article here. J.J.Sagnella 17:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

glitch in the eggs

do we need to put it in the artical? Rdunn 19:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Not really. J.J.Sagnella 17:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Dont really need them, no - • The Giant Puffin • 21:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

No. A compilation of various glitches may be useful thoughp00rleno 14:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No, since glitches aren't notable. However, if there were a glitch that caused massive long-lasting effects, it could deserve a sentence or two in some article. Hyenaste ^{[citation needed]} 15:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

A list of glitches wouldn't really be useful, but as stated above, we could possible put a small snippet in about huge bugs which occured in the past. Current glitches, however, should not be shown if a section like this is put in. See WP:BEANS for why not to display current bugs. Agentscott00 22:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Because it hurts? - • The Giant Puffin • 18:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment No, it could give other people ideas as to how they could abuse glitches, among other things. Sorry if I wasn't too clear on that. Harmless bugs, like the egg "rolling", could have one or two words in the Holiday drops section beside the easter item, but anything which could be considered harmful shouldn't. Sticking beans up your nose would hurt though, I have to agree with you there :P Agentscott00 21:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

RuneScape Wiki

Just thought I'd let everyone know there's a RuneScape Wiki at this address.

http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

Should we add this to the links? ~~ RZ heretic 01:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, and resolve the issue the The Wikibooks reference is no longer appropriate, as that one transwikied to strategywiki, for which there does not seem to be a simple template link available. Maybe "other wikis" should be in a portal box. Ace of Risk 16:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

where are the links i need them

i need to know where to find the links for the stratigy guides are. for the reason that me and my friend were thinking of making one ourselves!!!!!!!!!!!

just add the link to the end of this disscution thx steven user: flare mage22

The fansites were removed from this page, but they remain at the bottom of the RuneScape Portal. Note that the link in the heading just above this one is a link to an in-development guide to RS. Hyenaste ^{[citation needed]} 21:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Images taken straight from the RuneScape.com and other fansites

I have noticed that there are images straight from the RuneScape.com site being uploaded into Wikipedia and placed into these articles. While normally I wouldn't mind this, I have managed to come across this article from RuneScape.com: http://kbase.runescape.com/lang/en/aff/runescape/viewarticle.ws?article_id=2421

I may be misinterpreting the article, but it says that nobody should take images from the RuneScape.com site other than the ones provided. The following images seem to violate this:

Image:TzTok-Jad.JPG
Image:Zamorak.jpg

I have also noticed that there are an awful lot of suspicious looking images that looks like they were taken from a fansite, particularly items with transparencies. The following images seem to look like they came from a site like Tip.it, RuneHQ, or maybe even RuneScape.com itself, and they currently seem to only serve a purpose as fancruft in the articles from what I have seen:

Image:Diskreturning.gif
Image:Halfjugwine.gif
Image:Horse1.gif
Image:Horse2.gif
Image:Horse3.gif
Image:Horse4.gif
Image:PurpleRunite.png
Image:Sleepingbag.png
Image:Spinplate.gif
Image:Yinyang.gif

I think these images should be removed from the articles and placed on IfD, but I would like for everyone's opinions on the matter firsthand.

Tarikochi^Gallery_Criticize 23:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. These images are uploaded with the fair use tag, but since the RS site explicitly prohibits this, they should be removed. Anyone can imagine what, for example, a jug of wine looks like, so these images aren't necessary to demonstrate what one looks like. Hyenaste ^{[citation needed]} 23:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If we want images there, they should be images that our editors have uploaded themselves. We shouldn't plagerise.Dtm142 01:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

As soon as those transparancy items came out, I knew they were plagerised, but to date I still haven't found the website they are from. And as the saying goes "innocent until proven guity". J.J.Sagnella 07:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

http://runehq.com/RHQItemDB.php

To be more specific. The item images from the RuneHQ database is transparent. I'm pretty sure you can find the RSClassic and ancient images somewhere in the Tip.it database also.

Tarikochi^Gallery_Criticize 15:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't find what may be giving you this impression that only images from the pack may be used. They're just being helpful and providing a "starter" set for people to use. What it does say is that the images it provides retain copyright and that they explicitly may not be modified materially, or used on sites advocating contravention of or contravening RuneScape's own rules (e.g. scam sites, illegal real-world trade sites, hack sites, that sort of thing). That's not a "fair use" issue. That's an expression of explicit denial. Screen shots taken and edited by users would without question still fall well within common fair use guidelines (although IANAL). Cain Mosni 15:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I just edited the artical to include info about zezima

lol I just edited the artical to include info about zezima and it was deleted about 1 minute later.

Yep, we don't talk about Zezima on here, basically since we don't know basic information like his name, age, or anything. Hyenaste ^{[citation needed]} 00:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

In the past Ive talked about zezima and people have told me that zezimas a he not a she. How do people know that zezimas a he?

