Talk:RuneScape/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Alexa Rank Comparisons - Weekly

Laydeeeez an' gennelmen, for your viewing pleasure, witness the spectacle! The thrills and spills of the fair, see the amazing clowns juggling flaming Alexa-ranks. Please remain in your seats and don't feed the monkeys. (this follows from the Fansite discussions, you want comparisons, then you got them). Following from the discussions over fansites, here is a listing of Alexa ranks for the major sites. Remember lower is better and means the site has more visitors. QuagmireDog 22:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This weeks Alexa rankings are:

• RuneHQ - 4,152
• Tip.it - 5,945
• Zybez - 2,833,950
• RuneVillage - 229,919
• Sal's Realm - 15,238

What an upset, what a result.. oh wait, it's RuneHQ again -.0 You've been a lovely audience, please mind the step as you exit the tent. RuneHQ has the lowest ranking (the most visitors), another comparison will happen next week. QuagmireDog 22:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't be a dick. We agreed on RuneHQ a long time ago, from the Alexa ranking back then. If the statistics have changed since then, which they apparently have, you can bring it up in a civil way, not to insult us. I can see Zybez being the most popular, as it *is* a good site, and the only one I use myself, except for the Lewt advertisements on their site. We're not going to link to a site which breaks one of the rules. Sorry, misunderstood it and thought that they were actual traffic stats, not the rank itself, in which Zybez seemed highest. Someone give me some caffeine :| Agentscott00^{(talk contribs)} 22:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Accepted, please forget all about this as the last thing I'd want is for you to dwell on it. I'll edit the text and in future try to remember that my own brand of humour is best in small doses, so as not to leave other visitors and contributors wondering about my intentions. QuagmireDog 00:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ohhhh, it's sunk in. I should have realised that an explanation of Alexa rankings would be necessary and clear. I'll keep hammering at it until it's both clear and fully explained. My bad. QuagmireDog 01:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The intention was to provide information in a light hearted way on a discussion which seems to get a little heated at times. If you look at my edits further today they've involved trying to lay out the concensus in a way which is non-combatitive and aims to answer questions without more of the same debate trailing on. Instead of dropping a note of your concerns on my talk page (which, if you'd done so civilly I'd have thought "oh hell, that's not what I was aiming for" and I would have changed the wording in a heartbeat). No, instead you call me an uncivil dick, here. To say I take a dim view of your attitude is putting it a lot more politely than you deserve. QuagmireDog 23:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow!!! The tables have turned indeed! But would you mind providing a link to the ranking webpage? That way, if we keep watching the rankings, then we can just change the fansite link in the article.--Ed^{talk c} 23:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm confused. Is the higher number or lower number better? -Amarkov ^babble 00:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I would think the higher one's better. But isn't it strange how RuneHQ is suddenly in the bottom?--Ed^{talk c} 00:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The lower the number the better, think of it as race results, being first is the best and coming in last means you're fourtieth. I should have thought to provide the link to the alexa search used (I pinched it from one of JJ Sagnella's editting comments). I would have put down more sites but I only know of the ones already in the search. By taking a weekly tally, it means they get archived before becoming too large and it gives the opportunity for more sites to be added if visitors ask. I'll find the link QuagmireDog 00:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The lower the number the better its ranking is. The number is based on how many unique visitors and how many regular visiters enter the website on a daily ,weekly , and monthly basis. So the lowest number (1) is the most visted website on daily basis. If a website's rank went up (higher number then it was) is means the website's popularity declined (less people visit the website on daily basis). Keep in mined the alexa renking goes even deeper then most people think. the ranking you see might NOT be the same as someone from japan (unless you are viewing the world's over ranking). Alexa also makes seperet ranking depending on the country or the website and where do most of the visiters come from (what country) when they enter the site. Wiz126 01:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Wiz, I'll look into that when I get a minute - knowing as much as possible will help us all to know we're doing the right thing. QuagmireDog 18:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's the link [1]. Though I'd assume that all the information is refreshed every time it's accessed, I clicked on each individual page's alexa results to make sure it was up to date. For comparison, look at Wikipedia's own Alexa rank [2] of 17 - not many sites weigh in heavier than this baby. QuagmireDog 00:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a new week and it's time for some new results:

• RuneHQ - 4,208
• Tip.it - 5,929
• Zybez - 2,835,286
• RuneVillage - 234,673
• Sal's Realm - 15,366
• RS Bits and Bytes - 300,355

Remember - the lower the number the more unique visitors that site has had today - RuneHQ is the most visited for the second week running. QuagmireDog 15:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

RuneHQ has been ahead of the other help sites since around the end of last year (Nov/Dec). I remember because when I was staff there, a huge party was given to celebrate overtaking Tip.it. Yes, when using Alexa's ranking system lower numbers indicate more visitors. Mamyles 23:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Servers

There are 132 servers in RuneScape, not 134.

Forums

Why can't we talk about the RuneScape forums in th article? It is in the topic of RuneScape, and once I added it in, but just as quickly, someone edited it out. Why? DeenMan (talk • contribs) .

Simple. Nobody but the people who already use them would ever care about them, thus making it borderline fancruft. Speaking as someone who does use them, there's really not anything special. The only non-obvious information you could possibly put would be a description of the community on the forums, which is meaningless for almost all of them, has no information to put for a few, and changes too fast for the remaining 2. -Amarkov 01:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

But it's a big feature of RS! And we don't have to talk about the community, we can just talk about what features it has. And believe me, it has a lot of features. DeenMan (talk • contribs) .

I can write the features in two sentences. "The forums are divided into various sections for different topics. They have a bump feature, and an emoticon feature that features hats." What else is there? -Amarkov 23:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I once created a forum part with over 7 sentences before, but unfortunately someone removed it. And it doesn't seem like there will be any more chances for me to do it again... DeenMan (talk • contribs) .

I still don't really think that it's a very important feature. If you can get 7 sentences, though, then why not? -Amarkov 03:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

So I can do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.142.86 (talk • contribs)

No, remember, this is supposed to be an article, not some sort of forum. People look at articles for information, not to talk about the many features involved. DiamondDragon 04:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

They do too look at the many features involved. Server capacity is a feature. Gameplay is a feature. Previous versions are a feature. There's no good reason why they constitute information, but the forum feature does not. With the limited power I have to say people can do things (hint: limited in this context means "next to none"), yes, go ahead and add it. I sure won't remove it. -Amarkov 04:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Amarkov! I added it on, so please, no one delete it. DeenMan (talk • contribs) .

While trying to preserve the main message of the paragraph, I merged the section into Community, tweaked a few sentences, and tried to remove fancruft. However, this section needs citations. If we can't find any citations for this, it will be removed.--Ed^{talk c E} 02:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Aww man.......... DeenMan (talk • contribs) .

Don't worry. Finding citations are possible. For example, the main RuneScape forums page is a possible citation. The only requirement for adding a site as a citation is that the citation supports your statement. This is a requirement of this article per WP:V.--Ed^{talk c E} 23:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I just realized that there exists a paragraph about the RS Forums on RuneScape#Community. Your paragraph wasn't needed anymore and was removed.-Ed^{talk c E} 23:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It's ok, I'll just contribute to that section of Community. DeenMan (talk • contribs) .

Criticism

I'm looking at the criticism section right now and I KNOW there's more criticism than this. I'm thinking that we create a Criticism subpage specifically for RuneScape Criticism. This allows us to do 3 things:

• Reduces the length of the article
• Allow for more criticism on the subpage
• Allows for a more detailed report on criticism

--Ed^{talk c E} 01:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose creating an article dedicated to criticism of RuneScape. POV forks are generally discouraged. It should only be done if the criticism section is getting too long, and a seperate article is needed to offer sufficient coverage of the criticism. The Criticism of Microsoft article is an example of when POV forking is good. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose creating a separate article for criticism. I do not believe that their has to be an exhorbitant amount of criticism. The criticism we do use needs to be cited whereever possible, and as NPOV as we can keep it. As noted above, keep in mind that criticism does not necessarily mean negative. Critical review can be positive or negative, and we should have a well-balanced mix of both. I still think we should call this section Critical review rather than criticism anyway. Xela Yrag 16:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose creating a subpage/separate aricle for the criticism section. I can see it being deleted fairly quickly - although the article itself might be a tad long, the Criticism section along isn't long enough for its own page unless there is a lot more added to it. Just browsing through it quickly I could spot a few things which don't really belong, will get to them later. Agentscott00^{(talk contribs)} 03:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, as there is enough to do with the criticism section already. Making it into an article would atract deletionists, and I don't think there is enough information to make a good article anyway.Hemhem20X6 05:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Although Im sure there would be enough to warrent a page, I just feel that any more sub-pages created about RS should be seriously restricted because most will just get put of for Afd and put more attention on getting the whole series deleted along with it - • The Giant Puffin • 14:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose There's not enough criticism for it to go on its own separate article. If there was a large amount of negative feedback sometime, then maybe it would be possible, but for now, it's not that good of an idea. DiamondDragon 04:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, such an article would be dragged into AFD and spanked on sight. Some of the criticism already listed is from GameFAQs reader-reviews - completely unusable, it's basically taking one player's opinion and making it out to be a definitive statement. Renaming this section to 'impact' or something similar and listing both pros and cons from more appropriate sources would solve the problem of there being too many citations to list and improve the quality of the info. Despite which, kudos for thinking around the issue. QuagmireDog 14:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Biased

