Talk:RuneScape/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

I'd like to note that it's difficult to archive much here because old discussions are brought up a lot. Please make a new subheading for the new discussion unless it's directly related to the old one. Thanks, Comrade Tux 00:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Zezima

I see the discussion page has been deleted. Does anyone have anymore information on the events leading up to it?Sardonicone 14:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The deletion? That page was deleted because of CSD G4 and G8, and I believe that User:Shmiddly User:Shimdidly has a backup. Is that what you meant?

Yes. Though I couldn't find this backup that you wrote about. Sardonicone 15:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I found it, it is at User:Shimdidly/Archive. Zezima (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) however, has been salted, so don't bother trying to recreate it. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 20:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do we need a discussion page about Zezima anyway? I don't feel that it is relative to RuneScape, and it holds no real value, all he is is the #1 ranked player in the game, not a celebrity or something. Damo271190 19:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That is why it was deleted. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 22:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok, I understand now, thanks, I was a little tired when I wrote that, guess I wasn't paying attention properly, sorry. :( Damo271190 08:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I never got that, at all from that page. There were people on both sides of that debate, and it seems draconian at best to delete the page merely because some people felt it not noteworthy. Sardonicone 01:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Zezima is a celebrity, noobs friggin' worship him. U have not seen the noob shrines to zez? they're all over the place.74.71.190.253 17:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Atrocity1313

Good to see now we get a lame link that goes straight to this page, which doesn't include any information on what the person was searching for. Bravo, you guys are so clever. Sardonicone 20:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Some people may have heard of "Zezima" but have no idea who he is. "Zezima" now redirects to the RuneScape article, but there was no mention of him, and people would still have no clue why "Zezima" has anything to do with RuneScape. I've therefore added a (very) brief mention of him. --Ixfd64 21:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I originally salted the page, but I redirected it here. I think if people are searching for Zezima, then they're most likely RuneScape players. I don't see any problem of redirecting Zezima to RuneScape. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

But only players are likely to come looking for Zezima, and we're not telling them anything they'll not already know. Other MMO articles don't mention their top players (although some mention players who have been named in news sources for some reason, but that's different), and Zezima doesn't meet WP:N. I don't think mentioning Zezima or any other high-scoring player anywhere on Wikipedia is a good idea. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 19:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Neither is linking his search term to something that doesn't say anything about him. Are you telling me you find that to be logical? Sardonicone 03:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

So we should take out the redirect and keep it salted the way it was before, then? Comrade Tux 03:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I never commented on whether the redirect is a good idea, but having the redirect would at least stop people trying to recreate the article (since saltings do expire over time). Only a player would know about Zezima and care enough to come looking, but we're not telling them anything new and we can't. There's nothing to tell, and we aren't just writing for players here anyway. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 13:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Salting does not expire over time (unless the protecting admins put an expiry date on the protection). As for the redirect, well just take a look at many other redirects on Wikipedia. Some of them make no sense when you look at the context of the article, but they may in fact have a great deal of correlation with the subject itself. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm? What about the deletion of recreation-salted pages after a couple of months? That's what I meant anyway. Probably different now we've got protected titles and I haven't been paying attention. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 17:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I think I know what you mean. That's not really an expiry date. Some admins don't think it's good to protect articles from recreation for long periods of time, so they unprotect and re-delete the page from time to time. Of course, I think the deletion log for Zezima speaks for itself, so I think that wouldn't be a problem. We are also using cascading protection now, so that would probably not happen frequently. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, Zezima should be added as its own page because this character is worthy of one —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piyush90 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You guys we don't need anything about Zezima. This is a general encyclopedia. if you guys want to put soeething about Zezima do it in the runescape wiki. Dappled Sage 03:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

On RuneScape Wiki we have a policy that all players, no matter how notable, do not get their own page. Though on Dark RSW there's a page on Zezima. ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 20:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Fansites

• I don't understand why we are limiting the Fansites to only the top 3. Isn't the purpose of wikipedia to be a knowledge resource? I suggest we add: RuneCrypt.com, Rsbandb.com, Draynor.net & runescape.salmoneus.net. May as well list all the major sites..Electroguy—Preceding unsigned comment added by Electroguy (talk • contribs) 11:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If the definition of what's allowed and what isn't expands to more than the biggest sites, we'll end up with a list of every site that exists. The only reason we have more than one is that those three are all pretty close, and no other sites are close to any of them. Comrade Tux 12:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not suggesting that we list every 3 member helpsite but there are only a maximum of 7/8 major RuneScape Help sites. It's not going to generate an unusable list or anything. I understand the importance of keeping things manageable but this is an unnecessary restriction which only results in a partially complete list of quality fan sites.
    
    Traffic isn't an accurate measure of quality.Electroguy—Preceding unsigned comment added by Electroguy (talk • contribs) 15:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, sign with four tildes (~~~~) instead of doing it manually. Second, if we expand beyond the top three that are pretty much neck in neck, it will act as a precedent for other people to expand later on. Wikipedia is not a list of fansites anyway - if readers aren't satisfied with the three on there, they can just do a Google search to find more. There were MANY objections to adding just a second one from what I understand - should be in an archive somewhere. If one of them were to catch up to the level the biggest three are at, however, then we could consider linking them. Comrade Tux 20:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if an exception could be made to allow Runevillage to be added, as it is around the same size as the top three as far as members and information.-1 ring—Preceding unsigned comment added by 1 ring (talk • contribs) 00:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Some data:

	RuneHQ	Tip.it	Zybez	RuneVillage
Members	51,000	163,000	79,000	41,000
Alexa Rank	2,574	3,757	3,207	190,004

RuneHQ and Tip.it require you to log in to view the member list, so I don't know how many members there are. However, the number for Zybez as well as the traffic rankings show how popular RuneVillage is compared to the major ones - not even close. Comrade Tux 02:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I added the member numbers for RuneHQ. I am not registered here so I can't sign. Mario_Freak4— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.154.57.128 (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous users can still sign using four tildes, just that the IP will come up instead of a signature. Comrade Tux

17:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Tip.It has 163,00+ memembers I edited it. I disagree that Zybez should be listed as a topic fansite, as it officially breaks Jagex's rules. User:Aaron1120

There has been much discussion in the past about the number of fansites included on this page. In reality, it should be ONLY the top (i.e. highest ranked, which does not necessarily mean "best" as best is extremely subjective) fansite that is listed per Wikipedia's own rules. We are already listing three; any more than that could very likely start up the "down with RuneScape" articles people again. In this case, the old adage of "less is more" is the truth. 75.111.205.63 14:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see Zybez as the 3rd most ranked RS site, it's http://runescape.salmoneus.net/ that is the 3rd most ranked RS Site. Zybez was made in 2005 while Sal's was made in 2001 I think & then made a new site which was made in 2004 so Zybez can't be the 3rd most ranked RS Site, whatever the "Alexa" ranking is, it's not that. It doesn't have to just be members on the forums, it's a lot of guests too. --Kanonkas 21:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Foundation date doesn't affect anything; Zybez has more traffic according to Alexa, more than Tip.it even. While Alexa may be inaccurate on many occasions, salmoneus.net is ranked a few thousand sites below zybez.net and so it can be fairly safely assumed that Zybez has more traffic. Unless you can provide evidence from somewhere else that Sal's has more traffic then it doesn't go up. (And, by the way, the copyright notice on Zybez outdates the one on Sal's Realm; that's probably meaningless, too, though.) Comrade Tux 22:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Zybez was actually established in 2001 by W13. Hence the title of the page "Zybez Runescape Help: Your source for Runescape tips since 2001". The Runescape 2 version of the site, obviously is only as old as the Runescape 2 version of the game. As is often the case, Zybez Runescape Community has more guests than RuneHQ has combined guests and members (more than double, possibly triple, considering Zybez is past 5mins and RuneHQ is past 15). RuneHQ: 126 user(s) active in the past 15 minutes. Zybez: 357 user(s) active in the past 5 minutes. Interestingly, Sals has even more active members than RuneHQ yet has a much lower alexa ranking. How is RuneHQ so high up on Alexa? Also just FYI, the copyright indicates the lifespan of the Zybez as a Runescape Help service. This is the very first version of Zybez Runescape help: http://web.archive.org/web/20011007072655/superfreemoney.com/runescape/ and RS Community: http://web.archive.org/web/20010823114022/revampscripts.com/forum/runescapehelp.shtml. It seems Archive.org isn't working for zybez.net or zybez.com though.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.203.65 (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of people who browse RuneHQ without registering on the forums to my knowledge. It is possible also that there are more RHQ users that have the Alexa toolbar than Sal's users. Either way though, we go on Alexa rank/statistics here unless there is some other way to document the amount of traffic. Comrade Tux 21:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The only way I can think of is by asking each site to set up a Google Analytics account and have the analytics urchin on their pages and have them share with Wikipedia Admins? Zybez.net uses google analytics. There's also Quantserve, you could take into account google page rank as well I suppose. There's also a tool to measure various aspects of popularity here: http://popuri.us/— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.203.65 (talk) 02:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Moderators

I have moved a page about moderators from its original article that I created (RuneScape Moderators) to the RuneScape page. Feel free to edit it or tell me to edit it.

RuneScape Rocks!---Sleepydragn1---RuneScape Rocks! 20:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks extremely gameguidey. We are building an encyclopedia for non-players to read as well, and quite frankly, if anyone needed to know this stuff, they could find out in the KB or in-game. The most mods should get is maybe a paragraph in community or something. Comrade Tux 21:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there's no need to have a lot of details on moderators because most games' moderators carry similar tasks. OhanaUnited 00:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Name one game that has a player moderator. (or something like it)

RuneScape Rocks!---Sleepydragn1---RuneScape Rocks! 13:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

A Google search for player moderator -runescape returns a World of Warcraft chat command that is used to set a "player moderator" status. Not sure if mods are the same in WoW, though, as I've never played it. Comrade Tux 17:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

P-mods are nothing special anyway. Just normal players with the ability to mute and the crown. Comrade Tux 17:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

On the countary, I believe that all types of mods should get some notice. I'm not pulling anyone's leg here, or bragging, but it so happens I'm a P-mod myself. (hence I might be baised on this sense)

Noting the fact that there are 3 types of mods (Jagex Staff, Player mods, and Forum Mods) a section might not be a bad idea. I mean, it might clear up some confusion about us.

If not a section, then just some note in the community section. Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! 14:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Many of the people working on this article, including myself, are p-mods... but we are writing a general-purpose encyclopedia here, not a guide to RS. I don't see how a section on mods would be very useful to any non-players reading. Comrade Tux 00:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

As much as I understand your point, regular players also read here. Besides, some people might look Runescape in Wikipedia before joining; might not be a bad idea to let them know all they can, without sounding too much like a Game Guide. Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! 14:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If they want to know all they can, they can go to the RuneScape Wiki or one of the other sites linked at the bottom of the page. We're writing an encyclopedia, not a reference for (new/potential) players. What would we say that would sound encyclopedic, anyway, other than obvious statements like "forum moderators moderate the forums"? Comrade Tux 03:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Point taken once more on the Runescape Wiki. But, we still could add a bit about mods. Namely, what they do (without going into GG territory), and how to identify them (the crowns). Once again, if we do go that route, we have to avoid sounding like a Game Guide. Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 16:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Two or three sentences in community maybe, if there's that much to say that isn't GG - but nothing beyond that. I suppose the crowns and such would fall into the "gives the feel of the game" criterion that is used for the other articles in the series, but not too much detail. (In the future, indent posts by using colons at the beginning of the line, as adding a space makes it preformatted.) Comrade Tux 16:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree there. So, I suppose the next step is to decide what we're going to put in? Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 19:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess. I'm not too sure myself how to word it and what to put in so that it can sound encyclopedic and be cited. Comrade Tux 04:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