This discrepancy is one of the reasons we can't write about him, Wikipedia standards aside. Hyenaste ^{[citation needed]} 01:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we can't post about him, but fyi Zezima has been confirmed as a he (tip.it article) // Nathan M

I wouldn't take that as gospel. There are reasons for thinking that Zezima is more than one person.Cain Mosni 15:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Debate it all you like. The point is that anything about Zezima shouldn't go on the Wikipedia site. (And, if you paid attention to the major fansites, you'd understand that he was interviewed recently.) Makoto 01:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Correction, someone claiming to be him was interviewed on tip.it. That still doesn't dispel any of the other evidence (such as the simple fact it's not possible to score at the rate he did in farming without playing solidly 24 hours a day for nearly a week straight). But on the issue of whether she (the avatar) or he (the person) should have an entry, no. After all, someone has to be the number 1 ranked player. And besides - the very fact that this is all just unverified speculation means it's not appropriate for WP, anyway. The point is moot. Cain Mosni 03:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Protect?

Ok people, this page gets vandalised about 10 times a day, almost certainly by unregistered members. Let's just put aside the wiki-stance for this article and get an admin to protect it? The high maintainance is really not worth all that effort. RZ heretic 04:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be semiprotected too. Editwise, our RuneScape is ahead of many controversial topics, simply due to the huge amount of vandalism/reverting we have to endure. Heh, is there a page where we can appeal for semiprotection?Hyenaste ^{[citation needed]} 05:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection // Nathan M

Ah ok. It seems that the people in charge there base their decision heavily on whether the page is recently receiving heavy vandalism. We won't be able to get it protected since it hasn't been bombarded with vandalism in the past hours. Hyenaste ^{[citation needed]} 05:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as long as the protection is limited to only the RuneScape article, as that one faces the most vandalism. I've seen other articles faced a nice amount of vandalism, but not as much as the main one. Restricting every single page from the RuneScape series would just slow down necessary updates in my point of view. I see no hinder in protecting the main RuneScape article. Tarikochi^Gallery_Criticize 05:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Protection is needed, I've been watching every day until yesterday RuneScape had more revisions than Michael Jackson! J.J.Sagnella 09:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The page gets vandalised way too often. Protection is the best option - • The Giant Puffin • 12:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

But on the other hand, anons do make a lot of Good edits to the page... J.J.Sagnella 13:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I can see from the history, the HUGE majority of anon edits gets reverted. Clq 14:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: Ok, the page has been put up on request page for protection. RZ heretic 22:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The page has been denied protection (not enough vandalism) at this point. RZ heretic 07:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Idiots! - how much blanking, junk adding and general stupidity does it need? "Assume good faith" - sorry, but 99% of the muckupery on the page is not the action of the well meaning but incompetent. The fact that a repeated IP vandal gets only a string of pathetic 24 and 48 hour bans is another problem with the administration. Ace of Risk 16:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

So why is it now protected??? I don't get it and I think we shouldn't deny the 1% of good anons the ability to edit the page. J.J.Sagnella 08:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess there was just enough vandalism occuring after the decision was made to add the semi-protect after all.

Unfortunately, that small percentage of good anonymous edits is something we're going to have to sacrifice. Since the semi-protection was added, there have been no negative edits to the article, which is nice compared to what it's been getting lately. If anonymous users want to add something in, they can ask on the talk page, or sign up and wait the 4-day period. Although we can get rid of users by IP banning them, most either proxy back on, or new vandals replace them - this is a more efficient way of preventing them. Agentscott00 04:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the page is protected, which is supposed to allow logged-in users to edit it, correct? Then why can I not edit it? I am registered, I am logged in, and I have been around longer than four days. There is an incomplete sentence in the third paragraph and 123 servers at 2000 players per server is only 246,000 possible simultaneous players, not 250,000; this is driving me crazy!! Xela Yrag 18:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You were logged out at the point of you editing it. Now you are logged in, try again.It should work. J.J.Sagnella 18:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I had tried several times, logged out and in, and was not able to edit. However, I can now edit, so whatever the problem was has been fixed. 8) Xela Yrag 21:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

New images in my gallery for May 14, 2006.

Image:Runescape monsters kingblackdragon.gif
Image:Runescape monsters kalphitequeen-1stform.gif
Image:Runescape monsters kalphitequeen-2ndform.gif
Image:Runescape randomevents swarm.gif
Image:Runescape randomevents drilldemon TEMPORARY.gif
Image:Runescape randomevents piratescombinationlock TEMPORARY.PNG

This time, I have managed to create some of my more very challenging pieces to add to the animating collection. I believe that my King Black Dragon and Kalphite Queen clips can entirely replace what images are in their corresponding articles right now.

Also, I have seen that articles such as Dagannoth, RuneScape holiday items, RuneScape monsters, RuneScape random events, and especially at this moment, the main RuneScape article, amongst others, can use images and clips from my gallery or other sources. There are many un-used images in my gallery that could easily fit into such situations, and if not that, can be created by someone else to fit in these situations.

I appreciate all the work that Hyenaste has done in spreading these images around, but I have yet to see at least one other person doing the same great job despite the opening of my gallery. There were those that were still complaining about the lack of images, so this gallery was supposed to solve this problem. Is there anyone else alongside Hyenaste who will spread these images around, seeing as how I'm refraining from adding them myself?

I still also take image requests in my talk page in case something specific is necessary for the job.

Please keep either my gallery and my talk page in mind, as it is very discouraging when it comes to the serious activity of the RuneScape article images to only by dealt with by one person.