This page is so biased in the first couple of paragraphs there is so much how can you claim runescape to be a "top" online game it is supposed to be a neutral point of view I think some one should go thought this badly written piece of work and remove all the biased, runescape is not a terrible game but by no means is it a top online game, Have you ever herd of Halo or Rome Total war they are top games this is not, it is not in any game charts or any thing some one fix it!. Mr Roboto 16:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Biased? Halo isn't for computer and Rome Total War is on CD. Online game-wise, only WoW gets close to it. J.J.Sagnella 16:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The 'Top Online Game' claim is cited by a reliable source, in this case, the BBC (see the article), notice the little number ^[2]? The 'Top Online Game' actually (presumably) refers to the number of players. I own both Halo and RTW, neither are dedicated online games, so trying to compare them is a bit of a waste of time except if you are trying to decide the best video game ever made, or somesuch. Every such claim in this article is cited. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Plus, there are quite a few statistics 'out there', and in terms of players, RS is in fact the largest mmorpg in the world (except not all the players pay). I think lineage 1 and 2 combined have the edge, but each of those two games on their own have less players. Being the biggest imo makes "top" a fair comment. --Awaken 16:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

DeviousMUD as a part of RS

I've removed the references to devious mud being v1 of Runescape, it wasn't, even if it inspired the creation of RS. --Awaken 16:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your posts with four tildes Hemhem20X6 03:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

So its just going to be mentioned as inspirational to RS or not mentioned at all? - • The Giant Puffin • 14:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

As for the edit, it's very minor, go look. DevioisMUD is still there, just the wording changed to avoid it being described as v1 of RS.

--Awaken 16:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC) <- w00t

for the comment above...is devious mud still there? I cuz there are hordes of players who would die to play that game! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paranoidmage (talk • contribs) .

Lithuanian?

"For example, some worlds have a greater percentage of players who speak Spanish, Dutch, or Lithuanian."

I have never seen a Lithuanian player, but i have seen a number of players from other major European counties such as France or Germany, is Lithuania realy relevent? P.S. Not trying to sound racist. --Boris Johnson VC 10:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I havent seen a lithuanian either. I have seen French, German, Dutch and Spanish. I think Lithuanian should be replaced with german or french • The Giant Puffin • 16:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There are many, many lithuanian players in RS, as well as estonian. They make up a large portion of the player base - just a quieter portion :) --Awaken 16:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think more nationalities should be mentioned, at least German and French. There seems to be quite a lot - • The Giant Puffin • 16:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there are more Lithuanian and Estonian players than either French or German (I am friends with a few at least); you don't notice many of them because they also speak English :) Nathan M 05:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

There are probaly more French, German etc players simple as they are bigger countrys. We cudl replace it with a general term of "main land europe" Ir something along the lines.--Blaze1200 15:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should mention any nationalities until we have definite demographical data from Jagex. It's not really necessary in the first place, as the nationalities of players don't really define the game. It just seems like adding trivial information. Strike Force 01:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Gameplay of RuneScape

I highly suggest merging all those gameplay subarticles into a "Gameplay of RuneScape" article (with maybe one or two exceptions). See User:Deckiller/Sandbox1. I know next to nothing about RuneScape, and it seems the web is multilayered, so the merges should be spearheaded by someone who understands both Wikiepdia succinctness and RuneScape. — Deckiller 07:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Err, not 100% sure which ones you mean, this is what's going on with some articles -

• Weaponry is being merged into armour, forming a new RS Equipment article (or whatever name is chosen).
• Combat is currently in limbo, it could potentially merge with the equipment article and the wilderness article, but until more work is done it won't be apparent.
• Wilderness has just past AFD with a 'keep' consensus, I'm not sure what the ramifications are in regards to a future merge, but nothing's spoiling ATM.
• Minigames is now a complete list of sub-games in RS, it can stand on its own two feet.
• Skills is in the same state as mini-games.
• Locations is in major need of a fat-trimming exercise and some serious rewriting, but again should be able to stand as a complete article in its own right.
• Gods has just passed AFD with a 'keep' consensus, but with clean-up recommended. What could be done with it hasn't really been touched-upon. Possible merge candidate if we can agree to cut to the chase (yet to be seen).
• Random Events has had all the fat trimmed and has no apparent need for expansion as it's comprehensive but concise - possible merge candidate (would prevent more cruft-stuffing).
• Economy has also been trimmed. Whilst there is scope to expand it (if someone fancies a shot), it doesn't seem like anybody has a grand scheme in mind for it. Possible merge candidate.
• Community isn't a happy bunny. Since trimming has taken place, there's precious little there and the article lacks any kind of direction. It -could- be expanded, but again nobody seems to have any big ideas for it at present. Possible merge candidate.

That's my take on them anyway. I'd certainly support the last three articles getting merged, it'd stop them running rampant and the created article could act as an overflow for the main article whilst we're still working out what needs to be in it. QuagmireDog 08:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• In that case, then a main article for gameplay could summarize all portions of gameplay (or, even better, that can be done on this page under the gameplay heading). Yeah, economy could be a subheading under community, and more reconstruction could be possibilities for the future. — Deckiller 06:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Logo

I was looking that the RS image category and I found this: Image:RSlogo3.jpg. Anyone think we should put it up?--Ed^{talk c E} 16:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, that looks good! I believe we are supposed to use free images rather than fair use ones, where available (Jimbo said something to this effect once). The image description states that it is from the free image pack, so... The tag might need changing though, i'll look into it. Speaking of Category:RuneScape Images, theres a few orphans in there from now deleted articles, mainly monsters. We might consider adding them somewhere, the combat article, for example. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 17:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the image description to include the text of the license document that comes with the fansite kit, i've also found a copyright tag that may be more appropriate: Template:Promotional, although I haven't changed that because i'm not sure. It's not a free image after all, but its more free than some others, if you know what I mean. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I've also found Makoto uploaded another one File:RSlogo3 1.jpg. Are they identical? J.J.Sagnella 18:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The one shown here is larger, or atleast appears to be - • The Giant Puffin • 18:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The one JJ found is blurry.--Ed^{talk c E} 23:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You can download (from the official website), a fansite image kit, which includes a heap of logo's and images which you can use freely, as long as they aren't edited. According to Jagex's TOS, all other images from RS cannot be used at all. Handmedown 01:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

File:Http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/5007/rslogo1ui8.jpg This Image here is clean and I think we should use this. it came from the pack downloadable from the site. We could make it transparent and it would work well.--Blaze1200 15:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The link's a dead end.--Ed^{talk c E} 17:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[3]Thanks --Blaze1200 16:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Meh, I like the first one. (Not to be pessimistic or anything though!) --Djsonik 23:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Fansites