How about:

"To enforce the rules, RuneScape employs three types of moderator: Jagex moderators; who are actual Jagex employees, Player moderators; who are trusted ordinary players who enforce the rules in the game, and Forum moderators who are trusted players who police the game forums^{[citation to appropriate kbase page]}"

...appended onto or near the cheating section. Not a mile long essay, not a sentence fragment saying "moderators exist", a few sentences naming the types of moderator and what they do. Seem reasonable? Perhaps we could also add an image with the three crowns, the caption describing what each one means. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 12:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I like that idea, Captain. And I know where we can get an image, at least for P- and J-Mods: The Mod section of the Knowledge Base. Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 12:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That text works - I guess we put it in community? The images already exist, at Image:Jmod Crown.JPG, Image:Pmod Crown.JPG, and Image:Forum Mod Crown.JPG. I think I can get versions without the background, though. Comrade Tux 02:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Took the forum and Jagex crowns from the forums, and cropped a screenshot of a player mod crown down to the same size as the others, but they're all in GIF, so I'll need to upload under another name. Is there some deletion criterion to use for the JPGs once I upload the GIFs? Comrade Tux 02:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, never mind, found it. Comrade Tux 03:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

But come to think of it, do the crowns satisfy Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #8? I'm not too sure, as they're just crowns... Comrade Tux 04:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, needless to say, they DO help clarify how to idenify each types of Mods...

It'd be nice if we could somehow fuse all 3 into one picture though... Jump! Slash! Dash! Ouch! Super Mario SonicBOOM! 13:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

From the criterion: "It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot." I don't think they meet that - it's just three 13x11 pixel images of crowns that are identical in all ways but coloring. It wouldn't be much to explain the crowns if we decided to do so. Comrade Tux 13:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about NFCC#8, that's to stop fairuse images being added for mere decoration. Mario has the same thought I have; arranging the crowns horizontally in a single image should give us enough caption space to explain what they mean, and better than without an image. Who was it who said "a picture is worth a thousand words"? It would be better in SVG or PNG (preferably SVG) than GIF mind you. Ideally, every image in the RS series would be SVG - the graphics lend themselves well to vector imaging and that's probably what Jagex do to keep the downloads small. I was going to do it myself, putting them together in MS Paint and then PNGifying with IrfanView (I suffer from an chronic photoshop deficiency). Ah well. But seriously, if you have a proper graphics editing program, you'd do a better job than someone with Paint and a photo viewer. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 17:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried to put them into SVG with a bitmap trace, but it didn't make the image any more scalable (all it did was add some curves to the "M" in the middle). So arrange the three of them together horizontally in a PNG image then? Comrade Tux 22:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that should do. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's the image, but it didn't turn out very well in the scaling up. Comrade Tux 08:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice! CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 21:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok I do admit my mistake. It was a bit game guidey. Probally because I'm still new to wikipedia. Thanks for fixing the mistake. RuneScape Rocks!---Sleepydragn1---RuneScape Rocks! 22:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

RSC

i think there needs to be a storyline about rsc, and everything its been through, theres a petition going around, many people re-developing, and how rs2 has effected rsc.

rs2 players seem to forget graphics aren't everything...

this is runescape, which includes rsc and rs2...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.221.99 (talk) 05:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you suggest in more detail how we could expand? Keep in mind that we have to avoid original research and everything has to be verifiable. And sign your posts! Comrade Tux 05:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Images

I've done an SVG version of the RuneScape logo in Inkscape by bitmap-tracing it (I also corrected it a bit to make it look more similar). Is it acceptable to use it on this article? And if so, what template should be applied - Template:non-free logo or Template:trademark (I probably will never understand all of these anti-legal-trouble templates)? Also, I suggest that the logo could go to the "title" field of the infobox and the "image" field could contain a screenshot, perhaps of a new character on Tutorial Island. [ Litis :: Talk to me ] 19:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if converting it into a different format constitutes "modification" or not - if it does, then I guess it's not allowed on here, although I'm not all that familiar with copyright law. It would use the non-free logo template if it were allowed, as the trademark template is only for instances where there's trademark protection but no copyright. Comrade Tux 21:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

this article is so biased

it only says good things about runescape, like how it is free to play and educational, but never says any bad things, like how many players scam and insult others and how bad the graphics are.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Level 3 river troll (talk • contribs) 10:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Scamming and insulting is common to all games, not just RS. The graphics are mentioned in the reception section. If there's a review out there that has RS-specific points, feel free to provide a link, as we need to be comprehensive anyway. And sign your posts! Comrade Tux 11:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Comrade Tux. All MMORPG's will have some 'bad apples' so there is no reason to include information on RuneScape's... err... 'bad things' as such. As well, the bad graphics have been mentioned... they constantly improve graphics, but choose to focus more on gameplay than on graphics. Samir Patel 15:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with River Troll here. It is biased, only shows the good sides of RS, but this article really does lack warnings about scamming and many player's rude behaviors. _{Yes I know, I'm a bit late for this conversation...} ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 21:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Lack warnings about scamming and player behavior? The most I could see being written on those topics without going into original research or a game guide is two generalized sentences that would read similar to "scamming/hacking/immature behavior occurs in RuneScape." Comrade Tux 03:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