Tarikochi^Gallery_Criticize 05:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

New Idea for Fansites

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_talk:RuneScape"

As so many people are saying things like "if not this one, then none", I have done my research and found [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Occasionally_acceptable_links this. It states linking to the largest site is acceptable. As this is Wikipedia's rules, I suggest we have a lengthy discussion on which Link, (yes link is meant to be singular) should stay. This Idea is enforced by Wikipedia's rules and will be able to bring a fansite back to the main page. J.J.Sagnella 21:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Other Idea for Fansites

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_talk:RuneScape"

Or for a second suggestion, Zybez could be removed as well leaving us with 2 sites. 2 sites are needed as on their own, neither site is complete. However with those 2 sites, virtually all information is there. There is reason to bend Wikipedia's rules slightly as RuneScape is the most edited Game on Wikipedia and due to it sheer popularity, 2 wouldn't be too much of a stretch. J.J.Sagnella 21:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If we're talking "largest" based on amount of people and traffic, then I must say, from an objective point of view, RuneHQ is the "largest" RuneScape fansite around. The facts and evidence support this. However, if we're talking about which page is the second "largest", then there's a little room for debate. I'd say the two probably contenders (based on Alexa ratings, number of guides, content of guides, etc) would be Tip it and Sal's Realm. What if we were to include, say, the top three? Because, based on what you said about "on their own, neither site is complete", Sal's Realm arguably does have a number of guides that neither of the other two have. Feel free to comment on what I have just said. Dissentor 21:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

A quick alexaholic search should tell you traffic wise, which two should stay. Content wise, in my opinion they should stay. And if salomoneus has a guide for something the other two don't, then just link to it as is done on the Dagganoth Page. I couldn't say there's anymore than one or two useful guides,which is not reason to link to it. J.J. Sagnella 21:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's a good idea in all cases. If Sal's has a grand article about Dagannoth, link to the article from the Dagannoth page; if Tip It has a thorough article about holiday drops, link to it from there; if website X has a great article/guide to topic Y, link to it. This way, each site will receive a proper proportion of references. As stated by Tarikochi below, having just one or two links on this RS page is a bullseye on a page that is already a vandalism target. Linking to the specific article relating to the specific topic prevents need for the discussion, How should we determine what sites to inlcude? Popularity? Usefulness? Largest fanbase? If someone really was interested in the RS series, we have a template on the bottom of each page. Eventually, they will reach a page with a link to Sal's, Tip It, RuneHQ, etc., and that link on that page will serve a clear purpose. Hyenaste ^{[citation needed]} 01:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, to state my views frankly, I don't think any fansites should be included in either the portal or the main page. To quote someone else:

As for the link on the RS page: there used to be like 10-15 of them on the RuneScape page including smaller sites too, but all of them were removed for some reason (except for the top 5, which included this site and the other main ones). Even though we were listed, I felt that was completely wrong to do, it's just a way of keeping the popular sites popular ("they're listed on wikipedia, they must be good") and the smaller sites smaller. If you're going to have links to fansites, have links to ALL of them. Otherwise, remove them ALL.

Just my two centavos, I'll participate in the discussion on the main page if that's where it's heading. Dissentor 21:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC) (Taken from the Portal:RuneScape discussion page)

I also think it should be all or none. Having "only" one or two links will just attract vandals to add more. Tarikochi^Gallery_Criticize 22:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that none should be permissible. The only reason that I started to add/modify the list was that I felt that there wasn't enough representation from all spectrums of the fansite realm. Since the major ones were the sites that recieved most of the accreditation and the smaller sites recieved none since they were deemed impermissible on Wikipedia, I felt that was an injustice. I have to say if you're going to link to one, link to all; if not, remove them all and be done with this debacle, since it's just tiring to keep going back and forth with this silly issue. Makoto 01:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see that others share my point of view. This debate is tiring and we're just going around and around in circles. And since including all fansites is really quite pointless and space wasting, I say we remove them all once and for... all. Pun not intended. Dissentor 04:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You do Remember what it syas in Wikipedia's Rules? Read this quote "including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such." J.J.Sagnella 06:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Re-read that rule. "...including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such." What I see is that we don't have to mark any sort of link up here. Just end the debacle and remove all of the fansite links. It's causing too much undue stress. Makoto 21:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

So what you're telling me is that if a gang of say 10 people demand all links to guides on a game (such as the da vinci code webquests), then as they are making a stress, their demands should be met?

I agree. If a website has information that is that good, we can/should link to the good information from the Wikipedia page. Even if we have links to RuneHQ and Tip It on a single page (i.e. Chaos Elemental), there can be no argument against when the article provides relative information that on Wikipedia would be called cruft. Hyenaste ^{[citation needed]} 21:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

So in comparison, you're saying all fansites should be removed? Where does RuneScape differ from other articles this takes place in, where Adminstrators approve of it? There is no difference. J.J.Sagnella 21:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