The current way that the fansites section is set up does not work. It needs to say IN THE ARTICLE that you need to do a google search. Otherwise, there should be no fansites listed. Just don't bite...Hemhem20X6 05:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If other editors are happy to, we may be able to reach a middle ground here. If we have that there it may stop people being anatgonised by it, but maybe not. However, as for changing it, you're fighting a one-sided argument. Everything is settled now and tehre is no reason to change it, so seriously, how may times do you want to bring this up? Also, please remember Wikipedia's rules. Where does it say have no fansites? J.J.Sagnella 07:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't, but that really does seem better than having people vandalize the article because their fansite isn't listed. It should at least tell people in the article that a google search will show them what other fansites are. As no others are mentioned, it seems a little like there is only one. I know that's not true, but it seems like that. BTW, how many times have I brought this up before?Hemhem20X6 07:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not need to advertise google. They do fine on their own without help here. If people do not know that they can do a google search, then they probably do not know what a google search is, so telling them to do one will not help them anyway. I seriously think that we should not be quoting Wikipedia policy on fansites in the RuneScape article. This has been hashed and rehashed and thrown back on the grill again so many times that it is really getting ridiculous. Please read all the discussions in all the archived talk pages before you bring it up again. Someone has already said anything you could possibly say, and someone has answered it. If, after you read it all, you still feel that you need to discuss it, well, feel free. But, I am begging you, please, please, please, read all that has gone on before so we can let this go and get on with the real work of making this series of articles great and wonderful and, most importantly, above any attempt to wipe it off the face of the internet. Thank you in advance. And GRRRRRRRRRR in advance to those who choose to ignore my plea. Xela Yrag 15:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to see proof that RuneHQ is the most popular fansite, and second, why are we not allowed to put more, including the first fansite? --Russoc4 17:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This has been said before, so just check the previous discussions. We editors are getting tired of repeating ourselves. Wikipedia' rules allow only one fansite and using alexa, runehq has the most traffic. J.J.Sagnella 17:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If it's in the rules, then so be it. It's just that Alexa doesn't work on my computer here at school. I have no idea why, but it works on my desktop at home. Not sure if its the computer or the network its on. It's a mystery. Thanks though. --Russoc4 17:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't work on my computer either. But I have a suggestion, instead try [www.alexaholic.com]. It works on my computer. J.J.Sagnella 18:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I might as well have this on clipboard, Ive said it so many times: Whats wrong with what we have? Everyone is used to it and I dont see how a single link at the bottom of the article is such a problem. Just leave it as it is. Its getting annoying - • The Giant Puffin • 19:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Just an idea I had today, I could make another user subpage and create an easy-to-follow explanation as to why whe have this fansite, and any other future messages to do with fansites get deleted from the talk page, and the users being shown this subpage. Also this includes any edits to the fansites on the article be reverted immediately, with no alternative. If you think this is a good idea, tell me and I'll get to work on this user subpage. J.J.Sagnella 15:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Either that or a box (similar to the fancruft notice on sub-pages) explaining which rule(s) pertain to the decision, a dated list of the four main sites and their alexa-ranks (which could be updated once in awhile) and an explanation that there is concensus for either one or no fansites to be linked to from the RS page. The onus should be on those challenging this consensus to provide reasons, not for regulars to repeat the same flipping thing. It's not like the RS page is new nor that this part is a new occurance, it shouldn't have to be discussed on a weekly basis. QuagmireDog 22:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That said, reading the riot act about such a minor thing isn't what I'd hoped would be necessary (as per Xela), but for reasons I will never understand contributors keep appearing and insisting that the rules should be spelled out, because their site isn't listed, instead of just.. helping. That is in no way intended as a personal attack on anyone posting in this discussion, just an observation on the amount of folks in the past who seem worried about this miniscule facet of the article.

Exactly how fansites full of FAQs, lists and databases can provide information to those trying to research this game is beyond me anyhow - unless someone wants to copy/paste/rewrite another fansite without ever having played the game. We aren't here to provide traffic to these sites. QuagmireDog 22:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Here we go, finished my user subpage. User:J.J.Sagnella/RuneScape Fansite. If anymore messages appear about fansites, remove them and show them the link to this on their talk page. Also, I'm intrested in knowing if this should be added to the runescape spam warnings or to-do list. J.J.Sagnella 18:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Although this problem appears to have been settled, I presume that it will arise in the future. Why not make a Catergory:Runescape_Fansites? I know wikipedia is not meant to be a link database or a search engine, it could help solve the problem.Handmedown 01:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

For the future, anymore comments to do with fansites, will just be removed and the questioner will get an answer on their talk page. Also as for the "Create-a-page" idea, it has been done before, and got speedily deleted. J.J.Sagnella 08:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia works by consensus. If many editors complain about the article having only one fansite, it shows that the consensus is not for having only one fansite. In addition, I recall reading a guideline named No Binding Decisions somewhere on Wikipedia. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

No Binding Decisions states that the consensus can change, and with it, the policies. However, a consensus is not just simple majority rule. That is essentially a poll, and polls are repeatedly stated to not be how the site works. Your argument would have some force if enough people agreed with you compared to disagreeing to constitute a consensus. But there aren't. Many editors agreeing does not constitute a consensus if many are disagreeing too. -Amarkov 17:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Can WP:IGNORE apply to this situation?--Ed^{talk c E} 18:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind what happens, I'm just trying to keep very loyal editors like ed, the giant puffin and xela yrag happy. J.J.Sagnella 20:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:IGNORE is relevant if there's a reason that providing the information helps the purpose. But many people seem not to think that providing more than one fansite (or a different one) helps the article. There isn't really close to a consensus on that (or anything about the topic, actually), and some people thinking more fansites would be good isn't grounds to change it, if a considerable amount of people think the opposite. -Amarkov 21:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

IMO all main fan sites are none, It's unfair on others that Rune hq when getting highest traffic gets even more from this artical.

That makes no sense. By that logic, we should remove all references to sites other than Runescape from the article, as it's unfair that they get more traffic because of the article. Wikipedia is meant to give information, not fansite links. And the fact is, Runehq IS the highest traffic fansite, so there's no reason it shouldn't be said in the article. -Amarkov 14:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You say the purpose of the article is to provide info and not links to fansites? Show me a RuneScape article that has all the information that can be found on fansites, and then tell me we don't need superfluous links. Until then, I think that fansite links should be plentiful, since those websites cover more ground, until such time that it can be put on Wikipedia, and if never, then the links will always stay. Personally, I like to use Wikipedia as a portal. I find it's external links in articles often times better than Google because it works on the same principle that used to be behind Yahoo!: hand picked, quality links that are, to some extent, peer reviewed. See Sushi#External_links for an example. As far as traffic is concerned, why should the most visited site receive the highest rank? I think a lot of fans don't use RuneHQ (I use Tip.It myself), but they respect the fact that there are other fansites. We can't just throw them away.--Russoc4 17:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you read what is at the top? Per wikipedia policy, wecan only have one fansite. There is point of argument here and there is no reason to debate this. J.J.Sagnella 19:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you noticed that this is the rule we are arguing against? You can refute us with the same rule over and over again. We see a specific need for more fansites. While you're trying to keep a small number of people happy, you're upsetting a lot of others. I see this as a perfect application for the ignore rule. If there is one thing I don't like, it's Wikipedians who are more concerened about following the rules than benefiting viewers, editors, and the whole site itself. For example, I was particularly enraged when I found that 2 people were very actively nominating all comedic userboxes for deletion only because they didn't like the jokes or didn't understand the jokes involved. RuneScape is Wikipedia's #8 most edited article and is the most edited non-political article (See Special:Mostrevisions). We clearly need to make an acception, and meet at some happy median here! --Russoc4 20:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If you remember back at 5 fansites they were all pulled down by an adminstartor. So let's put it this way, suppose you have 3 fansites and someone makes a request a fourth fansite is added putting forth a very good argument. What do you have to back your idea of 3 up? Also, there is no real consensus on what another good idea is. We've heard many ideas, but the one the most adminstartors agree with is this one and it is the one which will be kept. Also, what do you mean Wikipedia is the most edited non-political article? What about Jesus? J.J.Sagnella 21:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps ideology would have been the better term, but RuneScape is very different from Jesus, World War II, George Bush, Wikipedia, and Hitler, yet it remains in the top 10 with them. --Russoc4 23:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this needs looking at again, in detail, with an administrator providing some guidance. Here's my own view:

1) Fan-sites are game-guides and meeting places for players to discuss the game. In terms of providing useful, relevant and concise information to non-players, their impact is low. Quality and format take second place to quantity. Adding a slew of game sites to the bottom of the page is the same as someone asking "what can you tell me about the Ford Escort?" and having a stack of Hayes Manuals dropped in their hands. It's one form of information delivered in one format, a bigger stack of manuals means more of the same with minor differences, providing no great amount of new material and not helping if the information is in the wrong format in the first place.

2) 'Do not bite the newcomer' does not mean 'allow the newcomer to bite you, decrease the quality of the article and cause excessive amounts of work'. A lot of the comments regarding fan sites come from readers who have just come over from RS. They are often unaware of the nature of WP and in many cases uninterested. As WP is not a democracy, I don't accept that the views of the RS massive who do not actively help with the articles should overrule those who actively do. "Cos I said so" coming from the latest anon to appear should not carry weight, or we might as well pack up and let them rip this article into dogmeat.