RS has no greater problem with scamming than any other MMORPG, or any other online game for that matter. Duping proliferates on Diablo II for instance. On the Halo 3 beta, my brother was repeatedly teamkilled just to get a better gun. Ironically, simply making up criticism for the sake of it would be a violation of WP:NPOV. And don't get me started on the "bad graphics" arguement; I'll just say that if you want World of Warcraft-standard graphics on RS, be prepared for the client to take more than an hour to download. By my calculation, downloading the 6GB WoW client over a 10Mbps connection would take 82 minutes: (6GB x 1024MB per GB) / (10Mbps / 8bits per byte) = 4915.2s = 81.92min. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 12:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"RS has no greater problem with scamming than any other MMORPG" - I dont agree with that for a moment, I know this isnt varyfied and all that but its the truth as I see it. I play Rappelz and almost every player seems to be honest & kind the chances are if you ask someone to hold your 100k while you get your other character they will almost definatly be there when you get back. With runescape they would be come in an instant. Also in Runescape there are botters EVERYWHERE again I have never ever seen 1 botter in Rappelz because we know that it is 'wrong' The main problem for Runescape is that it is full of 10 year old kids. The majority of the players in the majority of MMO's are around 15 - 30ish. 81.151.78.61 22:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The bot point is invalid, as RS is the fourth biggest MMO out there in terms of subscriptions, probably second if you counted free to play. Bots are going to go to RS over minor games because RS has way more players, and therefore, way more people to buy gold from them. There may be some substance to the scamming point - but it can't be included, because "every player seems to be..." is original research. As for the game's younger player base, who says it was always like that? From what I understand, back when the game was small, there were many more older players than there are now. Comrade Tux 03:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Point Taken. I agree that it wasn't always how it is - I think it pretty much began when Jagex aggreed to appear on MiniClip... BIG mistake... I am sorry, I know this cant be included in the article =( ZLiang 08:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

According to its article, Rappelz was only started last November, whereas RS has been around for donkey's years. Of course there won't be as much scamming, because there won't be anywhere near as many players. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 21:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sick and tired of this. Many people have added 'criticism' sections to this article, which have been reverted. Recently, this article was npov tagged by somebody, which was luckily reverted quickly. If someone can find a source or two besides a gamer's review or personal opinion, then by all means add that. But just because you don't like the game, please do not say that this article is 'biased'. Thanks. Samir Patel 02:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, to the person who says that 'the problem is RS is filled with 10 year olds' Jagex has a rule that players must be 13 or older. However, nobody listens to it, and as such they have no way of verifying players ages. Samir Patel 02:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Samir Patel. Don't say it's biased on the actual article unless there's some source that isn't personal opinion. This is one of Wikipedia's most visible articles (as evidenced by the huge amount of vandalism). Putting your own (or someone else's) opinion on Wikipedia is more biased than leaving it off. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 02:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I started playing RS at the age of nine. Just commenting. {{ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12}} 04:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that one person, or even several people, may think that this article is biased in no way means that it is. Suppose that you think that "water" is actually the scientific term for llama hair. That doesn't mean that the article on water should be edited to mention that. To use a more pertinent example, suppose that you don't like pizza. Suppose that you decide to add a "criticism" section to the Pizza article to add that information. That criticism section is useless unless there is some sort of notability to your opinion. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 16:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

True. Another reason is reliability. I've seen player reviews on Web 2.0 games sites that give RS 1/10 (or something) because the reviewer admits that they were scamming, and were banned for it. A professional games review, either in a magazine or a staff review on one of the big gaming sites (ie, not freewebs.com/nn-person123) will be peer reviewed; proof read and edited by fellow professionals to ensure factual accuracy, reliability and so forth. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

DeviousMUD, Runescape Classic, Runescape 2, Runescape 3...

I would like three new subheaeding

1) The creation of a DeviousMUD subheading and paragraph in the article Runescape.

2) RS Classic - It's a different game, seperate article. Otherwise create a subheading and paragraph.

3) Future, Runescape 3, however not officialy confirmed from Jagex, include future speculation. Fan hopes. Jagex unconfirmation, e.t.c.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.63.185.102 (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2007

1. DeviousMUD is only three sentences, not worthy of a subheading in my opinion.
2. RSC doesn't need a separate article or subheading. It is the same game in essence, even if there are many changes to the way it's played. Mentioning all that falls into a game guide or fancruft.
3. RS3 isn't happening. Would be completely unverifiable anyway. Comrade Tux 13:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Moderator crowns on Rules and Cheating

I see a new frame appeared onto the section regarding rules and cheating, and this frame shows the pictures of all the crowns of the moderators found in Runescape.

However, the image doesn't look like a good point of use from my point of view. It just has white background, and the quality isn't a charm either.

I was thinking that maybe we should move the crowns next to the words stating about moderators. White crowns should be moved next to "Player Moderators", green crowns next to "Forum Moderators", and gold crowns next to "Jagex Moderators".

Comments? ~IS7 12:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's my image =S. The crowns are each only 13x11 to start with, which doesn't result in a very high quality when they're enlarged. We agreed not to have more than the present amount of material on mods, however, so as to avoid going into a game guide, and inline insertion of images probably wouldn't work. A different image could be put in - maybe one of a J-mod and P-mod talking at the same time? A J-mod in the game would be hard to find, though. Comrade Tux 15:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That might work, since I have seen an employee moderator in game before, and I probably took a screenshot. But what purpose would that serve? (I might just be missing the obvious though) SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 20:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It would show how moderators are identified (at least in-game). Would probably be cropped to show two or three lines where mods are talking. Comrade Tux 20:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but we would need to make edits onto the picture anyway. All the names would need to be cleaned out, and even the discussion by them must be somehow not very personal or private, otherwise the picture won't be accepted. ~IS7 16:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources

I've noticed that many of the supposedly 'reliable third-party sources' cited in this article (in fact, more than half) are from Jagex (the owner of RuneScape) or the RuneScape site, as well as a few smaller fan sites. Many of these therefore are not valid credible sources for the RuneScape article as they are not impartial or third-party. Onionguy92 13:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)onionguy92

There isn't a problem with that. If it were material in the reception section that was cited to Jagex or a fansite then there would be a problem, but would you suggest how else we are to cite things like server location or combat mechanics? Comrade Tux 14:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What Tux said. Ignore all rules, use common sense. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 15:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

RuneScape 3?