On the other pages in the RS series, links to articles on fansites are enouraged, as I look at numbers 5 and 6 on the "What should be linked to" list, especially because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article. Personally, I'm indifferent as to whether fan sites links are on the RuneScape page. I don't see why people are crusading for their removal, but if they're not there, I'm not going to be upset. Perhaps this is because I don't associate with any large fansites. Hyenaste ^{[citation needed]} 21:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I meant other pages Completely. In my opinion we're bending over to easy, giving them what they want.So let me give you an example. If around 10 owners of fansites march along to the Da Vinci Code Webquest Wikipedia article, and adminstators say the links aren't allowed, and they had a temper-tantrum and demand all links be removed, you would let them? If we bend over at petty arguments like this, then they could practically remove all of Wikipedia Eternal Links.J.J.Sagnella 06:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dissentor and Tarikochi. I think that If we want to have fansites, we should link to large directories (toplists, Dmoz, and Google directory) rather than the sites themselves. Dtm142 18:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

But in Those 2 links, virtually all info is there. J.J.Sagnella 18:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Dtm makes a good suggestion. That's a reasonable alternative to removing all of the fansites. Only including one or two fansites could be construed as a bias (in violation of NPOV) since the two are not head and shoulders above all others. Also, no fansite is officially recognized by Jagex so I think your interpretation of the rule "...including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such" is quite possibly faulty. Dissentor 21:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Toplists can be unreliable and are usually absed on votes. Some websites put more effort into voting than others and hence toplists would not be fair. J.J.Sagnella 21:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I agree. In that case, we should throw out all fansite links as they really aren't needed. Dissentor 21:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Either all links, no links, or only toplists.

And if you don't like toplists, there's always the directories like Google and Dmoz. Dtm142 23:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, the "all or none" quote, which I seem to be hearing a lot of, is wrong. If it was all, it would violate this rule J.J.Sagnella 15:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You guys are making my head spin with this. I have to lean toward the side of either take them all out or leave all the "clean" ones in, and by "clean" I mean those that don't condone cheating and don't try to put spyware or other software on your computer as soon as you type in their URL. If I absolutely have to take one side, I would say take them all out. They are too easy to find to cause this to be a hardship to anyone, including the sites themselves. Xela 20:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

There are no sites are totally clean. Tip it and RuneHq, which are probably the sites that J.J.Sagnella wants to be linked to, both have had ads that contain keyloggers. And ALL fansites now have Google ads that lead to those horrible RS gold shops, marcoing sites, and other rule breaking sites. And yes, they are easy to find. Any fool can type in RuneScape fansites on Google or Dmoz. Don't fix what isn't broken. Dtm142 22:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The above is a half truth, since a small number of fansites (such as Runeweb) have NO ads on it whatsoever, therefore they can't display silly ads for silly gold farms. Makoto 15:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

But those ones aren't good enough for J.J.Sagnella to include in the article.... [/sarcasm] Dtm142 18:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Other Idea for Fansites (Straw Poll)

So we're finally dropping this debacle? At last, this issue can come to a peaceful end. I'll go ahead and start a minor straw poll since there's a bit of confusion as to what has to happen with the links so vote below. My vote is...

Delete. Three reasons for this: 1. They raise tension as far as controversial advertisements. 2. They raise tension when it comes to account security. 3. It feels like the larger sites are only being acknowledged for being the largest, and the smaller sites are snuffed out due to low ratings on search engines or stat engines. Makoto 00:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete. As stated before, it might lead many to believe that those are the only one or two fansites that exist. Read up for further reasons that myself, Tarikochi, and Makoto have stated. Dissentor 02:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