3) Arguments about which sites to list, in many cases, are brought about due to it being perceived that it is 'unfair' that RuneHQ 'gets the traffic'. I do not accept that this argument is about providing information to our readers or associated with the spirit of WP in any way. WP is not a linkfarm, WP readers are not cattle to be directed to this site or that site simply because a member or user of that website thinks they should be. The suggestion that WP users are a resource to be exploited is offensive, 'this site that site' is not even on the scale in comparison.

4) The main arguments against having more links added are:

• It would open the floodgates to more and more sites being added by an army of meddlers who swan in and swan off again.
• Excessive links would either be removed during GA review or cause a problem.

If a pretty much conclusive argument/discussion including input from admins. and those judging articles for GA could green-light more fan sites, then that'd be great, allow it to happen and allow us to get on with something relevant. My first point is only an issue to me at all if the article is in danger of being destabilised, if that isn't the case then I really have no beef with fan sites. But it would have to be fairly conclusive - every time this happens it's down-tools again and it's a massive waste of effort.

5) Concensus for the inclusion of more fansites does not exist, yet when those against more try to quote rules and examples these are then cast aside as irrelevant, previous concensus is labelled as being nothing of the sort. WP:IGNORE suggests that most rule-circumventions using this tactic should be 'under the radar' (absolutely not the case here) and that the end product should improve WP. If per #4 the admins were to say "no, stick to one site", then the onus would be on anyone wanting more fan sites to be added to prove that it really would be a benefit. Again, if admins say it's OK to add more sites then this isn't an issue, but if not WP:IGNORE is not a door which can be dashed through just to evade reasoned application of the rules in both spirit and letter.

EDIT, it is 'Use Common Sense' which stipulates that it should improve WP if WP:IGNORE is enacted, however currently 'ignore' is just a nutshell with links to other policies. UCS also stipulates that simply quoting 'ignore' does not cut the mustard. QuagmireDog 02:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

My tuppence worth. QuagmireDog 02:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Getting an admin to have a look at this may settle this once and for all. Good ideas. J.J.Sagnella 06:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• How about just an alphabetical List of Runescape Fansites as a seperate article? People can just add their own fansites and verybody's happy. NauticaShades^(talk) 15:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't work. It would shut everyone up but the admins would delete it quickly. If it lasted any longer than a fortnight I'll be surprised. J.J.Sagnella 16:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Why would the admins delete it? If anything, it is the solution to this arguement. NauticaShades^(talk) 18:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not a repository of external links. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 19:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I still like my idea of incorporating info found on fansites into articles so that we don't need fansite links. But that could cause too much bloat in the articles, which was how they originally were.--Russoc4 20:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. And bloat and GA/FA mix like the Bloats and the Zoombinis. (Or in simple terms, won't help Runescape's chances of being a featured article) J.J.Sagnella 21:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

How are we supposed to get it Featured then? --Russoc4 23:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

How about by focussing on the article and not on the Links? The time you waste arguing here is enought time to help the article enough. J.J.Sagnella 07:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, if we're going to have a huge argument about this, we might as well not have the link to the fansite. Yes, I know people would be searching for a game guide, but that's what the RS wiki is for. The RS wiki is a game guide already, with a NPOV (I hope) and with its reliable sources (I hope) as fansites. If visitors look at this article, they KNOW that they won't find any gamer's info here. --Ed^{talk c E} 01:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

A huge argument isn't really grounds to remove the thing being argued about. The argument that it's not needed is fair, and in fact, I personally agree with it. But not everyone agrees with it, which leaves us in the position of resolving it the way we are. If a huge argument were grounds for removing a thing, articles on controversial topics would be almost completely blank. -Amarkov 02:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok then. I have a solution. This argument has come to the conclusion that there are many fansites at our disposal to use, but which one? We have then concluded that RuneHQ is the best. But who is to say that RuneHQ is the best. One opinionated rating will not be enough to ensure that this encyclopedia is accurate. Therefore, after thinking that the addition of RuneHQ can actually degrade the accuracy of this article, I suggest that we use WP:IGNORE. This policy can be used in this case because adding a rated fansite actually prevents RuneScape from becoming a good article.--Ed^{talk c E} 03:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Problem is, that's not what we concluded. If you assume that that side of the argument won, the conclusion was that Runehq is the most popular. Nobody passed judgement saying it was the best, because of your very same logic; that someone else could come in and claim, say, tip.it was the best, and there would be no good reason to dismiss it. Wikipedia rules state that if you have a fansite, you may have only one, and it must be the one with the most traffic. Also, WP:IGNORE makes no sense if it can be applied without a consensus. Otherwise, why should someone not add pages of fancruft? -Amarkov 03:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we can include a small list of fansites on Portal:RuneScape similar to the list of fansites on Portal:Harry_Potter? --Russoc4 19:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand why we have chosen to limit the Fansites to only one, but shouldn't we note the oldest and longest-running fansite in some way? Also, where are the facts on the most traffic being at Runescape HQ? Tip.it seems to be up there with it, while also being the oldest. It seems wrong to completely disregard an extremely important aspect of the development of the Runescape community as a whole, not just the fansites. They directly guided the game and it's ridiculous to completely overlook them.Jaden 04:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

They did not directly guide the game, any more than Harry Potter fansites directly guided the books. They may be important to the community, but they are not important to the game. If all the fansites disappeared tomorrow, the actual game would not change at all. Also, the facts on Runehq having the most traffic are listed in some previous discussions on this, which I believe are archived somewhere. Someone else is going to have to tell you where they are. But as for noting the oldest, why should we? It's very nice that it's the oldest fansite, but the article is about Runescape, not Runescape fansites, so the most popular one is more relevant. -Amarkov ^babble 04:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

For traffic stats. there's www.alexa.com, as of right now RuneHQ is ranked 4,076 - Tip.it is ranked 5,963. If we used another arcane method of measuring relevance we'd have even more questioning (and yet more arcane reason to add a different site), it'd be a slippery slope. QuagmireDog 04:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This discussion/argument/nonsense is taking up way too much of my time - time that I could spend doing other things for the series of articles. However, in order to stay current with the viewpoints and consensus of all of us, I am forced to read and reread and reread and rehash and rethink this every time a new person comes in and doesn't like the policy. I am wondering if the people who want more sites are somehow affiliated with the sites they are promoting? Will they benefit emotionally or financially if certain sites are included here, thereby possibly increasing traffic at their preferred site? What are the motives?

I, however, do not like the idea of having an administrator review this and then dictate to us what we must do. Hopefully, we can be muture enough to make decisions about the articles for ourselves, decisions that we can then change if the need arises. If we have an administrator tell us what to do, then we have lost control of the direction of our work.

And if tip.it has overcome RuneHQ, then we need to change the link. However, this needs to be verified and documented to satisfy everyone. If that is the case and a change is made, I am sure we will then start hearing from the other side to add more, but the highest is the highest, whichever it happens to be. (Unless, of course, it should happen to be an unreliable site with dangerous downloads.) Who can verify and document ratings/rankings? Xela Yrag 15:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

With the volume of space and time these fansite debates are consuming may there is enough information to warrant a fansite article then main can just link to that every site can be included there. Gnangarra 15:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That's why I'm trying to bind the decision. So we cannot stop wasting time and space.J.J.Sagnella 15:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Note the statement above - if a separate article is created, it will very likely get AfD'd nearly immediately. But who knows, ....Xela Yrag 15:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Take it as read, I'd escort it myself. I would eat my hat if any or all RS fan sites stood any chance of passing WP:WEB, in which case they'd (rightly) get kicked out of WP. It would also be passing more ammunition to those who view the RS series as a liberty - the proactive work we've all been doing would be undone as the eye of Sauron fixed on us again. There's been no argument which demonstrates that more fansites would produce more valid information to readers of this article, especially to the point where WP:IGNORE could be used, in my humble opinion that's because they don't, plain and simple. This delicious discussion has gotten nowhere and resulted in the same old questions and the same old answers (as someone predicted). Tea or coffee and a nice choccy bikkit for all and a suggestion/offer: Put the message in a concise manner right up in the general reminders section, with a link to the relevant rule, directly underneath start a new topic and list all of the most visited RS fan sites. Every week I (or someone else) can check their Alexa ranks and list the results. It's something else to do, but without baldly stating which guideline/policy we're referring to there's naff all point in asking contributors to look back at previous discussions (they don't bother). This issue is a white elephant and the square root of nowt on the importance scale. QuagmireDog 15:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Further, though not directly related [4] this would prove a worthwhile read. The notion that WP can continue to function with unlimited time-wasting and articles about 'everything and anything' is fast outstaying its welcome. The daughter articles of this series are in danger of being fed through a blender if they aren't nailed down to show notability and verifiability at some point. There is still much work which needs doing before this article gets put up for GA again. It is right that these things are talked through at length, but this subject already has been, subsequent conversations are achieving nothing (and I thought this one might actually move us somewhere - I was wrong). Let's get something nailed up the top of this talk page so the next enraged fanboy has something to be pointed to. QuagmireDog 16:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Now my head is spinning, it's all up there already in the general reminders, though a direct link to the 1 fan site rule would be of benefit also. I'm just going to plonk the Alexa-rating topic right underneath, would someone mind archiving some of these talk page discussions which aren't active? Talk page is reading like a newspaper. QuagmireDog 21:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Runescape community dosen't have the lewt ad anymore so that isn't a valid argument anymore.68.190.32.83 21:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC) Runescape Community or "RSC" is not a fansite it is a community owned by Zybez the owners of Zybez.net and the late Zybez.com I agree that it should be made obvious that if the Rune Head Quarters link is to stay that we cite Alexa on the page. Jrabbit05 02:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