I've heard some rumours about a third version coming out with wayy better graphics. True?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.55.21.1 (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No. There's always "rumours" about this, and Jagex always denies they are doing it. I'm certain I saw an article in the Knowledge Base saying that once, but I can't find it now, and seeing as it doesn't search for the number 3, I doubt I have much chance of doing so. I'd go on about reporting people who say it and crap, but I can't be bothered. --86.137.118.240 12:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC).

There isn't going to be an RS3. It was posted on their corporate site some time ago they were looking for people to work on their "new, undisclosed game" and that "an interest in sci-fi was a plus". They took it off their site a few months ago, though. Comrade Tux 17:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The "RS3 beta" trick is a rare password scam. I saw a few links to an "RS3 beta click here lololol!!!!1" site spammed over a few articles a few days ago [1][2]. That's the problem with browser games or browser-based transactions; anyone with MS Frontpage can create a convincing hoax site at a free web host, but the truly frightening thing is people fall for it after being repeatedly told not to. Actually, anyone think Jagex would like to hear about it? CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 17:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I've heard that JaGeX will consider RS to be RS3 when every monster/player/NPC is updated. This does make sence since so many monsters are being updated. ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 18:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Runescape 2 was created after Jagex made major upgrades to the game engine itself. Runescape 3 would probably need a new game engine, and Jagex is no way going to mark a Runescape 3 as a milestone, due to graphic updates. Runescape 3 is just a rumour at the moment, and there is currently no given information by Jagex about it. ~IS7 20:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

RS2 was considered a new "major version" because it changed gameplay, graphics, and the engine. The engine has already been upgraded again since release, and they're slowly implementing graphical updates, but the gameplay is fairly stable. I don't see the triangle and such being done away with any time soon. This is supposed to be a discussion about improving the article, anyway, not about future/speculated updates. Comrade Tux 20:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

A section about Runescape website

I think that this article needs a section for http://www.runescape.com website itself. What I have came across onto, that this article is mainly talking about the game. Many people interested onto MMORPG information, might be also interested no, how is the website managed along with the game, or does the game have a website at all. ~IS7 20:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Currently, the official forums and Knowledge Base are mentioned, which I think are the most important parts of the website. The community section as a whole might need some work, though. Comrade Tux 22:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Community section

As I mentioned above, the community section might be in need of some work. Looking from an FA perspective, it may be the weakest part of the article. If we are going to satisfy criterion 1a (and possibly others as well) then there are some things that I think need to be fixed.

First of all, many of the paragraphs seem to be in no particular order. We have a paragraph on ages/nationalities, three paragraphs on the website, and then we go and talk about the economy? There either needs to be some sort of paragraph order or a couple of subheadings to stick the text under. Some of the text needs to be cleaned up as well. As discussed above, we need to find a better image to illustrate moderator identification.

However, the biggest problem in this section is the final paragraph (excluding the paragraphs under the subheading):

However, RuneScape has been criticised repeatedly for being unfriendly to newer players. This involves the repeated use of the word "noob" as an insult. This is often caused by "begging" in which newer players, thus less experienced, ask for free items. This is caused by the fact that most RuneScape skills require level grinding to level up, so RuneScape is often unfriendly to newer players.^[52]

(The footnote is to the TwitchGuru article previously discussed back in Archive 21.)

Other than the quality of prose, the paragraph is incorrect in some respects, although some points are debatable. It probably needs to be re-written without the invalid/irrelevant points (originally bots were included as well...) or removed altogether.

In addition to this, there are probably other parts of the article that need work, and we need to make sure that everything is sourced as needed. Hopefully we can get to FA soon. Comrade Tux 00:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the community section is pretty much the only bit that needs work, having most of the major changes since GA (diff). The section you quote is a relatively recent addition (sometime last week), and I don't like the look of it one bit. It has an air of ranting about it, and I seriously doubt the reliability of those Twitchguru sources: the second one has a disclaimer from the editor and both have hundreds of comments section posts saying "hey, that isn't fair, RS isn't anywhere near as bad as that and every other MMO has the same problems too". I also find the claims that Jagex doesn't care about botting or scamming rather silly to be honest, considering all the "don't get scammed" literature and bot accounts being banned by the thousands recently. As for player mods scamming, well, you're a player mod aren't you Tux? How would Jagex react? Crucifixion? Burning at the stake? Crushing by Elephant? :-) Scamming and botting is an inherent problem with MMOs in general, and incivility is a problem with the entire net (Wikipedia included).

MMORPGs are the gaming equivalent of Marmite; those who like a game love it and will defend it to the death. Those who dislike a game hate it, and will attack it relentlessly. That's probably why there aren't any MMO featured articles yet; too controversial and too heavily edited by the {{PAGENAME}} sux lololol!!11 brigade.

That section needs a lot of reliable sourcing to prove RS is any different to the norm and I don't think those sources exist. It may have to go. At the very least, the Twitchguru references will be satisfactory on the NPOV front, but that's never been a concern anyway. We also need to call in the copyediting experts once content issues are resolved, but again, I don't think we have much of a problem. I did a little WP:WIAFA check recently, and the rest of the article looks pretty good. Don't be absolutely certain of passing FAC first time though; at least we'll know where exactly the article is lacking and there's no prejudice against relisting provided problems are addressed. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 19:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I read a few of the comments for the articles, and it looks like the rationale is that RS is targeted at a younger age group than most other MMORPGs are. Maybe that could be mentioned in a sentence or two in reception or something, but certainly not in the form it's in now. Some of the article is out of date anyway; for example, they've put in that wilderness ditch since the publication of the article, despite the negative reaction on the forums and fansites to it. At some point we have to deal with all this stuff that's being put in, copyedit the rest of the article, and try our luck at FAC I suppose. Comrade Tux 01:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This is going to be extremely difficult to prove, given that an article on the RuneScape website states:

"RuneScape isn't specifically targeted at kids and never has been."