A comment may be placed to the effect that it says something on the lines of this:"Other Fansites do exist,Use Google to find other fansites. These are only the main 2". J.J.Sagnella 06:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Add: I'm happy to finalise this as a straw poll, if we do it to the rules that an adminstrator will decide on the outcome, not the votes, much like an afd. Fansites should be added as it says in Wikipedia's rules and just because some people would like to get angry that their website won't get advertised and demand all links be removed, doesn't give them any argument whatsoever. People who have done this should read What Wikipedia is not. Here is a quote:"You may not host your own website, blog, or wiki at Wikipedia". I feel we are bending over backwards to meet a few people's desires and people are saying not to have the links "Not to raise tension". The two links are head and shoulders above the rest, both in content and in alexa and google ratings, the three Wikipedia tests for fansites. The idea is one which could easily work, follows Wikipedia's rules exactly, but if a Wikipedia adminstrator deems it unacceptable, Then the decision will have to be made in that way and I must step down from the argument. J.J.Sagnella 07:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Those two fansites are not 'head and shoulders' above all the rest. They're concise, complete but nothing is absolutely perfect except the information from the Knowledge Base. None of the fansites belong to me. At all. I don't own a single one of them, and I have no intention of owning a fansite, so that rules out, "You may not host your own website/blog/wiki on Wikipedia." You also say that fansites should be added. Should. Not it is mandatory for you to add at least one link to an article. That's your misunderstanding of the rule, since we don't really have to link to anything at all. You also state that Tip.it and RuneHQ are the 'main two' fansites. Yes, while a majority of people may use them from time to time, they are not the primary two for everyone, which brings up NPOV. You've got to factor in the actual policies and not suggestions based on links here, and that's what I think is the only barrier between a concise and peaceful resolution. I will be happy to let an administrator decide whether or not to allow fansite links on a Portal, and how many fansite links is permissible is up to them as well. Makoto 14:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment I must first say, I wish to see that the decision on the main page be setteled by an adminstrator. I feel as there is an argument on each side of the fence, that an adminstator should come and say what is right. Secondly, I did not include everyone I said: "just because some people". And when you said "since we don't really have to link to anything at all", I think the rule states, you should and here on Wikipedia, we try to make perfect articles. Also, in many ways they are the best without me even giving my opinion. Usinga lexa We KNOW they are the best. If you do an independent survey of people in RuneScape without a preferred fansite asking them the question "Name a Famous Fansite" those two will be top (I have done the survey on 100 people myself) then you will KNOW they are the best. If however an adminstator decides the claim against my opinion, only then will I step down from this argument. J.J.Sagnella 15:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment Who cares what some administrator says? They are just regular users like us that have been elected by the community. They are not gods. Just because they say something doesn't make it law. We (the community) make the rules here. One of us could just go to RFA, run to be an administrator, get the majority vote, then "settle" this argument (not trying to give you ideas or anything). Wikipedia might not be a democracy, but it certainly isn't a dictatorship. Dtm142 18:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment No not because of their title, but because of their knowledge. They know or at least have a better idea as to what is the right thing to do in Wikipedia's Rules. J.J.Sagnella 18:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment:This is NOT about the Administration making a decision based on rules! This is pure opinion! We think that the links don't belong on Wikipedia, so what's wrong with deleting them? There is NO rule that says it's mandatory for a Wiki to link to a fansite, I don't care even if they have all the information. You have to hear me on this...only the Knowledge Base's information is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. This means that while a fansite strives to be the best and have the most accurate info, unless it's straight from the source they cannot compare. This debate's going back and forth and it's seriously exhausting, so let it come to an end already. (By the way, if you can find the rule that says it's mandatory to link to a site, and I mean that verbatim as in absolutely required, then I'll show you the Knowledge Base and that'll be your mandatory link.) Makoto 02:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete/don't add/burn/whatever. Finally this debate can go to rest. There should be no links on the portal or main article unless they are to directories. As for the other articles, we'll only have one relevent guide (whichever is the best and most complete) Dtm142 14:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete They're causing nothing but arguments here, and if a user wants to find a fan site so badly, they can use Google. We are an Encyclopedia, not a customer support team made to provide help. There are already enough game tools on the RuneScape website so that users can play without having major problems. Also, you keep referring to them as the "main two". Traffic ratings, what people think, etc. do not determine if they really are the main two; they show POVs and popularity - not how good the actual site is. I could go make a site with EVERYTHING imaginable, only get fifty users a month, and still be the best fansite. Would that make anyone else more special than me? Since they get more traffic, yes, but in regards to content, no. There are pros and cons to every website, trying to even them out and pick a couple is difficult, and is leading to slight favouritism. Agentscott00 00:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Not keen on the idea of having none. Though it seems that it goes against an "is not", it would be nice to have all that meet a certain quality threshold - to put a number on that threshold, for starters, any site that does not carry a complete (other than the very latest) quest guide set should be excluded. My own top 3 are: Tip.it, runehq and Sal's - Tip it fot most things, runehq for city guides and itemdb, and Sal's often has a different take on things (such as the Shield of Arrav quest). Ace of Risk 16:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete Agentscott pretty much summed up what I feel on the subject. Taste is subjective, an encyclopedia should not be. Clq 21:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment Having those sites on here was a bad idea in the first place. What happened on Wednesdayjust confirms it. The administrator or password database is hacked one day, it has a keylogger the next. Looks like J.J.Sagnella has been outvoted. Unless someone else has something to add, we can leave it like this. Dtm142 19:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed Ok then, I have decided there is no way my argument can win and even though there is an argument, I will take your point of them not being appropriate for the main page and instead back down and see if an agreement can be made for them on the Portal. J.J.Sagnella 20:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: What do you mean?! This issue was for the links on the Portal! We can't go back and forth on this you know...it's childish. Come to a reasonable agreement and just take the links down already! Makoto 03:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Final comment Okay, then they're not going back up on this page. But if we want to discuss the links on the portal, discuss them on the portal page or take them to MFD. Or hopefully we can reach an agreement there. Dtm142 15:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The decision was not to add the links to the main page.

I've found out where some of the vandalism is coming from

http://www.tech-boards.com/index.php/topic,14800.0.html

These guys seriously need to get a life.

They'll get banned. No biggie. J.J.Sagnella 06:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha, we won't notice it? a) watchlist. b) major changes don't matter, we can see previous versions. Idiots. // Nathan M