We already cite it:

; Fansite *[http://runehq.com Rune HQ] - Fansite with the most traffic <!--Per Wikipedia policy, ***only*** the highest-traffic fan site is to be linked. As RuneHQ is the most popular (per Alexa ranking), it has been added but ***no more*** links may be added. Please see the talk page before changing this link. If you need more information on RuneScape, a Google search should suffice.-->

Although it's hidden, the text is there. I've changed it for now so Alexa is mentioned in the comment, the above is the updated version. Anyone attempting to edit the link would see the notice. Agentscott00^(talk) 02:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

AFD Notice

Runescape Quests is up for deletion. Just informing you...Hemhem20X6 06:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a speedy repost. J.J.Sagnella 07:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Its a terrible article, even I said delete - • The Giant Puffin • 19:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I voted to delete it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It actually brought up an interesting point (which had eluded me completely), quests have zero mention at all on the RS series. On the other hand, I fail to see how an entire article is needed just to talk about quests in general, possibly why the original quests article was deleted? Would anyone object if DeckKiller's 'Gameplay of Runescape' article were created with quests as a headline? Random events could be merged with it, as well as economy and possibly community (though looking at the main page I reckon it could come straight back here). It'd let quests have a presence without blowing open a new article for dose great folks out dere to stuff with questcruftspam and let us consolidate some of these tiddlers. QuagmireDog 14:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't object, as long as the section is accurate, and does not violate WP:NOT.Hemhem20X6 18:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, absolutely not. As a few intimated on that AFD, the way the existing article was done runs counter to what information on quests should be about - what are they, where are they, what can they involve, what are the rewards, are the rewards different to craftable items and mini-game rewards etc. etc. I'll create the article ASAP, once I've actually written something to go in it. QuagmireDog 20:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I've not forgotten this BTW, but my mind's a little abuzz with other things ATM. QuagmireDog 16:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Advertising

In the Advertising section, it says that "Jagex moderators have stated that there will be no in-game advertisements." Yet, directly of their corporate website it says "Jagex will also consider proposals that go beyond-the-banner for larger organisations looking to establish high recognition rates with our audience profile. Sponsorship and in game advertising offer exciting and cost effective ways to reach our audience with positive association of the RuneScape brand." (taken from http://www.jagex.com/corporate/advert.ws). The statement currently in the wiki isn't verified, but the latter that isn't mentioned is. --sickmate 06:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The advert section was the one I originally put up. But the statements are verified by Reference 14 (take a look at the sentence afterwards). So in that case, I don't know which one to believe. The source at [5] is supposed to be a reliable source, since it was made by a newssource. However, the Jagex corporate website might be unreliable since that website promotes Jagex itself.--Ed^{talk c E} 22:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

But who is saying that they wont put in-game advertisements? If its WildTangent, then it should say that WildTangent stated there would be no in-game advertisements, or that Jagex moderaters say with the current deal with WildTangent will mean there will be no in-game advertisements. Because, although the news source says that there wont be, there is no source or information about a Jagex Moderator explicitily confirming it. --sickmate 04:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Promotion, of sorts.

I'm seeing a lot of edits on subpages that aren't bad or malicious, per se, but are just crufty and such. For the most part, these edits would be appreciated at the RuneScape Wiki. So I figured we could kill two birds with one stone and tell the following to those users who cruft-up the pages:

Hello! Thank you for your contribution to the article [[<article>]]! Unfortunately,as a general encyclopedia, Wikipedia only permits a certain level of depth. That is to say, your edits were too specific and may be considered fancruft. However, you are very welcome to make contributions to RuneScape Wiki, where more in-depth contributions such as yours are appreciated! Hyenaste ^(tell) 00:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Pfft, NM promotion, that's a good idea. It is good-faith when all dose great folks out dere decide to drop in and tinker, so something positive without being wordy or patronising would be very helpful, and hopefully encourage some to stop back and help with fixing the articles up. Good call. QuagmireDog 01:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with referring those who add cruft in good faith to the RuneScape wiki. However, most of them are anonymous editors who are unlikely to read the messages. Perhaps we could try promoting the RuneScape wiki, while simultaneously forming a partnership with them, so members of the RuneScape wiki who can write in an encyclopediac manner could contribute here. A good option would be to semi-protect the sub-articles; however, my experience tells me that admins are afraid to use semi-protection and actually want the anonymous vandals to run amok and destroy Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hildanknight (talk • contribs)

Runescape Members

Runescape (as mentioned in the article) has it's non-members and it's members. I think it would be a good idea to say how people become members of the game, and the benefits of it. In the game there are three main ways of paying to become a member credit/debit card, phone and cash (a cheque in the mail).

Credit/Debit card: This is the cheapest way to pay, Aus$8.20 (US$5.00). You can only subscribe for one month at a time.

Phone: Subscribe with a simple phone call of Aus$12.00 a month (US$6.99). (There is also an option to pay by an SMS).

Cash: With this method of paying you can have a one, three, six or twelve month subscriptions. The one and the twelve month subscriptions being the most popular. A one month subscription costing Us$7.95 and a twelve month subscription for Us$65.95 Currency exchange and other fees may apply.

Benefits of Membership:

There is twice as much map space to explore. Lots of new monsters to kill. Tons of extra tunes to listen in the game. Fun mini-games to play like the extremely popular 'Castle Wars'. Find the hidden loot when you get to the end of a treasure trail (clue scroll) Plus there are heaps of new items weapons and armour. And to top it off the there times if not more quests available to do as a member. Etc. Etc.

Something along the lines of this. This is probley not the type of writeing you would put in an encyclopeida and not very detalid, but it can be made into detale if people like the idea. I think this would be a great update to the article.

Note: In future, please do not use the editprotected tag until there's a clear consensus that your proposed edit has been agreed upon by other editors, otherwise it wastes the time of administrators clearing the backlog. Thanks --  Netsnipe  ►  16:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The cheese master 10:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

There used to be a section about membership, but it was deleted because the original section looked too much like an advertisement. I'm planning to improve RuneScape to Good Article status, so I will probably add a new Members section, but written in an encyclopediac manner. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Picture of Runescape

I have just noticed that the picture of Runescape isn't the latest type. The current version has a gray background the name Rune Scape and a sword. The latest version (that can be found on the main page of the game, top center on the page). Runescape Is all the same but with a brownish blackish background.

The cheese master 11:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Declined. We can't use the latest logo from their website until Runescape provides an updated version with their fansite kit because only the images in the kit come with actual permission for Wikipedia to use them. --  Netsnipe  ►  15:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that is the case... even if Jagex has the logo copyrighted, Wikipedia can use it in the Runescape article under the argument that it falls under fair-use, can it not? Kareeser|^Talk! 02:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

when I first saw the RuneScape article, it had the brownish background. how come it doesn't any more?