This is found at the RuneScape Knowledge Base. Philipwhiuk 09:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Bug, Exploits, & Glitches

This article could definatly use this section added, as others (The_Realm_Online) have it. Loads of things could be mentioned. The 6.6.06 House bug, Item copying (Story of P.hat), etc... Just for another little interesting section. --Iatchi 19:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Such a section would be unencyclopedic. Other than of the players of the game, no one wants or needs to know anything about glitches. Wikipedia is not a game guide; however, the RuneScape wiki would welcome such information (at the articles World 111 Glitch and party hat duplication glitch). Comrade Tux 19:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

More importantly, there are no reliable sources for glitches in this game, so they can't be included anyway. -Amarkov moo! 20:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

RSW has an article of about every notable event/riot/glitch. It even has a large disambugation page for all of them, right here. RSW would always like to have more information, so don't hesitate to add more! ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 05:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "In response, Jagex made direct interaction with the client impossible" in the article I find hard to believe. Unless you are getting a direct video feed of the game from the server, making direct interactions with 'impossible' is impossible. There are various techniques that can be used to make this more difficulty though.Subanark 19:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What they actually did was to encrypt the traffic between the client and server. Not sure if the extra detail is necessary for the article. Comrade Tux 22:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Every game I know have has had bugs. There is really no reason to add a section to this game as nothing makes them stand out compared to other games, or even other MMORPGs. The only comparative to the major bugs in RuneScape is the "Corrupted Blood Plague" in World of Warcraft's Wiki page, however that affected every server and was the target of a few pieces of major research into epidemics and plagues, whereas this game's PvP-based bug affected one small city on one server, hardly something worth mentioning.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.111.176 (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Random Events

Did you know that there are some specific spots for the random events in rs? I have found almost all of them except the Freaky Forester which most people say are from Varrock west bank. An example, you can get full camo easily in the catacombs, so im asking people to retell their experiences of where they got it and what they were doing when they got it. This will help me to improve the data on Random Events on runescape wikia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.59.178.86 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 1 July 2007.

Sound like WP:OR to me, which means it shouldn't be included in the article. (Besides, that would be fancruft.) Since it doesn't have to do with Wikipedia's article on RuneScape, this discussion should not be here. By the way, don't forget to sign your posts on talk pages. Pyrospirit Shiny! 20:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Original research isn't forbidden at the RuneScape Wiki, and there's no such thing as cruft (AFAIK). I don't see anything wrong with this, although true; the question would be better asked at WT:RUNESCAPE. Is there a page on RSW where we could answer? CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 21:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with 142.59.178.86. I have often walked a certain spot near the Draynor bank and gotten a random event. On one occasion I also got the Grave Digger event 3 times in the course of about and hour and 10 minutes, by burying big bones at the Hill Giants outside of Varrock. I could go on about where to find other Random events but I don't want to bore anyone. Link's Awakening 21:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms

I've seen this game ridiculed as often as it is praised, for things like repetitive gameplay, poor community, and having to pay to access the complete game. Perhaps these should be touched on?--209.243.31.233 11:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Where? Links or journal references please. Remember, we can't add our own opinions, we can't add opinions from public comments sections at games sites or from random freewebs pages, repetitiveness is a generic fault of MMORPGs, and complaining about having to pay for the full game is slightly silly, considering almost all MMOs have a pay-to-play service, and many are P2P only. Their operators have to make money somehow to pay wages, bandwidth, server costs and so forth. Poor community is subjective and very hard to judge (I've seen positive opinions of the RS community from professional reviewers). CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"...and complaining about having to pay for the full game is slightly silly, considering almost all MMOs have a pay-to-play service." Actually, look at the Adventure Quest article and tell us that. Free games do have criticism, even if it is silly. It would kinda be biased to not ahve it, just because it's silly, right? I've head this game ridiculed almost everytime it is mentioned. Having no criticism page is like saying the game has none. If you spend time on World of Warcraft, you'll find just about everyone playing that game hates Runescape, the same goes for other MMORPGs, even Maple Story. I've seen professional reviewers ridicule the game, who hasn't? The amount of times this article has been vandalised has shown how much people dislike the game. Now, I can tell you are a fan of the game, I'm not saying I am or not, but I would expect this from any gamer, a slight bias to the game. A criticism section NEEDS to be added to any game with significant criticism, this game, we know has it, and it would glorify the article not to contain it. Here's what we hear, either this: "Runescape is horrible, but it's free," or "Runescape is a game without criticism." The latter, we read from this article. ANYONE will say Runescape, even for it's time, has horrible graphics, sound, etc, and you know people have criticized AT LEAST that aspect. IronCrow 00:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

We have criticism. It's not in a section titled "criticism", and it's not the "OMG R00NSCAPE SUXORZ" you seem to want, but it's there. -Amarkov moo! 00:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I said *almost* all MMOs. World of Warcraft, EVE Online et al charge a small fortune a month to play the game at all. Of course players of other MMOs ridicule every other MMO. It's called rivalry. Part of human nature. A friend of mine is a Sheffield Wednesday fan, and as a result he loathes Leeds United. If you only ask players of other MMOs their opinions of RS, what else do you expect? No amount of telling everyone that all professional reviewers everywhere ridicule the game will change the fact that they don't; the professional reviews we've found have been positive overall, and yes, they remark that the graphics and sound are nothing special; go and have a look at the Reception section. Put it like this, would you rather have mediocre graphics and a two-minute download of the game client, or fantastic graphics and a two-hour download? And the day we start warping articles to the whims of petty vandals is the day I leave Wikipedia. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This seems rather annoying...