Well, technically speaking, they would be justified in telling us to get a life as well. But at least we're spending our time trying to make things better, building things instead of tearing things down. Dissentor 15:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I find their wannabe 1337-talk, their constant "lawls," and their attempts of being "badass and smart" even more hilarious. Tarikochi^Gallery_Criticize 16:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It's weird. You often see things vandalised by the side of the road, and wish it wouldn't happen. But you, or at least I, always think of it as a crime of opportunity; a whim for the excitement. I'd never before thought of people actually deciding rationally and communally - and it has to be said, rather boringly - to deliberately go vandalise something (unless they had a political point to make, but that's a different issue altogether). It's very strange. Cain Mosni 17:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, I just started watching these pages, and working on them, and I am utterly amazed at the amount of vandalism that occurs in a day's time. How in the world have you, the core group, kept up with it? How many times does someone have to vandalize before they can be permanently banned? I'm just shocked!!!Xela 20:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It's easy to revert vandalism. Easy. And permanent bans are very here and we usually give them small abn s before going long bans. J.J.Sagnella 20:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The vandalism is being committed (largely) by unauthenticated users, which means banning by IP address, or more likely block of IP addresses. The nature of the Internet is such that imposing a ban on specific addresses usually impinges not just on the vandals but on many other users at the same ISP. Furthermore it doesn't address the problem (pardon the pun) because the vandal just finds a means of connecting from outside the range of blacklisted addresses or through an anonymous proxy which masks the source. Bans of this nature very rarely solve anything. As J.J.Sagnella says, it is trivial to undo the damage. So trivial that the vandals have on occasion bitched and moaned about how unfair it is that they spend an hour vandalising the page only to have it reverted in moments. A delicious irony, I feel. Cain Mosni 23:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

you must not forget however that there are some algarhythms that can pass these adress blockers. i my self have found hackers using very little energy and are still geting in with already made algarhythms. flare mage22

Introducing Myself

Hi, everyone. I would like to take just a few seconds of your precious time to introduce myself and to state my intentions. LOL. I am Xela Yrag (yes, it's my RuneScape user name - seemed appropriate), and I am the one who's been making all those little grammatical changes. Sorry, guys, but it's a real "thing" with me, especially the that/which ones. My goals are consistency, grammatical correctness (and no, I am not an English teacher), neutrality, and relevance. I hope that is in keeping with the overall goals of the core people involved with this series of articles. I haven't done anything really major yet, but I am sincerely hoping that these articles do not get protected. Some of them need some major work! I am still learning all the "tools of the trade", so please bear with me until I figure out how to add a description and all the other little things that will make it easier for all of us to see what is going on.

Don't worry when you're learning, Wikipedia doesn't mind when you make mistakes. When a page gets protected though, like the dicussion here, it is talking about semi-protection, where you must of created an account on Wikipedia to edit the article. Since the release of semi-protection, full protection is becoming more and more scarce. And we think it's brilliant you're making little minor changes, they can be better than big changes! J.J.Sagnella 16:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Article Size Getting Large

[RuneScape]'s article size is currently 33.8kB long, something should be done to make it a bit shorter to fit with the style guide on [WP:SIZE]. Should we cut down on a few sections and split them into more external articles? We don't need to rush this immediately, since 1.8kB over isn't that big a big deal, but the article size will gradually increase even more. I have removed the strikeout on the "shorten the article" line on the to-do list for the time being, anyone may re-add it if they feel it isn't neccessary. Thoughts on the matter? Agentscott00 00:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Like you said, it's not a big deal at the moment. Whenever someone else or I am up to it, it could likely use a healthy decrufting/cutting-of-information-covered-elsewhere. (I say this without looking at the content.) A page split is most likely unnecessary though. Hyenaste ^{[citation needed]} 00:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Also other Wikipedians would rather have a slightly oversize page than to have two medium size ones. Hyenaste ^{[citation needed]} 00:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I can take care of it. What I have noticed is that there are some unnecessary sentences, and some sentences that can be combined, as well as some other things I can shorten without making the article less informative. I'll probably get to it soon. Wikipeedio 02:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no real worry about the size at this time because the only thing that it will do is to make the page take 0.013 seconds longer than normal (per Kb) so its not that bad!! flare mage22

Sigselling

Should sigmaking and its rs market on how they affected RS be involved in this article?

Has sigmaking affected RS in any way? How? Perhaps someone pays for signatures on forums, but it has not affected runescape other than a few gp moving around because of it. So, no, I wouldn't say its worthy of its own section in the article, perhaps, maybe, a one sentence mention in the community section. Clq 06:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

let alone, selling of rs gp for real life services (sigs) is illegal. RZ heretic 04:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Jagex staff has confirmed that when it comes to sig selling they are ok with trading sigs for gp, as long as the amount dosn't get extremly large. Clq 11:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Gender Neutrality