    --jesusfreek2 19:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I saw that it said "Runescape is a crappy game" on the article so i changed it to "Runescape is a MMORPG (Massively-Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game)" Random1234 02:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. J.J.Sagnella 08:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Since when was it unprotected?--Ed^{talk c E} 19:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Since Centrx unprotected it. Uh oh...Hemhem20X6 23:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It turns out that he reprotected it; I tested that by logging out. Never mind!Hemhem20X6 01:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well,vandalism is very bad and is done by a username called PeacefulDriver(Checked History) I think.Anyway,keep this protected(Although I can't edit if you do that,who cares!)--192.169.41.34 14:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I can get reliable sources

At the high school I go to right now, we have many databases that store all newspaper, periodical, article, encyclopedic materials, or whatever a researcher would need. I did a prelim. search on all of our databases and they had lots of stuff. They even had discussions, articles, criticism, which are all reliable! Tell me what you guys need, and I'll get it on my User:Ed/Sandbox.--Ed^{talk c E} 18:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Erm... Okay? Great? -Amarkov 18:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

We could use everything probably. Hyenaste ^(tell) 18:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Can it be accessed from the outside, or is it a closed system? CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Subscription from a school or library.--Ed^{talk c E} 18:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Tell me whay you see [6]--Ed^{talk c E} 18:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I see an 'Authentication Error 1011', and a login screen. No matter, I'm just thinking it would be easier to just get it straight from the database. It sounds like pretty much everything in there would be useful, and your sandbox may end up stuffed to breaking point. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems like a good idea to me. Hemhem20X6 19:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Only people from my school can access all of our databases. But I'm sure we can get the help from other students who have access to a database.--Ed^{talk c E} 03:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone here from a high school or university with access to any database?--Ed^{talk c E} 23:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I've got access to the Thomson Gale database through my school, and it can be accessed from this (my home) computer as well. Agentscott00^{(talk contribs)} 00:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Great! I have access to Proquest, Encyclopedia Britannica Online, FirstSearch, Infotrac, Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center, CQ Researcher, plus other databases irrelevant to RuneScape.--Ed^{talk c E} 00:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If it's irrelevant, then are you a samosa?Hemhem20X6 00:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Samosa:please clarify. (really confused at this moment)--Ed^{talk c E} 00:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to make a point, like saying that the moon is made of green cheese.Hemhem20X6 00:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

New interface

In the game the icons and menus looks different as well as the sign. I'll post a screenshot. If you want to use it. There are also new features like ambient sounds, new tutors and other stuff. You might add them. --IrfanFaiz 22:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, there are legality issues that would prevent us from posting screenshots of the new interface until Jagex officialy releases them to be used. -Amarkov ^babble 00:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I updated the sound and tutor information; since we don't really talk about the interfaces anywhere, there is really no place to update them. But just because something is new does not mean that it is encyclopedically important. Xela Yrag 15:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

New German Update not mentioned

As all human knowledge seems to be listed on Wikipedia I thought I'd have a look what the deal is with the translating Runescape into German thing. As I'm sure you know the new interface update was because Jagex is planning to translate the game for German players. I was wondering if anyone knew anymore on how they intended on doing this and whether their worlds would be listed on the world select menu. ~ a happybunny, 01 October 06, 16.02

Unless you've got direct proof that they're translating it into German (eg. a statement on their website saying they're actually going to do it, not just speculating), we can't include something in an article unless we can verify it. Agentscott00^{(talk contribs)} 17:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There is direct proof; unfortunately, they put it on their forums, so I don't think we can use it. -Amarkov ^babble 19:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The forums are a reliable source as long as the statement was by a JMod. We might be able to use it then if it got cached by Archive.org, Google, or a similar site, so it won't become an invalid citation once the post falls off the 50-page limit. Agentscott00^{(talk contribs)} 23:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

::Well, it's stickied right now, and should be for a while. I'll go find the link. -Amarkov ^babble 23:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I won't. Links to forum threads on their site don't work. Oh well. -Amarkov ^babble 23:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

testing... Hyenaste ^(tell) 00:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Hyenaste ^(tell) 00:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

For whatever reason, mine just redirected to the main forum page. Oh well. (EDIT: not the link Hyenaste gave, that worked fine)-Amarkov ^babble 00:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Link works for me, too! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed (talk • contribs) .

As long as you don't login to the forums when you copy the link, they'll display fine - copying the link with the /id/#################/ tag will try and make it use your forums session, and will detect a broken link and go to the main page. Agentscott00^{(talk contribs)} 22:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if this info is reliable, we must figure out where to put it. I'm thinking we put it under development.--Ed^{talk c E} 23:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it would probably fit in there - • The Giant Puffin • 14:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh?

Why is the article empty? Litis 13:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

What?!?!?!?Hemhem20X6 14:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope It isn't empty, your computer must be malfunctioning. Try restarting. J.J.Sagnella 15:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think a vandal deleted most of the article recently, perhaps Litis walked in on that before the vandalbot rolled it back? The page is still there though so it might just mean a reboot's in order :D QuagmireDog 16:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It's all fine now. Litis 16:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Some asswipe blanked the page. Thought you might wanna know.

Don't worry about it, automated bots catch half of these vandals without anyone having to lift a finger. The rest of them.. well someone just lifts a finger and reverts - takes vandals longer to try and mess up a page than for a contributor to roll it back :) QuagmireDog 00:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal

An article about RuneScape appeared on the front page of the Marketplace section of The Wall Street Journal today. In other news, we finally have some reputable sources for criticism of graphics. Hyenaste ^(tell) 21:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't be better news :). Now As I'm not so good at American Papers like the Wall Street Journal, can you tell me if there is an online version of it (Like the Current one for The Times) or if we will have to resort to other techniques? J.J.Sagnella 21:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be located here for at least today. Unfortunately it requires a log in, and I can't manage to subscribe (page doesn't load). Hyenaste ^(tell) 21:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you HAVE the copy of the Wall Street? In that case, you can just post the info yourself.--Ed^{talk c} 22:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Nvm that. I'll check my Proquest database and copy it onto my User:Ed/Sandbox.--Ed^{talk c} 23:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have it, but I'd like also if others were able to contribute from that article as my contributions recently have been lackluster. Hyenaste ^(tell) 23:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I may have found the title of the article ("The Knights of Networking"), but I just can't pull it up on ProQuest. I'm thinking that since this is a new article, Proquest wouldn't have it in its database yet. I can go check my school library for the WSJ from yesterday...Anyway, I'll try as much as I can to retrieve a copy.--Ed^{talk c} 23:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That is the correct article. Hyenaste ^(tell) 23:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't retrieve the article from my high school database "ProQuest". In fact, the most recent article on RuneScape that I can pull up from ANY publication was written July 16, 2006. =( Ed^{talk c} 23:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I have finally been able to retrieve the document, but I think there might be a copyvio problem if I post it on my userspace. When I look at the article, it says

(c) 2005Dow Jones & Company, Inc.Reproduced with permission of copyright owner.Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.

Can someone tell me if me posting the exact words of the paper on my userspace is against policy?--Ed^{talk c} 00:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is. :( Hyenaste ^(tell) 00:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, can I transfer the whole text to a subpage of Talk:RuneScape???--Ed^{talk c} 01:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

One curious thing to note is the WSJ article cites the active population at five million, as opposed to the current lead's nine. The only other thing worth noting is the WSJ article calls it one-part social networking site and compares it to MySpace (I had no problem accessing the article from the link above). Nifboy 18:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, our figure is cited, and Jagex hasn't released any statistics recently (ever?), so either could be right. Both figures agree on active members though, with the more recent being just 50K from the older one. Hyenaste ^(tell) 18:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Another error in it, it says Andrew's last name is "Gowers", among other small mistakes in the article. Is it really worth trying to obtain copyright permisson for it if there's various errors or incorrect statements (the MySpace one Nifboy mentioned). The graphics part is one of the things I can see us definitely citing, but unfortunately, other statistics (player count) in the article may contradict what we've currently got in the article. Hyenaste: The last *paying* member count I have was from July, of just over 750k customers, however it was direct from a JMod, so we can't cite it. Agentscott00^{(talk contribs)} 20:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This WSJ article definitely has numerous things that can be improved. Even then, the article is still a good reference source, since it is a nationally known periodical. Ed^{talk c} 01:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

RuneScape made specifically for MS Java?

Im not sure the validity of this statement (I saw it somewhere, but cant remember where..), but I myself have many problems when playing RuneScape on GNU/Linux.Dustin 21:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

i've seen this also and experienced no end of problems with runescape and apple mac's . problems with sound and java memory issues. i've read that they are addressing browser issues like making runescape run fully on firefox although i'm not sure if the article stated they were going for absolute multi-platform compatability (given that java implementations tends to differ on macs and linux and microsoft) --timdew (^Talk) 22:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

They did focus on the issue more when they updated the game engine in May, though I don't think they did too much. [7] --Russoc4 11:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I did originally have a problem with running Runescape on Linux way back when I first tried in early 2004. 6 months later, I managed to get it to work, provided I used the unsigned client. That problem was also fixed and I run it without any difficulty in Firefox on FC5, or on Slackware 9 (with suitable Java runtime). The only M$ specific problem in the last 12 months or so was the lack of sound when playing through any browser other than IE (true for both Linux and 'Doze versions of Mozilla, of Firefox, and of Opera). This, too, has been fixed. I would suggest seeking assistance on the support forum. It works for me without a hitch (and in fact in rather less physical memory than supposedly required). Cain Mosni 19:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Text for article

I wanted to post this information on runescape but the article is locked so I am going to post my information here.