This article keeps being vandelised. I think it's been like 5 times in 2 days! Should there be a temporary admin-only protection so the vandals may step off? ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 00:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think full protection would do much, as most of the vandals on this page seem to only vandalize once or twice, even if they aren't blocked afterwards. Besides, there doesn't seem to be anything in the Wikipedia:Protection policy that allows full protection for heavy vandalism targets. It could be worse though - the last time the page was unprotected, there were 9 vandalism edits in 16 hours. Comrade Tux 03:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think permanent semi-protection is the best option for this page. It's very highly vandalized, certainly, but it's not unmanageable. Full protection would prevent us from editing and improving it, too! Pyrospirit Shiny! 15:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Full protections always work on Wikias when there's a vandal problem. ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 21:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, it will not happen here. No page but the main page gets full protection or vandalism. --Eyrian 21:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

On the RS wiki there are a hundred times more sysops per user than there are here. It may be feasible there, but here there simply aren't enough admins around to full protect everything that gets moderate vandalism. Comrade Tux 21:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Potential useful reference for this page.

I am the author and publisher of a website called TruthScape that includes dozens of comprehensive articles on safe game play, and exposing RuneScape scams, lures and other issues. I think it would be a valuable reference to readers of this article, but am not sure if me putting a link to my own site is considered fair, so I'd like if someone more objective could take a look and decide.

For reference (and disclosure), I am the author of the two articles in footnotes #56 and #59 in the main page on RS; I did not add those links, however. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Charleskoz (talk • contribs) 21:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Rules section problems

This article gives a spin on the idea that Macroers and Real-World Traders cannot ever be stopped, with comments such as "Nevertheless, real-world trading and macroing activities will still continue." It would surely be more correct to say "Nevertheless, real-world trading and macroing activities have still continued." Secondly, this article mentions nothing (unless I am mistaken) of the thousands of accounts banned due to breaches of the rules in this way. It almost seems as if those who macro are being left allowed to break the rules according to this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.111.176 (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence in that paragraph originally read "In the statement, they also said that they were seizing billions of gold and banning thousands of accounts every week for cheating; real-world trading and macroing activities continue, however." It was changed to the current version about a month ago. Apparently nobody noticed the word "will" in there until now =S. Comrade Tux 17:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In a similar vein, can we remove the comment stating which program is used to macro with? Although a comment relating to macroing itself seems fine, I don't think we have a reliable source stating that they are definitely using SCAR-like programs (after all, we can't be sure what sweatshops use, and they are the main trouble areas). Also, it pretty much breaks the rules of the game, possibly getting players banned, if we promote the use of, and link to, a specific client.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.111.176 (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, I've done that as well. However, the article (SCAR (programming language)) is still there. Comrade Tux 12:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is there any mention of rule-breaking in the first place? Surely this happens in any and all games? The Moderators, sure, that's unique, however why the mentions of macros?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.111.176 (talk) 23:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Gielnor

Gielnor is not the official name of the land that RuneScape takes place in. Gielnor is the name the land is called by the RuneScape God "Guthix", only people of that 'religion' call it Guthix.

Confirmed by talking to a Void Knight and asking about Gielnor.

We should remove this, most of the NPCs in the game refer to the land as "RuneScape", not as "Gielnor". 156.34.186.37 01:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, as the player can visit at least one alternate plane at this time (Zanaris, the Lost City), the entire game is not set in Gielinor.

RuneScape is the multiplanar universe. Gielinor is technical name for the main setting.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.111.176 (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I had always assumed that Gielinor was the real name for the entire area RuneScape was set in, like the entire world, thier Earth is called Gielinor. Metty 22:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The History of the World of RuneScape, a knowledge base article with a stated bias of being from the perspective of Misthalin, has the lines "in a world like RuneScape", "in the land of RuneScape" and "the kingdoms of RuneScape" but makes no mention of Gielinor. --Joshtek 16:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I would not doubt that the lack of mention of Gielinor is simply to stop confusion on the part of new players...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.111.176 (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Time for another Peer Review?

Now that the Good Article status has been gained a while ago, and this time we are specifically aiming to the Featured Article status, I think this article is ready to have the fourth peer review. The last peer review based for this article was last held in March, this year, and even on that month the main goal was to achieve the Good Article status, whilist we are now aiming for the Featured Article status.

Some errors from the article could be spotted, especially the need of as many references/cites as possible, but it wouldn't be too bad to hear opinions about other users too, no? ~Iceshark7 00:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is lacking alot of information about the game. Including details on RuneScape in other languages. Such as the new German beta needs more explanation then just one line. For example why JaGex would target the German audience and reaction to its release. --Kuzwa 23:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This article could also use some information on the "World 111 Glitch". It is definatly the most significant event in the game's history. You could check the RuneScapeWiki for further details. --Kuzwa 23:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There isn't much information available about why Jagex chose to translate into German, other than obviously looking to expand into new markets. But that can't be included in the article as it would violate the original research policy, so it would need to be covered by a third-party source. If you can find something that meets the reliable sourcing criteria then, by all means, include it in the article. :)

As for the World 111 glitch, it really hasn't achieved any significance outside the RuneScape player community. There is more discussion above on glitches and other similar events. If the massacre were to gain some notability in coverage by sites not related to RuneScape (outside of fansites, forums, etc.) then it could possibly be included, but at the moment this is not the case.

The last peer review was actually opened at the end of March, while we attained GA status towards the beginning of that month, so our goal there was FA status as well. However, the last one didn't receive many responses and so I don't think it would be inappropriate to open a new one now, hopefully with more replies this time. There are a few things we could do ourselves, though. Comrade Tux 16:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I read something about JaGex translating the game into German particullarly because they seemed to have a low number of players from that part of europe. I was on the forum the exact day of German beta's release there was a massive rant at JaGex for why they translated the game into German and not a more common language amongst the players such as Dutch, Spanish and French. --Kuzwa 20:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It may be true, but unless they put it in a news release or something, it's original research and can't be included in the article. Comrade Tux 22:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"Runescape private server"

I think the page for RuneScape private server needs something done to it. Dude902 17:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a game guide. Unless private servers meet the notability criteria in some way, there is no need for an article about them, or a mention in this article for that matter. Comrade Tux 19:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I meant someone should probably delete it, which it seems has already been done. Dude902 05:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

RuneScape doesn't even have private servers... ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 03:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't understand, a RuneScape private server is when somebody copies RuneScape and edits it into a private server. They're illegal, breaking copyright laws.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Burn N Flare (talk • contribs) 07:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