I haven't seen any discussion about gender neutrality here. I have, however, seen a lot of the singular "they" being used, along with he or she and he/she. I think we need to decide on a consistent approach to this, and I propose that we use he/she as it is the shortest (other than s/he, which I despise). If there is no problem with that, I will set out to make it happen as appropriate.Xela 12:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, I despise s/he too. Generally, I try to use he or she rather than he/she, since the extra four characters in he or she aren't sucking up bandwidth, and it flows better when read aloud. If possible, I would also suggest using a noun (the fighter, the smither) when possible and when not redundant. Hyenaste ^{[citation needed]} 12:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion,Either "he/she" or "the player". Not "you","u",", "s/he" or "he" or "she" J.J.Sagnella 15:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I prefer "the player" or "players" depending on the situation - • The Giant Puffin • 17:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "the player" or "players" (or a more descriptive noun) is best, but in some situations, it sounds so, well, formal, even stilted, and the sentence just begs for a pronoun. I'll reword if possible, and use "he or she" when I can't get around it. Xela Yrag 18:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's not forget the primary purpose of the article is to inform. Ease of reading is far more important than style, or dare I say it, consistency. My preference in these circumstances is to use the plural "players" along with liberal use of "they" wherever possible. Constant repeated use of "the player" and "he or she" is going to get stilted pretty damned fast. And remember just who the target audience for this particular article are. No point having the perfectly written article if no-one bothers to read it. Pragmatism above all things. Cain Mosni 19:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we please stick with traditional english? The he/she, s/he, he or she, is totally unnecessary as the male pronoun "he" has always been used to describe a random third person in the English language. Unless the reference is specific ("my mother, she is old") there is absolutely no need to type 4-12 more letters to be politically correct. RZ heretic 07:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree whole-heartedly. Yes, the use of "he" is traditional, but there is already a major stereotype "out there" that only males play video games, especially RPGs like this one. I am female, I play this game (a lot, I might add - look me up on the hiscores, keeping in mind that I have only been playing since the middle of December 2005, if you want confirmation), and I find it offensive that you think it is okay to imply that the information in these articles applies only to males. It is certainly worth it to type a few extra letters to debunk a stereotype (although I do not see where you get that it could be 12??). Xela Yrag 15:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Stereotypes aside, the reason we shouldn't use he is the reason we don't the word you. We can't assume the reader is male, just as we can't assume the reader plays RuneScape (or, for a more likely example, assume the reader is a member by using you in a section on members exclusive material). Hyenaste ^{[citation needed]} 15:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The "he" used in the generic sense does not imply or reflect upon the gender of the subject. eg: "he who casts the first stone may only do so if he is without sin" Why dont you GO AND SUE THE BIBLE, for that is "implying" that all sinners are male, and all males sin. This is stereotyping all males as criminals and the stereotype largely holds. Any written language, even the bible, can be interpretted as sexist, racist, discriminative, asserting, rude and uncalled for. Frankly if the bible and the english translation of the koran, the two most widely read books in the world use he as a generic third person pronoun, then I don't really have a problem with it. Aside, the pronoun "you" is discouraged in general formal writting and has nothing to do with whether the subject "plays runescape", and thus has nothing to do with this argument. RZ heretic 04:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me for being a tad controversial, but the Sun is the most widely read newspaper in the UK. Does that justify adopting their sensationalist use of English? I think not. Language evolves, as do the rules for its acceptance. And I hardly consider age-old religious treatises as suitable style guides for modern language. I do not consider them style guides for life, so they're certainly not style guides for style. Tradition alone is an argument for nothing but itself, and to be frank when people start appealing to tradition as their justification it gives one cause to wonder whether their position has any other substance to recommend it. This is a modern medium. Unlike the immutable printed word, it is flexible. Can we not see our way to being just a little flexible with it? Like it or not, there is a strong element of gender perception entwined with the subject matter. It needs to be confronted - not for the sake of Political Correctness, which I despise with a passion for its inherent condescension - but because there genuinely is a need to dispel a misconception. And I still think, that as English does not have a neutral singular gender, the next best thing is the universally neutral plural. Cain Mosni 20:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You all have for gotten NPC's too so i do think that great puffin was right and i think that we should be using "player" rather than any other combination. flare mage22

Someone is very immature

Someone replaced Runescape with 'Runescape is gay' every time it is mentioned in this article. I am trying to change it back. If I have missed anything please fix it.

   Akroy

I also noticed that Jayex has been replaced with Gayex. I will try to fix this also.

   Akroy

things about language section

    there is one thing that i found that has gotten past the eye of jagex!!!!

if you were to put *** in front of a "foul language word" and then *** after it then it does not star the word out. i know this because a player calld imteman45 put (***gay***) and it did not star the word out. i think someone should make this known in the language section!! thx flare mage22

No, see WP:BEANS. This bug isn't particularly important anyway. Hyenaste ^(tell) 21:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it isnt exactly major. I think we can afford to leave this out - • The Giant Puffin • 10:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The point is moot, since I tested it quietly last night, and no longer seems to be the case. Cain Mosni 19:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Critcisms

Everytime I add a Cricism even if its well founded it get deleted. Whats up? Cant legimate argument get in? (Koolsen 18:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC))

It is not for your personal opinion. If you have a sensible opinion which people agree is true of RuneScape, then add it. You'll find we have virtually all the cons of RuneScape. J.J.Sagnella 18:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I find you have virtually none.... the page is very pro-Runescape which I can understand but the Criticsm page is virtually empty... and its not just my opinion but many people that I know have the same opinion. So let it be (Koolsen 18:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC))

I don't object over putting criticism, but what is there is repeating itself. I have removed the second line of the criticism, we can debate about the first later. --pevarnj ^(t/c/@) 18:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay fine its good (Koolsen 18:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC))

The criticism you are adding is too specific and is unverified, uncited and rarely heard of in the game. All criticism on the list are criticism even RuneScape players would agree that it is one of RuneScape's downfall. J.J.Sagnella 19:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

People in game wouldn't say that the game was boring and they weren't playing anymore, they would stop playing if that was the case. --pevarnj ^(t/c/@) 19:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

... Ive even heard people in game talk of how all the quests are variants of fetch quests. This article potrays Runescape as some godly game it needs a wider criticsm section. Right now it seems even the criticsm section is a shining review of the game (Koolsen 00:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC))