Runescape is an online game that includes a free version and a member version. In order to play Runescape there is no cost or programs needed except a java web browser. The member subscription costs $5 U.S. dollars if it is paid by credit card and $7 if the subscription is paid in bank, such as western union.

On the Runescape main page there is a section for polls where only members can vote. There you can find several different issues that were asked of the pay-to-play community about several aspects such as: technical, in game play, suggestions, and personal information about players.

One of these polls that was set in 2005 asked the players of Runescape why the prefer Runescape from other games. The results showed that one of the main reasons was that no downloads were needed as in other games (Ragnarok), the graphics and the 3D environment, others said that they play Runescape because many of their friends play (there is an average of over 200,000 people online).

Another reason for its great popularity is because of its easy access. This is because it is also accessible from other pages such as www.miniclip.com.

One of the main complaints from other online games is that you play in one server. These servers may be closed or hacked and when you change to another server you have to start again.In Runescape this can not happen because there is a different world system that is like several servers but if you change from one to another you still have your account the same way as you left it on another server when you last logged out.

Cic10jorgee 13:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC) cic10jorgee Cic10jorgee 13:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Those things are all either already included in the article, too unnoticable to be included, or are about things that Runescape does not do, which should never be part of an article. -Amarkov ^babble 14:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

OK OK WE ALL NO RUNESCAPE IS THE FUNEST GAME IN THE WORLD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Final soma (talk • contribs) .

Private Server AfD

I've listed an article advertising an illegal private server on WP:AFD. To take a look, and if you want to vote to help have it removed: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Merlinscape. Agentscott00^{(talk contribs)} 04:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Its been deleted now, and rightly so. I've marked it's screenshot, Image:Wikipedia2.png for speedy deletion as an orphaned fair use image; I can't see any use for it in other articles, unless someone wants to do some cropping to make a holiday items gallery out of it. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 21:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That image is very interesting. Hyenaste ^(tell) 21:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Aye, it is. Shame really. I've never even heard of Baskets. You think it can be adapted? At least something useful will come from this unpleasant situation. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 22:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Baskets were from that holiday recently were you got to deliever the eggs to people for the easter bunny, remember? J.J.Sagnella 22:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, aye, that's right. Do you think I should be worried about this memory loss? Also, do you think I should be worried about this memory loss? :-) CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 23:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I would be worried...I'm surprised you remembered how to log on to Wikipedia!!!--Ed^{I'm lonely, talk to me} _contribs 19:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review???

Should I go ahead a nominate for peer review?--Ed^{I'm lonely, talk to me} _contribs 18:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The criticism section needs some work first. There are a few POV implications in there. -Amarkov ^babble 18:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, fixed it. There was less than I thought. Yeah, peer review seems like a good idea now. -Amarkov ^babble 18:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, then we will all know what we are supposed to be doing. Maybe make it a peer review of the whole series of articles? CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll get to work on it.--Ed^{I'm lonely, talk to me} _contribs 18:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing else to do for this article, is there? I mean, I've been spending the last few days making sure the article satifies WP:V, but do you think I'm overdoin it? We already have 40+ citations.--Ed^{I'm lonely, talk to me} _contribs 18:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No, nothing else. I think you are overdoing it a bit on the citations, but there's nothing else I can see to do. -Amarkov ^babble 19:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Good. At least the article satisfies WP:V now.--Ed^{I'm lonely, talk to me} _contribs 19:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Overdoing citations?! You can't have too many citations! Seriously though, Half-Life 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is an FA with 47 cites, so 43 should be about enough. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 00:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should bring back the press reviews. The Criticism section has improved considerably in documenting player criticisms. However, it wouldn't hurt to include a paragraph or two about the press reviews RuneScape has received. This would increase the number and reliability of references. Some complained that the Press Reviews section seemed too biased in favour of RuneScape. Therefore, we need to ensure the paragraph maintains a neutral tone, despite the references praising RuneScape. Finding some negative, but reliable, reviews would increase NPOV. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 01:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Press reviews, positive or negative, are the most reliable sources available for this sort of thing; way better than GameFAQs's user-submitted reviews (one of only two secondary sources cited in the entire section!). Still, I wouldn't mind seeing it renamed to a more neutral word/phrase. Most CVG articles use "Reception" or "Reception and Criticism", and a few bundle it into the history section. Nifboy 03:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. However, most of the criticisms are from newspaper references. (ie Guardian, Wall Street). Nonetheless, can anyone retrieve the previous text again?--Ed^{I'm lonely, talk to me} _contribs 03:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Section about membership?

I see that you have continued my mission to make RuneScape a good article while I was away for several weeks. I am pleased that the article has improved considerably, and is undergoing its third peer review.

However, I have noticed a glaring omission in the article, which will certainly cause it to fail the "broad coverage" section of the Good Article criteria. This is the lack of a section about membership. Neopets has a section about Neopets Premium, and I plan to include a section about Guardianship in the AdventureQuest article, which I am currently re-writing. I believe membership is considered a "major aspect" of RuneScape, and there should be a section about membership in the RuneScape article.

I have started this section so we can develop a consensus on what information should be included in the membership section. According to my memory, there used to be a section about membership before I embarked on my mission to improve RuneScape to GA status, but it was removed due to POV and fancruft concerns. I believe that several paragraphs about the costs/paying methods and benefits of membership should be sufficient to consitute broad coverage. Another issue will be referencing the Membership section.

After several days of discussion on the talk page, once a consensus has been reached, I will write the Membership section, probably over the weekend. Of course, other editors are welcome to be bold and write the section, as long as they respect consensus.

Once this section has been added, and several press reviews addded to the Criticism section, I believe RuneScape should meet the good article criteria, and after the peer review is complete, we can nominate it for Good Article. Once RuneScape is a good article, we can work on the subpages.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JLWS that a membership section is needed to make this a GA. This section would provide a more accurate detail of what this game has to provide. However, we MUST be careful to avoid fancruft, as most of the member features mostly have something to do with gaming features.
Also, I would like to comment on JLWS's dedication to making this a GA. Now all of us want this article to become a GA, don't get us wrong. But I believe that if we reach for FA requirements, then it will be easier for us to reach GA status. For example, when you're jumping towards something, don't look at your target, but look beyond your target. Now back to RuneScape. The only way that we can acheive GA status is if our goal is beyond GA, such as FA. I hope I don't make anyone confused.--Ed^{I'm lonely, talk to me} _contribs 21:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you agree with me, Ed, what information do you think should be included in the section? I agree that we must be careful about fancruft, but providing an example is not fancruft. We could say that members have access to forums, more lands, five new skills, etc. without going into fancruft.

I am a member of the Good Articles WikiProject, hence my dedication to make RuneScape a GA. I agree that we should aim for higher standards, such as FA standards. However, I am concerned that some may jump the gun, and rush, thus ruining the article's FA (or even GA) chances. It will be very difficult for an article like RuneScape to become FA (or even GA) overnight; massive improvements are needed and we therefore cannot afford to rush. This is why I think we should focus on getting to GA now. After RuneScape becomes a GA, we can push for FA, although I won't be so actively working on improving the article then, as I will be trying to get an article I wrote to GA status. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 01:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I would ask myself these questions:

• What is required to become a member? (cost, etc.)
• What advantages can you gain as a member? (Mini-games, quests, etc.)
• How does the member's game compare to the free game? VERY IMPORTANT!!!
• Are there any reliable sources that mention the members's world? Priority:Required of WP:V.

I added a stub section on membership, and the basic gains. if anyone can to it and cite a source, that would be greatly appreciated Exarion 03:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone added a section about membership to the article before our discussion was complete. It was not referenced at all, and poorly written (no information about cost, etc.), so I removed it. It didn't belong as a subsection of the Gameplay section anyway; it deserves its own section.

I think the first paragraph of the Membership section should cover the costs and methods of payment, and the second paragraph should mention some of the benefits of membership, while remaining fancruft free. Subsequent paragraphs would cover information such as when membership was introduced, how it has affected the game, and user views on membership.