For our purposes, it doesn't matter whether they exist or not, the point is that they don't get an article. Talk pages aren't discussion forums. Comrade Tux 08:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Clan Chat *Amen*

Well people, after a long break, i'm back. First post in a while: Do we think clan chat will merit anything more than a line or two?
P.S. If the function isnt mem only, im gonna make a group "Wikipedians" for chat. Will confirm after update. → p00rleno (lvl 86) ←ROCKS^C_RS 20:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It might. It all depends on what they decide to do with the chat system; if it amounts to remaking it in an IRC-like model, then it would definitely be worth mentioning. However, if it's just something on the side, say, in that unused space in the interface, then a short mention (if any) should suffice. Details like that are never given in the behind the scenes, I guess. Comrade Tux 22:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that during the whole third-party client debacle a few months ago, I believe Andrew said that they were working on major changes to the chat system, so I'm inclined to think it would be a larger change rather than a minor one. Comrade Tux 22:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I think it's important enough to add. We should put in a chat paragraph under the "Interaction" section. Burn N Flare 00:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia chat group confirmed--SIGN UP HERE Under Username P00rleno... just enter that to get on... → p00rleno (lvl 86) ←ROCKS^C_RS 14:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to announce this on the Runescape Wiki → p00rleno (lvl 87) ←ROCKS^C_RS 19:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The RS wiki has their own channel, though. Comrade Tux 21:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup. It's "#rswiki". --ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 03:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Why isnt it added yet?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.192.32 (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Combat Picture

Are you freaking kidding me? I'm sure we can get a better picture of runescape combat then that. It may seem trivial, but the one up now is just idiotic. 66.69.122.185 18:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You can always make an account and upload an image yourself. ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 03:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

My opinions on archival

• Zezima

Keep - Last post in 7 August 2007, active.

• Fansites

Keep - Last post in 5 August 2007, needs to be left open because the comment in the external links is often questionized.

• Moderators

Archive - Last post in 24 June 2007, issue solved.

• RSC

Archive - Last post in 2 June 2007, probably not going to have an expected reply.

• Images

Archive - Last post in 5 June 2007, probably not going to have an expected reply.

• this article is so biased

Keep - Last post in 7 August 2007, even if it wouldn't have a purpose, it's still active.

• DeviousMUD, Runescape Classic, Runescape 2, Runescape 3...

Archive - Last post in 16 June 2007, solved.

• Moderator crowns on Rules and Cheating

Archive - Last post in 23 June 2007. Something needs to be done about this, hopefully everyone intending to make the article better already knows that the crowns need a touch of a new image.

• Sources

Archive - Last post in 18 June 2007, solved.

• RuneScape 3?

Archive - Last post in 24 June 2007, there is absolutely no need to discuss about a game which doesn't exist.

• A section about Runescape website

Archive - Last post in 24 June 2007, I've noted the issue and don't feel a need to keep the discussion open. I'll try to do my best.

• Community section

Keep - Last post in 4 August 2007, an ongoing issue.

• Bug, Exploits, & Glitches

Archive - Last post in 26 July 2007, it will be rebrought if it is noted again, no need to keep as it is solved at this point.

• Random Events

Archive - Last post in 25 July 2007, and even if worthy, uncyclopedic.

• Criticisms

Archive - Last post in 9 July 2007, a comment from an IP, not going to have an expected reply.

• This seems rather annoying...

Archive - Last post in 12 July 2007. Vandalism is annoying, it is probably noted, and this is at the moment too old to be kept.

• Potential useful reference for this page.

Archive - Last post in 19 July 2007, the current consensus is to allow only the 3 major fansites of the game.

• Gielnor

Archive - Last post in 29 July 2007. We are trying to make the article as valuable to the readers as possible, and it should be not related into any "in-game" religions at all. As far I know, Gielinor is the only description used to view the world of Runescape as. I don't think this needs any further changing.

• Time for another Peer Review?

Keep - Last post in 1 August 2007, too new for an archive.

• "Runescape private server"

Archive - Last post in 4 August 2007. The article is deleted, no need for this comment anymore.

• Clan Chat *Amen*

Keep - Last post in 6 August 2007, a recently added feature, worthy of a section for now.

• Combat Picture

Keep - Last post in 4 August 2007, it's not too old, and there might be a chance for an expected reply.

• My opinions on archival

Keep - It might be useful for some people, knowing that some comments got just archived. ~Iceshark7 00:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The thing is though, many of the "keep" sections are the longest ones, so all the "archive" sections only add up to about 35KB. It might be worth waiting a little while so that a bigger archive can be made. Comrade Tux 04:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not just follow what has always been done and archive it all? Then start a new "Fansite" category, explaining why it is and is going to remain as it is (that one is constantly being questioned). Then, as other things are brought up, we can send people to the archives to see what has been done in the past. Sometimes, just the sheer fact that "someone else" asked a question can keep a controversy going long after anyone really cares, and there is quite enough controversy about RuneScape without that. Just a thought from one of the former people who is back. Xela Yrag 16:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If we archive Zezima, Fansites, and this (we can just put a little note about an archive being created) along with the other outdated sections, then we can get 60KB off this page, which is good enough for an archive I think. Zezima is just going to generate more comments continually as long as it stays here, and we can deal with the fansites issue as you suggested. It would probably be a good idea to provide links for the Zezima and old fansites discussions for a while in case there are more comments to be made. (Oh, yes, and the whole thing is going to be archived as usual, we're figuring out what should be copied back, sorry about the wording. =S) Comrade Tux 17:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps we should archive all of the messages at once - If there is an urgent need to revive a discussion, then feel free to do so. ~Iceshark7 15:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Random Opinion: We should use Werdnabot !!!Edit: One of the bots created from!!! to autoarchive it by last timestamp. → p00rleno (lvl 87) ←ROCKS^C_RS 16:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)