Well I'm afraid it really doesn't meet the need, it's too specific and not useful. J.J.Sagnella 08:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

wait.... Thats the worst reason not to include it Ive ever heard! Should I say we shouldnt have an article about Runescape because its not useful and way too specific? Sheesh (Koolsen 17:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC))

The criticisms you are adding reflect your point of view. You are being biased by saying it is boring, as not everyone shares that opinion. Even though many people do, a majority do not, and find the game fun and enjoyable. An encyclopedia should show facts, not opinions. What you are doing is showing an opinion. If you restate what you had put in, it may become appropriate, but for now, you should not edit something back into an article in unless it follows Wikipedia's guidelines. Agentscott00 18:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to second that. J.J.Sagnella 18:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Third - • The Giant Puffin • 12:09, 22 May 2006 (U

Wait so how is saying "RuneScape is an MMORPG comparable to Guild Wars and Everquest." neutral? Many people would not find it comparable to these games. It doesnt even have the same playstyle as combat oriented Guild Wars. IT should say something like similar in style to Everquest. Sheesh. (Koolsen 23:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

In that line, the word comparable means the similarities and differences can be examined and noted. So by naming a difference, you've shown that the two are comparable. Hyenaste ^(tell) 23:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

In any case World of Warcraft would be better in style than Guild Wars. Combat Oriented vs. Skill Oriented.

I wanna edit

I wanna edit without making a username like you losers. GIVE ME MY RIGHTS!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.109.206.88 (talk • contribs) .

You have no right to vandalise pages. Hyenaste ^(tell) 01:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If you were half serious about contributing you'd take the 30 seconds it takes to register. // Nathan M

Inslulting members won't get you privleges. Perhaps if you registered, Wikipedia could allow you to edit. Just register next time. GreatG 20:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, how hard can it be? - • The Giant Puffin • 12:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Look at his contributions and his talk page. All he wants do do is vandalize pages anyway, so he shouldn't bother registering. Agentscott00 17:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

So how long is this block gonna last newbs? I wanna EDIT again!

How long will the block last? Not nearly long enough I'm afraid. Stop vandalising wikipedia. --Tim 00:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

to tell you the truth none of us like u and we hate ur guts go vandalise some other page not ours. and ur the noob not us cause u dont even have a name!!!! flare mage22 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 156.3.63.254 (talk • contribs) .

You actually don't have an account, when you edited this. And please, no attacks. J.J.Sagnella 17:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If you were refering to me jj you are dead wrong i do have a account even thouch it might not be much!! flare mage22 I WANNA EDIT!!!!!!!!!!

wow cool

Well ever since the page got sprotected, it seems the article has been improved greatly. It should be semiprotected more often, hahaha. Too bad its against Wikipedia rules. Wikipeedio 14:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a pity that as soon as people are able to vandalise, they do - • The Giant Puffin • 20:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

My proposal for fansite links.

Hi guys. I have made a proposal for a decision about fansite links. It applies for this article, the portal, and the rest of the series. Please help me by voting on it. Thank you. Dtm142 23:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

One more thing to add in the combat section

Since i can't really edit it, i was wondering if some can... If some one can add that "You can freely change from any of the three combat styles anytime you please." why? since i thought this is one of teh aspects that makes runescape stand out of other games

Just added it underneath the three forms. Also, if you wish to have a Wikipedia username and be able to edit semi-protected articles, feel free to create an account. Agentscott00 02:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to add Runescape video ....

I would like to add Runescape video as one of the external link . see http:// runescapefanclub.com/video.html . I think viewers will appreciate that they can see an overview of Runescape. please advice Dina der 10:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[Indefinitely blocked as spam sock. WikiProject Spam case - (permanent link) Femto 11:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)]

The videos are bad, use copyrighted music, and the site in general contains LOADS of information that is highly untrue. No. The article should be encyclopedic, and it currently gives a good enough impression of the game. If anyone wants to experience gameplay, they can make an account. Clq 10:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Random Events

However, if a player is forcibly logged out of the game due to a timeout or loses his/her internet connection in some way, the character remains in the game I'm just wondering how your character could remain in the game if it is logged out --pevarnj ^(t/c/@) 20:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The use of terminology is incorrect. If the account is actively logged out - either due to sucessful use of the logout option by the user, or by the forcible termination of the session by the server - then it is by definition, no longer in the game. If, however, the session between the client (through which the user controls their avatar) and the server (on which the game processes actually run) is interrupted by some communications failure or (say) the crash of the user's machine, the avatar in-game remains subject to game processes (and potentially at risk) until the server eventually responds to the lack of communication. For instance, if a player attempts to abort combat by dropping their Internet connection, it won't work. Specifically the server will not terminate combat because of a link failure (my reading being precisely so that players are not tempted to use it as an emergency escape mechanism). The combat will proceed on the server for some time after disconnection, putting the avatar at greater risk since the player can no longer instruct it to run away.

Now - if someone else wants to take that and redraft it for the article be my guest. Cain Mosni 21:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I had just rewritten it before you provided this excellent explanation. It appears that my version says what yours does, mine in less detail. Hyenaste ^(tell) 21:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I accept the subtly proferred compliment. I don't often use smilies, but :) Cain Mosni 21:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)