For the first two paragraphs of the section, I believe the RuneScape website should provide sufficient references. It will be harder to reference subsequent paragraphs, though.

I will work on a draft second paragraph, and shortly after completing it, will post it on this talk page for your perusal. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything reliable on the runescape website, the only possible source would be the "benefits for members" section. Also, i have some up with a draft for the first two paragraphs:

"For five US dollars, one can upgrade an existing account to members status. the current possible ways to upgrade are by a credit card subscription, which renews automaticly until cancelled, PaybyPhone, where one calls a toll number and obtains a pin, and PaybyCash, whcih a third party company, and is siilar to a credit card subscription.This allows the player access to additional content. The majority of the game is only accessable to members, as are most updates. Also, the official forums are usable only by members, but can be viewed by anybody.

<-- the next paragraph is likely to contain fancruft --> Membership allows players access to the majority of the map, but also all minigames, and other skills. Those skills not reserved for members have features only avaible to members, such as fishing sharks. Some of the more popular features include minigames, like castle wars, and access to new skills, such as fletching. There are also many additional quests, such as Recipe for Disaster and Desert Treasure. As a side note, most items for higher leveled characters are members only, such as "dragon" class equipment." Exarion 01:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Worlds

There are 133 worlds. World 126 was added and World 84 was removed. The last server's number is 132, meaning that there are 131 RS servers, and 2 classic servers. World 126 is p2p, though the silver star is wrong. --Richard 16:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There are now 126 worlds as far as I can tell. 126 and 84 are both there. There are now 21 British worlds. Xela Yrag 21:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I just looked, 84 is not there. As soon as w126 was put online, 84 was taken off. A forum mod said that they took it down for maintenance. So there are 134 worlds, they're just not all available at the same time.--JCGracik ^{talk c} 19:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Servers

On the peer review, it recommended us to find more server info. However, I'm having some difficulty finding precise info. The following links are all I have:

• [8]
• [9]

Ed^{I'm lonely, talk to me} _contribs 22:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way we can use this info?-Ed^{I'm lonely, talk to me} _contribs 22:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW does anyone here play RS Classic? It would be beneficial to have a screenshot of it.--Ed^{I'm lonely, talk to me} _contribs 00:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

(I can get screenshots of RSclassic, I luckily made an acount before they did the weird no-one-else-can-play thing.)BTW I have never really edited this RS article, but have watched it for a long time. Keep up the good work, if ya'll need anymore help just ask =p.?Ðå¥Ê? 01:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

All I can suggest for finding out the server specs is to ask, in the Postbag. As a rough guess, I would conjecture that the servers would run on a Linux variant, Unix or Unix-like, Windows NT or Windows Server 2003 operating system. However, recent complaints about the difficulties of Linux players lead me to believe they more likely run on Windows. Then again, I don't keep very good track of the Linux/Unix family. As for hardware, to accomodate 2000 players we are talking big, probably of a similar physical size and power to an ISP server, or the Wikimedia servers. Of course, until we can get a cite for this, such as Jagex's reply in the Postbag, this is OR/Speculation. It's simply what I'd expect them to be. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 01:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Runescape gods

Is this sentence needed?

"From 24 September 2002 through 9 December 2004, players could submit questions to the RuneScape gods; however, the gods will no longer communicate so directly with mortal beings.[36]"

I don't think it really contributes to the article but I thought I should ask before deleting it. --JCGracik 20:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The god letters were quite popular back when they were still being run + posted, it definitely deserves a line in the article. Agentscott00^(talk 22:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There aren't any references to the gods except this sentence in the main runescape article, and it doesn't really help describe the game. This probably deserves a mention but I think it should be in the RuneScape gods article.--JCGracik 20:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Runescape cheating?

What about runescape cheating and rule breaking? It's history is almost as long as the game itself, and players with automating programs are not as rare as you might think. Plus most cheaters sell their profits for real cash to other players which is against the rules. To test this, i myself made over 120 euros in 2 weeks just by leaving my pc on at nights. And i wasn't even trying that hard, i've heard about people who made thousands of dollars. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.248.219.9 (talk • contribs) .

There is an essay on Wikipedia: Don't stuff beans up your nose. No doubt if we give too much coverage to cheats, people are going to go off and try it. Obviously, some mention is necessary however. Maybe a more lengthy study, and the relation to Random Events in Deckiller's RuneScape gameplay article? Sign your posts! CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 14:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as nobody mentions any specifics--which would probably just be fancruft anyway--it shouldn't pose a problem. For example, it would be okay to mention the general practice of item scamming, but listing specific scams and how they're accomplished would be a bad idea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.39.240.3 (talk • contribs) .

It is very important we don't reveal too much info about cheating. You see, if we post information about how RuneScape players item scam, the following would happen:

• Jagex sees this info, prevents the procedure mentioned here, and most cheaters are foiled =)
• People who read this article would be discouraged to play, learning that numerous cheaters lurk around =(
• The information provided implies that Jagex's cheating prevention tactics don't work, and is bait for a lawsuit against Wikipedia =(

Ed^{I'm lonely, talk to me} _contribs 01:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

i cant cheat anymore on RS because i cant play it anymore :-( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jesusfreek2 (talk • contribs) .

Well, there's much more dangerous information then rs cheating on wikipedia. And there's a lot about cheating in FPS games also. And because it played an important part in history of runescape, for example the random events, they are mainly for stopping cheaters. Anyways here's some of the history about it http://games.infoseka.lt/autorune.html It's not full of course, many things happened before (Runescape Autominer - basic color clicker) and after (SBOT3, Aryan) that but still something. I can try searching for more but i don't think i'll succeed. + I believe that there are numbers of private bots that provide great profit for their creators. EDIT. I found another link http://runecms.nickstallman.net/black-book-can-this-be-moved-to-education-forum-vt20215.html it tells a bit more but still doesn't cover stuff that happened in past 2 years.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.248.219.9 (talk • contribs) .

Ya, I mean, as a (former) RS2 scripter, it might be worth mentioning some of the drama, and allegations by the Macro/Scripting community against Jagex. I'll see if I can dig up some e-published articles about it, but there was supposedly a case where a RS2 Scripter was essentialy blackmailed by Jagex into releasing the IP adresses of a whole bunch of people who used a client of him. Unfortunately, just because of the nature of the Macro/Script/Cheat community, it's really insular and hard to track down. Keserian 23:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Press Reviews

I found the orig. Press Review section:

Press reviews

• Lessons on labour: According to BBC News, playing RuneScape as much as working on homework is not necessarily a bad thing. It can instruct players about working hard to achieve goals. Studies show that the nature of most games, including RuneScape, can teach teenagers vital skills as they enter the labour market.
• Fastest growing: The Guardian stated that Runescape is one of the fastest growing out of all of the MMORPGs. Online RPGs are one of the few internet businesses that can entice people to pay for online content.
• Free, with no strings attached: Just RPG, an organization that reviews online role-playing games, says that "It's rare for something that's free to come with no strings attached, and is actually fun to boot." RuneScape does just that.
• Great entertainment: The Yahoo Buzz Log states that the unrealistic roles of the characters in the MMORPG Runescape can provide good entertainment when people need a break.
• RuneScape 2 a huge success: According to PC Gamer UK, RuneScape 2 should be a great success. "Available via your browser, the game can be fired up on a narrowband connection, in just a few minutes."

We just need to make minor adjustments to this, and we're ready to go!!!Ed^{I'm lonely, talk to me} _contribs 15:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Educational Benefits

The Runescape Article should have some information on the "educational" benefits of Runescape. More information can be found in the Parents' Guide about this on the Runescape Official Site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cjgone2 (talk • contribs) .

We are currently working on expanding the Criticism section to include press reviews of RuneScape.Several of the press reviews mentioned the educational aspect of RuneScape. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Quick Heads-up

RuneScape weaponry is up to the Butcher's knife for a third time. Just so you know. J.J.Sagnella 08:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

To All the haters of the RS series : Wikipedia:Ignore all rules RULES!!!!!!!!!!!p00rleno 11:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't, it sucks. People try to use it too much to protect fancruft. -Amarkov ^babble 13:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Official affiliates links removed

I have removed the following from the external links section:

Official affiliates

• Miniclip (runescape.com)
• Mofunzone (runescape.com)

Because they are not needed per WP:EL. I can't see any additional information these websites give that runescape.com doesn't. Though if I am wrong, please revert.--Andeh 21:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If the article were about those sites, it might be good information. But affilates aren't really important on Runescape. -Amarkov ^babble 21:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)